[LowCountryJoe]

The reason the deal had to be killed was to send a message that our nation still has enough self-sufficiency and self-respect not to allow a kingdom with strong 9/11 ties manage our ports operations for us.

Um, Jay; human beings are better off when they trade with one another. Trade does not prove to be something that should be viewed through the lens of weakness. Trade is what people do in order to unlock value through comparative advantage. But, by all means, Jay, try growing your own food, making your own garments (a pretty little dress perhaps), getting your own power, etcetera, and see just how much time you have left in the day to write post in an Internet forum with your nonexistent ISP.

[CowboyJay]

"Trade is what people do in order to unlock value through comparative advantage"

Trade is a tool, Joe, not a religion...

There's smart trading...and then there's foolish trading.

Why don't we ask the French if they feel they got a good deal on the Louisiana Purchase? Their government was just engaging in 'Free Trade'.

I'd say we pretty well smoked Russia on the Alaska deal. Our position in the world was gained in large part by smart decisions like these.

[rcocean]

You keep bringing up this straw man.

The choice is *not* between unrestricted free trade with no barriers and NO trade. We've had foreign trade in the USA since 1783. The choice is what kind of trade deals are we going to have. And are we going to try to reduce the trade deficits or not.

Why does the EU, China, Japan, Korea, Sweden, Russia, all have protective tariffs? Guess they're all "stupid" huh?

And they all have restrictions on foreign investment.

Those poor "dummies", running trade surpluses against us - when according to you trade deficits are so good.

BTW, China is a *Communist* country. A USA business (run for profit) in the long-term cannot compete against a business that doesn't care about profits.