OK, so you now have yourself a problem.
How do you get DP World out of there? Legally, they own the facilities and hardware onsite. Legally, if you constrain them from operating their property, they can simply strip it out of there, and those ports will be closed for good. (That's because, in one swift move, you will have introduced political risk on a par with the worst of the Third World into investment in America. Nobody's going to pony up billions of dollars if there's even the slightest risk that the investment will be nationalized, either de jure or de facto, on top of our asinine tax and regulatory policies.)
I don't want foreign investment in corporations that have such a strong connection with the national security. I disagree that they will take their money and go home. Our non-defense related industries are still the best investments in the world.
They now their purchase is subject to review by the US government.
They don't take over until March 1, 2006, anyway.
Not until March 1st. Peter King: Dubai Ports Company in 'Al Qaeda Heartland'
Unless President Bush intervenes, the Dubai ports takeover is set to commence on March 1.
Well hell damn, it's the godumm arabs. Us true Americans(conservatives) will deal with that later. The hell with Bush, DHS, and all other prefessionals who sell us out.
BTW, how come a toaster now costs $80 at my there local Wally-Mart.
How so?
Under the auspices of "National Security" via Homeland Security, I believe the Fed can retrain any such shananigans, or via an emergency executive order. Then there's always 'Eminent Domain.'
Child's play if need be.
"Nobody's going to pony up billions of dollars if there's even the slightest risk that the investment will be nationalized, either de jure or de facto, on top of our asinine tax and regulatory policies.)"
Billions of dollars to ensure a proper proprietorship (i.e. NON-MUSLIM) of U.S. ports is just common sense, good politics, and provide minimal security headaches.
Your logic has too many holes. If the Nazis had managed somehow during WW2 to purchase sensitive installations in the US we should still have let the deal go through to avoid risks that future potential companies might not "pony up"? It's Bush after all who calls himself a wartime president and claims to be fighting the very same elements that could easily infiltrate these ports and do us harm.
US national security needs to be a factor in making decisions, not just pure capitalism.
The reason that only the two parties to the transaction must be considered is that -- as Milton Friedman recently pointed out -- there are more than two parties affected by these transactions.
The people of the US have a stake in this decision because we are all potential victims of our enemies.
You exalt capitalism over national security -- very short-sighted.