Who knew? by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Who knew?

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Sunday, March 5, 2006 03:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1150
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 2, 2006 10:14 AM

That a vote for Dubya was really a vote for Dubai.

"Dubai International Capital LLC plans to buy a British company with plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make precision parts used in engines for military aircraft and tanks."

Yeah, not the port deal, another one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 10:40 AM

FLETCH2

I said it before what do you think they will spend all that oil money on gold bath fixtures? It's what you do when you have capital, you invest it in things. According to an economist on NPR around 10% of all American assets are now owned broad. The port terminal in Jersey that is used for the deployment of one of the local Ranger units belongs to a company owned by a high ranking Chinese communist official, has been since 1999, they have already used the place 3 times this year for deployment, so each time China has known that unit was shipping out and where they were going before the GIs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 11:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There is an inevitable trade-off between globalization and national security. What makes the best economic sense, free-market-wise, doesn't always make the best security sense. Is the average American willing to lose a little economically in order to be more secure? Well, after years of fear-mongering by the incredibly corrupt $#%B! administration I'd say the answer is "yes".

The only amusement I'm getting out of this is watching Cheney and his f#%!&g henchmen getting bit by their own propaganda.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 8:23 PM

DREAMTROVE

I disagree. This has nothing to do with what makes the best sense free marketwise. This is about corrupt dealings with people personally profit. For the American economy, having a group of nations which have in the past held energy hostage for more cash will now be able to do the same with our defense. I have an easy solution to all of this, it's called secession. New York just has to elect someone who will secede and we'll go on our merry way. It's been fun America, while it lasted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 8:46 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is an inevitable trade-off between globalization and national security. What makes the best economic sense, free-market-wise, doesn't always make the best security sense. Is the average American willing to lose a little economically in order to be more secure? Well, after years of fear-mongering by the incredibly corrupt $#%B! administration I'd say the answer is "yes".

The only amusement I'm getting out of this is watching Cheney and his f#%!&g henchmen getting bit by their own propaganda.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

The otherside of the coin is how other countrys handle US investments overseas...

If the US becomes more restrictive, how soon will US oil companys have problems renewing leases, or other investments in Europe and Asia.....

Now that would truely be funny

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 11:07 PM

FLETCH2

I think the Civil War proved that NY can't succede.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 11:14 PM

FLETCH2

Needless to say I think you're wrong. P&O acquired management of the ports in question in 1999, they represent less than 10% of their global ports business.

DPW by acquiring P&O gain I believe over 100 port operations world wide and become the second largest port operations group after a Singapore company. The US accounts for so little of P&O's revenue and would mean so little to the combined company that there are rumours they may agree to give up the US part of the deal to help the US administration. Of course then Bush would owe them a favour which you'd probably like even less.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2006 4:04 AM

DREAMTROVE

GinoBiffaroni,

None. Those deals are about money and not national security. China isn't going to let Japan run its securty, ports and munitions and that's nothing compared with the UAE.

I actually think the threat to US foreign ownership is going to come from somewhere else. Bush or his successor Hillary is about to be put in the position of having to renegotiate the debt. This is the precipice of an enormous chasm we haven't really considered was there.

No one is getting yet why this UAE deal happened. We have gotten ourselves into a financial situation which was previously unfathomed. We have a debt we can't immediately pay. If you've ever been in that situation personally, you know that suddenly other people can gain enormous power over you. We are making this deal because we have no choice. Arabians want this deal and we owe them a ton of cash. If we say no, then they will look for other ways to get it. The same is happening with our policy towards China, it's being dictated by our debt.

If the US fails to oblige, our creditors will take extreme action. They can alter the interest or call in the debt. It doesn't really matter what the letter of our contracts with them say, because there is no international law, so everything is a gentleman's agreement. Essentially, they are the law. These contracts exist because of the consequence of violating them, much more like the stone age retribution cycle than anything approachning what we now think of as law.

