Middle East oil exporting countries held $121.1 billion in US securities

[KoKo]

in 2004....So what does anyone think the figure is in 2006! :wow:


------------

What the ports controversy says about Washington’s “war on terror”
By Patrick Martin
25 February 2006


While the outcome of the legal and political conflict remains uncertain, the credibility of the Bush administration on its self-proclaimed strong suit, the “war on terror,” has been compromised. The barrage of media criticism includes many apologists for the war in Iraq, like the Washington Post, which editorialized Friday: “The chickens are coming home to roost. A White House that routinely brands anyone who disagrees with its positions as soft on terrorism is now complaining that election-bound lawmakers are callously using the ports deal to frighten voters.”

There was also criticism of Bush’s critics in Congress, on the grounds that they were appealing to protectionist sentiments that might damage US commercial relations. The Wall Street Journal noted that Middle East oil exporting countries held $121.1 billion in US securities in 2004, giving them considerable leverage against a US policy that discriminates against foreign investors from the Arab world. Other commentators declared dependence on Dubai for port facilities was nothing compared to dependence on central bankers in Beijing and Tokyo to finance huge US budget and trade deficits.

There were also more perceptive critiques. Sheila Lennon, a columnist for Rhode Island’s Providence Journal, pointed to the central contradiction in Bush’s posture, writing: “The administration cannot have it both ways. Either the terrorist threat is real, in which case we need to zip up America, run our own ports and restrict investments in critical infrastructure to our longtime allies. Or bin Laden is a bogeyman, useful for achieving a level of domestic control long held in check by the protections for civil liberties and privacy inherent in the American Constitution, but definitely in the way when it comes to attracting investment from Arab countries flush with oil money.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/port-f25.shtml

[Joanne98]

1. We should just cancel all our foreign debt.....

Why should we have to pay back money stolen by our corrupt politicians?

[The Magistrate]

2. That Is Not Really A Good Idea, Ma'am

Situations in which cartridges, cigarettes, and tinned food count as currency are not really as enjoyable as they seem in fictions.

[Turbineguy]

4. Actually it may come to that.

In order to pay off the debt we will have to sell US based assets. ports, airports, defense contractors, media, national parks etc.

Then the US economy will collapse.

And here's the clever part:

All those foreigners will be looking to dump these now worthless assets for pennies on the dollar. Those Americans to whom Bush gave all that tax cut money to will be able to buy them back. Cheap.

Yes, there will be bloody riots and people will starve but the republicans will fulfill their destiny, which is to return ownership to the robber-baron class.

[Turbineguy]

3. And to think

that oil was $10 a barrel in 1999 and rose to $30 upon the election of George W. Bush.

That's why Bush will never, ever solve any problem. His presence in and of itself creates problems.