"the arguments about this being "protectionism", are laughable."
From the article....
"In recent weeks Members of Congress have suggested that the foreign-ownership ban should apply to: roads, telecommunications, airlines, broadcasting, shipping, technology firms, water facilities, buildings, real estate, and even U.S. Treasury securities. If this keeps up, we'll soon arrive at France, where even food and music are "protected" from foreign influences as a matter of national survival."
Seems the laughable part is not so laughable after all. The democrats have played the public like a fiddle and now those who were played look like fools. Take a look at the Washington Post today.
"For an example of the industry's international nature, consider Inchcape Shipping Services, a London-based company that provides ship agency services -- arranging the smooth arrival and departure of vessels -- at 200 ports around the world, including more than two dozen in the United States. Inchcape was purchased in January by a Dubai company whose chief executive, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, also heads Dubai Ports World.
Or consider Maersk, a Danish shipping giant. Its U.S. subsidiary operates much of the commercial fleet that serves the U.S. Navy, which means that its vessels transport items such as fuel and ammunition to U.S. military operations abroad.
Theoretically, such arrangements involve security risks. Terrorist operatives might infiltrate Inchcape or Maersk and send strategic information about ship or fleet movements to enemy forces. Many maritime security experts consider those risks small, especially compared with the lack of reliable policing at dozens of ports in poor countries that send goods to the United States.
But whatever the security ramifications, foreign ownership dominates the maritime industry, including the U.S. facilities where giant ships dock and unload thousands of containers filled with products for U.S. consumers.
"There is no other part of our critical infrastructure that is owned by foreign interests the way the maritime infrastructure is," said Stephen E. Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander and a port security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations."
LINK
That article alone should make people think. This deal was destroyed by politics played by Schumer and Clinton who owe their allegiance to longshoremen unions. DPW is not friendly to unions and the longshoremen know that. Wonder why the suit brought by a Miami company was tossed out in London? The could see the politics of unions being played. The American public that "rose up in anger" over this deal are suckers that were played by the likes of Chuckie Schumer and Hillary Clinton.
some (that's the key word here: SOME) items on that list are legitimate US infrastructure components that have security concerns. if CFIUS were doing its job, it would be weeding out specifically what the term "SOME" legitimately applied to.
certainly there is a difference between the UAE buying a casino company, or buying Lockheed Martin. a difference between the Saudis buying Applebees, or buying Verizon.
if you cannot accept that there are legitimate differences in those examples given above, then there is no point discussing this further.
security comes before commerce, that's the fundamental political mistake the white house made trying to force this ports deal down american's throats - after 4+ years since 9-11 of shouting SECURITY, SECURITY, SECURITY to americans at every turn - you can't now tell them "commerce with friendly arabs is the #1 priority". its an important priority, but its not #1. there are plenty of other things the UAE can buy in the US with their petrodollars - no questions asked.