But soon, we will attempt to renegotiate that debt. This is not a guess, but a financial reality. We can't pay it, we don't have the revenue. When this happens, there's a potential for catastrophic results. If the US doesn't bend supremely to the will of the creditors on other matters, they may be forced to take other actions.

The creditors aren't evil, they are just looking after their own economies which have become dependent on steady payments on the debt from the US. If we fail to meet those, or attempt to alter the terms, they may compensate by seizing American assets. If an American own an oil company, automobile factor, or investment firm, somewhere like Communist China, the govt. can nationalize that industry to offset the lose of US payments on the debt, which will likely cease if it does so.

Consider the potential impact on the US economy if such a thing were to occur. The bulk of major US employers have become totally dependent on their foreign assets. More than likely, every major US employer would enter into a radical restructuring. The instant effect of this would be the loss of tens of millions of jobs.

Welfare would respond by cutting everyone off. We can barely afford the current welfare bills, much less an expansion.

Tax revenues would plummet. The Federal govt. would be forced to forego all of its pet projects. So called 'Scarce Captial' would become extinct. If the past is any indication, the Federal govt. would repeal its domestic aid programs first. Then it would shore down defense. Lastly it would retract itself from its international obligations.

I'm just pointing out the waterfall to which we are on what looks like an unavoidable course.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2006 4:13 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
I think the Civil War proved that NY can't succede.

This is a totally fallacious statement. To start with, New York has nothing in common with the mid 19th century confederacy. Secondly, and attack on NY would never happen. Thirdly, if it did happen, it would lose. Foreign investments in NY exceed the rest of the Earth. No one in the world is going to want NY to be attacked, and these interests control the US Federal govt. I think the only thing prevent New York's secession from the union is concern for the after effects, which would be the total collapse of the United States. This idea is talked about fairly often, and has been for years.

Quote:
Needless to say I think you're wrong.

This is totally needless.

Quote:
P&O acquired management of the ports in question in 1999

Clinton was a clever Bush. No one paid attention to his crimes. Bush isn't so lucky.

Quote:
they may agree to give up the US part of the deal to help the US administration.

Yeha, I heard this rumor.

Quote:
Of course then Bush would owe them a favour which you'd probably like even less.

Nah, I don't care. Bush already owes them his immortal soul, and he's already pushed us into a debt relationship. It's just a matter of whether he stands up for America or whether he bends to pressure and caves like a democrat. I strongly suspect the latter.

In fact, I think Bush gets nothing from this deal, he's just so eager to please, he's a fawning sycophant, he's the pleading subservient lackey who bends over backwards to make master's life a little easier. He makes me sick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2006 4:30 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think the Civil War proved that NY can't succede.

Maybe. It depends on if the other states are willing to let them. For example, there are parts of California we can do without. New Jersey would probably not be missed. I'm fairly certain Maine has already done it and nobody noticed so they came back. I think Disney world is independant as well (they have their own money, stamps, police, etc.) And when was the last time anybody heard from Delaware?

I always liked the legal question of succession. Back in lawschool I wrote a paper suggesting that succession is Constitutional, but only for a handful of states who had "pre-existing sovereignty". These include the original 13 colonies, Texas and Hawaii. Since the Supreme Court of 1861 had a majority of southern members, it is likely that had the case come before it, the Court would have ruled in favor of the southern states. Thats why Lincoln never allowed the case to come before the Court.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2006 4:37 AM

FLETCH2

I have seen some very detailed legal arguments on both sides. Of course the Constitution has no provision for leaving but then no State ever explicitly ceeded the right to leave and as States retain any rights not explicitly ceeded I would assume they retain the right to leave.

Of course you could argue that the clause on maintaining a republican form of government can be used to deny the claims of any state to succeed, and it means that the US will most likely recognise any State "legislature" that wants to say in the Union over any other "legislature" that wants to leave. Didn't that happen somewhere like Virginia? My US history is a little rusty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2006 9:01 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
it means that the US will most likely recognise any State "legislature" that wants to say in the Union over any other "legislature" that wants to leave. Didn't that happen somewhere like Virginia? My US history is a little rusty.

