Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (45619)	2/25/2006 9:45:23 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"I agree but I don't think that is enough to qualify as an ally." A lot of people think that cooperating to defeat a mutual enemy and cooperating through the sharing of intelligence, weaponry, and strategic planning to bring about events of mutual benefit characterizes a relationship of alliance. Over and over in books, articles, speeches, and commentary this relationship of alliance is recognized. You can rub your eyes and say that you just don't believe it. You have not told me why you object to the word "ally". I spoke it as a matter of course in speaking to another issue. There was no special intent in using the word. After all, it is used in books and magazines, and newspapers to describe a relationship that you have agreed existed as I have described it. But the word pisses you off for some reason you will not explain. Well, I am not going to mollycoddle you. We were allies during the years in question. That is a fact. It does not matter that Saddam is/was despised by his allies. The fact is that there was a strategic alliance for personal (by which I mean U.S. strategic interests) and mutual benefit. I am sorry you are so bothered by this fact. I am absolutely at sea here as to what your problem is with these facts.

To: TimF who wrote (45619)	3/2/2006 2:02:40 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

U.S. Reviewing Second Dubai-Based Company Thursday March 2, 11:09 am ET By Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer U.S. Reviewing Potential Security Risks of Second Dubai-Based Company's Business Moves WASHINGTON (AP) -- A second Dubai-owned company confirmed Thursday the Bush administration has launched an unusual investigation over the potential security risks of its business moves in the United States. ADVERTISEMENT 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. The company said in a statement it is confident the U.S. government will approve its $1.2 billion offer to buy Doncasters Group Ltd., a British precision-engineering company. It said it was pursuing all U.S. regulatory approvals "as is customary for international business transactions of this nature." The disclosure of a second U.S. review involving an investment by a Dubai-owned company came just before a Senate hearing Thursday to investigate the administration's earlier approval of Dubai Ports World's plans to take over significant operations at major U.S. seaports. The Washington Post first reported the second Dubai investigation on Thursday. "It's become clear that Dubai Ports World isn't a single incident," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a leading critic of the ports deal. "We not only need a thorough review of this new proposed takeover, but we need an examination of the role foreign countries -- particularly those that have had a past nexus with terrorism -- play in areas with vital national security interests." The Committee of Foreign Investments in the United States has faced broad criticism in Congress over its scrutiny of the ports deal, which it approved Jan. 17 after a routine, 30-day review. In a highly unusual move, DP World offered earlier this week to submit to a broader 45-day investigation to avert an impending political showdown between President Bush and Congress. That formal investigation has not yet started. biz.yahoo.com ==================================== I don't believe it.