POLITICS: UAE to Switch it's Reserves to the Euro, Because of Block on U.S. Ports Deal

informationclearinghouse is not exactly an unbiased or reliable source.

It is a tabloid, but hey there are people who believe anything every tabloid says.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Unfortunately, most of the original criticism of the ports deal was not directed at the UAE but at the fact that the deal was put together without going through a sufficient vetting process. Given the government's concern of port security that's only natural.

This is true. It was a shady deal as far as I'm concerned. If they had done it according to the standard vetting process, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Wonder why they didn't???

Which for me exposes the REAL LIE. Bush didn't think this would be a problem, because he knows his "WAR on TERROR" has only ever really been just a political tool.

After all, the issue won him an election... :shk:

[edit on 15-3-2006 by loam]

Blame, Blame, Blame.......Blame the whole damn world both present and past if you want, but it makes little difference. This is the result of living in a Globalized Hedonistic World where Money is God, Ignorance is Encouraged, Business is Cut Throat, Politics are Hypocritical & Corrupt and Personal Responsibility no longer exists.

Corporate America exploits every poor nation on this planet and drains every natural resource they can without any thought to what consequences it has. We have given up control of our economy to private banks and control of our Law to Elite Buracratic Gangsters which is resulting in the loss of our country through debt spent primarily in both External War and Internal Self Endulgence.

We the People can either learn from events like this and deal with it or let it destroy us while we sit around complaining and pointing fingers. It sucks to be under the thumb of someone who will do whatever they have to in order to get what they want. The US and every other developed nation has a history of "negotiating forcefully" to acheive their goals and we just consider it to be business as usual. It was only a matter of time till others do the same and it starts effecting us in negative ways.

I guess any excuse will do, as long as it isn't the truth.

depending on what you want to believe, well, Iraq was invaded because it wanted to start dealing in euros. the more our fiscal responsibility becomes irreasponsible, the less other countries will want to collect those little peices of paper. many countries were starting to sell out their collection of these before the port deal even became news.

but if people really want to believe that their dollar is worthless because we are a bunch of racist pigs, the more power to them, I guess. whatever.

but, I think now I know the purpose of the big ruckus over the event that should have been known by most of the congress long before the news hit the media.....see, your dollar isn't worthless because of outsourcing, overspending, and just plain stupidity on everyone's parts.....na, it's because of over protectionism!!! ya! now take your lumps and get back out there and work hard to survive in this fabulous world economy!!

[edit on 15-3-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by dawnstar

I guess any excuse will do, as long as it isn't the truth.

depending on what you want to believe, well, Iraq was invaded because it wanted to start dealing in euros.

That is your opinion, but it doens't make it the truth.

You were talking in another thread about how some people want to supress what others think, yet in here you are also trying to do that by claiming this is not the truth, and only how you see these events is the truth.



[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]

and I guess that this:

"but if people really want to believe that their dollar is worthless because we are a bunch of racist pigs, the more power to them, I guess. whatever."

basically comes close to what some others believe, doesn't necessarily make it truth either.

you believe what you wish, I'll believe what I wish...time might, if it choses to, tell us who is right.

but, notice, I never claimed that those that believe something contrary to me have "mental conditions", or hate our freedom, or our nation, or are in league with the enemy, or are in any way unpatriotic.....ect.

never called them trash either.








[edit on 15-3-2006 by dawnstar]

sorry for posting agian, but Muaddib has kind of irked me....

the post that promted me into posting on this topic went like this:

__________________________________

"I can't wait to see what all the dummies have to say for themselves now.

All those folks so hyperactive and eager to jump on the arbitrary, racist, let's-ban-the-U.A.E. bandwagon probably have no idea what this means to our economy. I have only the slightest inkling.

I only wish people would think about the long-term implications of their actions (or statements). The implications exist. Now we'll will get to see them first hand.

As I wrote in a different post, bang up job, you morons. Way to piss off an ally over a non-troversy in order to score some poiltical points against a lame-duck prez. Oh, and way to possibly tank the economy in the process. "

___________________________________________________

so let's see what is being said here.....oh ya, first thing that strikes me is that all of us who voice our concern about the port deal are morons....ya....

the second thing that strikes me is that I kind of get the message that well, if our economy tanks now, we can all blames those moron who dared question our divine ruler, president, Bush....and killed the port deal..

I smelled scapegoating, and ya know what, I don't like scapegoating, so I responded. and like I pointed out, I didn't insult anyone, and basically had this let others belief what they wish. I didn't try to blame anyone for anything, and well, I didn't suggest anyone should just shut up because their view wasn't what I held.

so, ya see, dear Muaddib, I posted to something that I saw as kind of a threat to those of us who don't share the views that some would like to silence. big difference.

Did I say any of that dawnstar?

What makes you think that I have control on who says what?

The same way that I don't control you, nor do I want to control what you are saying, I can't control what other people say.

BTW, there is always some people who blame and say things like that about others who think differently than them. It is not just a "conservative thing".

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]

The problem is, nobody can link that company to any terrorist network. The only thing they have in common is:
A) Religion, but not all involved will be Muslim's.
B) Race, if you believe in such a thing they are Arabs...

They were refused a deal on this basis, in fact many people talked about how they'd be "shipping arabs over" to do the "deal". This in itself is laughable as it would cost the company a lot more to do that, furthermore, if something did happen at these ports the backlash would be the same as post September the 11th and the U.A.E. are not stupid - they do know this.

The fact is, people do not like the idea of Arabs being in control of the ports, because they assume they're all terrorists. This generalisation is heavily bigotted and in return the U.A.E. is shifting much of its assetts. If they're not allowed to invest in the U.S.A. than it is likely, this would happen. The main problem now, is if other Nation's begin to do that through other sites and forums, I've seen people say Iran has been looking at doing this with all of their wealth as well as even OPEC shifting. This itself, could be a direct response to the War on Terror and this response means the terrorists have won.

They desire to change the American Way of Life, by crippling the economy that will happen and by removing the Oil Revenue, and other such assets this could happen.

you implied that I was trying to control what other people were saying, or downright saying that something was untrue....when, I was doing neither. I stated what I believed....plain and simple. in response to someone who seemed to saying that because some of stated what we believed, well now bad things will happen, and oh ya, those you dared speak were morons.....I didn't post the name of who made this post, if you want to know hunt it down, I think it's the second post.

I go out of my way on these boards to appear unlikable, crazy or whatever. I do it for a reason, I want people to question what I post and not take it at face value. if they think I am crazy, really don't like me, but hey, I am making sense to them and they accept what I say, then, hey, maybe there is something there for them to accept?

Dawn, i don't want to go back and forth to see who said this or that, if you want to find out exactly what i said, it is in that post which you are talking about.

Anyways, back to the topic. I do have to agree on this one with Odium, even though I am not so sure I would like any foreign company at this time to have control over U.S. ports, he is right.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Muaddib, there is a first time for everything.

I myself, think power-stations, airpports, sea ports, rail way stations, et al being owned by any other group than the Government isn't a wise idea. However, in a world where our safety is second to profit, acts like this involved the U.A.E. I believe stem from something else.

However, I am glad they've not got the ports - if an attack was to happen, it is likely people would place two and two and come out with five. These Nation's involved in the ports taking the brunt of any attacks and retrobution.

ya know, there's a famous baseball player, not sure of which one it was though, that fact just didn't stand out in my head much. his father was an immigrant and owned a small shipping business (boats and such). well, world war two started, and guess what our government did...yep, they seized his boats!! his loyalty was questionable, so the did it.

they also rounded up a bunch of japanese americans and threw them in concentration camps.

they also had voluteers watching our seashore, just in case some foreigners decided to sneak in.

morally, I don't believe we were right in the first two of these. and I certainly wouldn't want them to start rounding up arabs!

but, I do believe that our government at least thought there was reason to do these things, and they did them for national security. and well, at least if we could keep some of the arabs out of our country now, well, there would be less here if something happens and this government decides that it's best for national security to start rounding them up!

I also doubt that any company based in germany or japan was alowed to run much of anything in the US during world war two, and well, would venture to guess that this is the first war that we've had where we've let business go on as usual. it's seems that those terrorists have sure made things pretty convenient for the business sector, haven't they. it's not the countries declaring war with us, it those nasty terrorists....so, well, let's just keep on giving saudi arabia and the others our money...

why not, it's good for business!

it just seems rather odd, is not just a tad bit insane to think that our government seems to not have any qualms about bombing whatever country they like, torturing these arabs, in the hopes that they might have information, but heavens no, we can't tick off or business buddies, that would be racist!

it just doesn't mesh, not with history, and not logically.

by the way, I don't like the idea of chinese companies controlling our ports either. or manufacturing so much of those things that we use in our everyday lives. and quite frankly, I would feel this way if it was just about any other country, outside of those few that we've had a long lasting peaceful relationship with. to depend on another country to run our ports, or manufacture our goods, ect. is a weakness, a dependancy.

You are going off a tangent there Dawnstar, and again you are expressing your opinions, which doesn't make them true.

Let's stick to the UAE switching part of it's reserves to the euro because of the block that government officials did on the port deals...

Odium said it right, this is business these days and age whether people want to agree with it or not.

The UAE was, and i hope it is still, selling us cheap oil because the oil they extract is very easy to refine, if what I have read in the past is right.

Whether we like it or not, we are in a world economy, we cannot antagonize everyone otherwise pretty soon we will find ourselves alone, this is what has been happening to north Korea (brain fart there, lol), do we really want to go down that same road?

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]

is it really because of the demise of the port deal? or are there other factors involved. would it have happened anyways. and well, to put it bluntly, how can you be sure our government isn't right now putting together a nice little plan where the title to these ports is transferred to some nice US company and a really nice sum of money payed for them...all subsidized, of course by the US taxpayer.. wouldn't surprise me one bit!

our fiscal irresponsibility is prompting a few countries to clear out some of their US assets. this is a fact, concern of it is being voiced by many economists! it is quite possible that many things won't be traded using the dollar for much longer, including the oil from the UAE.

by the way, there seems to be a few opinions in your view also....

and, there was alot of facts in my previous post.

this is the first war where we've openly solicitated business from those we were at war with. most of the terrorists were saudis, the saudi royalty contributed quite a bit of money for terrorist activities, ummm, are we doing business with saudi arabia?? why, yes, of course we are. we're teaching their citizens in our universities. matter of fact, we are teaching citizens of Iran...that axis of evil, in our universities.
the UAE deal is just another sign that we are placing business and economic concerns above national security.

as far as ticking everybody off, could anyone be any more ticked off than they are when we ignore international treaties, allow indecent pictures of our prisoners to be let out by our media, openly refuse to abide by the laws we write about torturing those prisoners minutes after we pass the law. I'm sorry but it would seem to me that the port deal would be like one tiny bit of sand on the shore of virginia beach!!!


[edit on 15-3-2006 by dawnstar]

You are making an assumption, where are your facts to back this up?

Do you have any insider information that tells you this? or are you just expressing your opinion?

Anyone can make any claim, but you need to back up your argument with evidence if you want to discuss any issues/topics.

I don't pretend to know much about global business practises, but from what I've read up on petrodollars and petroeuro, I don't think this was done to antagonize the US. Let me explain why I think so.

Firstly, what do we know about petrodollars? For one, the oil markets are dominated by the dollar. To buy crude oil on the markets you need dollars and when you sell oil you get dollars. That's the basis of petrodollars. So because of this, countries keep dollar reserves in order to buy oil.

As for oil producing countries, what can they do with the dollars they take for their oil? Reinvest it in the US. That's what's normally done, isn't it? After all they don't need the dollars to buy oil, they are the ones selling it.

Now, what I saw was that the UAE tried to reinvest their dollars back in the US, but with the current anti-Arab or anti-Islam sentiments in the US it's kind of hard to do that. So maybe, just maybe, they switched to the euro not out of anger, but because that's the next logical step in business they could do.

So they switch to the euro because its more stable, its growth is steady and since most of the other countries in the world where they could invest prefer euros (Europe, China -- who said they would be dumping the dollar soon). Isn't that more likely? I mean, business is business. People don't make business decisions based on emotions. They make decisions based on the bottomline, and in this case the bottomline says Arab countries will find it extraordinarily difficult to reinvest their dollars in the US.

I could be wrong, but I really think this has very little to do with "changing the American way of life".

DP World seeks US buyer for ports -CNN

UAE diversifying 10% of its holdings and the media blames it on the Senate and people's response to Bush's lame duck port deal. Is that the same Bush that was propagating fear about evil islamic boogeymen, and then suddenly expects open arms to Arabs that aid terrorists? Bush must of started drugging and drinking again!

I still laugh at the chimp's antics of ludcrosity and the public's gullibility about economics over this. Dubai, land of billionaires, will not lose sleep over it and they eat your damn lunch too

Tis the season to dump the dollar before it dumps on you. Precious metals haven't doubled up just for show and tell, so do yourself a favor and open Swiss bank account and keep some in foreign currencies. i.e Hyperinflation

USDollar to Euro 5 Day chart




•CAN THE BIG-3 CENTRAL BANKS DERAIL THE “COMMODITY SUPER CYCLE”?


•Retirement Fund Tapped to Avoid National Debt Limit
•US national debt: Time we stop, hey, what's that sound?
•The Fed’s New Secret Could Mean Big Trouble



[edit on 16-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

Why are all? (most) of you acting like the port deal is dead--it isn't. As a matter of fact Congress likes the way the deal has been restructured and is likely to approve it soon. Two changes have been made to the deal. 1. The ports will now be under an American Sub of the original UAE company instead of directly under the company, and 2. All U.S. rules, regulations, and laws will now apply to the company, including the retention of records in the U.S.

The same company, essentially, will still have the contract and quite likely the same personnel will still be used to execute it. The deal will be less profitable for the company now though because of the extra hoops they are being made to jump through.

Let's be clear on what the company is being contracted to do because it sure is not port security. Essentially they will insure facilities, equipment and personnel are available to load & unload ships, receive and store goods until the recipients can pick them up, etc. The only security they are required to provide is over the goods received for distribution or for shipment.

The hoopla over security was just that, hoopla. This contract should never have been put through the wringer it has been in--in a word, it was all about politics and not much else.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Astronomer68]