Nice obscure historical trivia there. Yep. Virginia had a rump legislature. I don't recall exactly, but it has to do with getting around the Constiutional provision that required a State to approve subdivision into smaller states. So the western counties formed a rump legislature that was recognized as legitimate by the Federal Government and led to the formation of the Great State of West Virginia, my humble birthplace (alot of us Heroes come from West Virginia).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2006 9:56 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

I'd just like to point out, just because Americans don't tie your security concerns to US foreign interests, that doesn't mean people in other countrys will feel the same way.....

" China isn't going to let Japan run its securty, ports and munitions "

How about Korea and Japan ?

Lets skip over the entire Muslim slight you Americans seem to have,

Lets say it was a French company takiung over your ports, and you react in this fashion... do you really think there would be no backlash ?

or if it was a US company and French ports ?

The finance angle aside, just from a question of psychology.... they will return the favor by hurting your interests right back.

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2006 12:51 PM

DREAMTROVE

Korea and Japan are like the US and the UK. Their pretty close. The US to the UAE is really like China to Morroco. Except that Morroco has never attack China.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:28 AM

MERCHANTMARINE1

What has eluded most people with this UAE corporation take over of port operations is, the ports was originally operated by a London based company already, here in the west coast, South Korea and Singapore operate Seattle, into Oakland and San Pedro, lets not forget the Deal made in the 90's with China and Long Beach, (COSTCO) and that is not the bulk products selling membership company we are all familar with. The idea of selling out or handing over our national security is rediculus, as a union member, I am more concerned that the operations are handed over to a corporation that has no desire to deal with unions, in fact all their holdings overseas have no union representation, here on the west coast, a strike of longshoresman went in place and the foreign controllers brought in their own labor and ran the docks,cranes and all cargo operations which threatened the complete termination of all union work force for out side non union labor. One asked me what I think, its politics, take over and eliminate union operations, you take away union contributions for presidential elections, state and local governments. After this, you reduce the "Political Capitol" that democrats gain so much. Look back at the last two elections, the unions poured millions into the Gore and Kerry campaigns, and examine the fund raising efforts along the eastern seaboard and at every port in question. Then ask why not negoiate with the west coast for the same firm, simple, the unions on the west coast have been strangled, the contributions to political capitol have no comparisons to the east coast union brothers and sisters. This is the real problem.
In my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:28 AM

MERCHANTMARINE1

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 5, 2006 3:37 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
One asked me what I think, its politics, take over and eliminate union operations, you take away union contributions for presidential elections, state and local governments.

I don't buy it. The relationship with Dubai is a key part, *the* key part of this deal. I think there are a couple of other issues, the main one being that the drug traffickers who contribute far more to oth parties than the unions, are interested in a blind eye. But your theory flies in the face of it's own facts. You said 'Oh Clinton did it too' which of course is true, not surprising, Bush is Clinton. But Clinton isn't Bush to the point that he'd want to sacrafice democratic party capital. Nor is Bush Republican enough to want to do so.

If your theory were correct, The GOP Senate would love the deal, particularly folks like Duncan Hunter, as a Republican of California. Bush, who is stomping for Hillary '08, would be opposed to the deal. But this is clearly the case nowhere. The executive, elected and run by people who essentially have their roots in the democratic party and points left, are in favor, just as the Clinton administration, also having its roots in the same democratic party groups was. The Senate GOP with its roots in the GOP is opposed, just as it was opposed to the Clinton deals.

What we are really witnessing is the "American Garage Sale"

Does everyone remember the Soviet Garage Sale, when Yeltsin sold off all the assets of the Soviet Union for pennies to his friends?

Well, meet the American Garage Sale. America is for sale people, bit by bit, being sold, litterally, down the river.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE