[oceanview]

conerns over infrastructure and defense related entities - are real.

if the UAE had wanted to buy Applebees, would anyone have cared? no. they own alot of manhattan real estate, did anyone complain? no. if they want to buy a casino, do we care? no.

the arguments about this being "protectionism", are laughable.

[Shermy]

Laughable yes, but the WSJ at least learned its lesson and omitted the "free trade" argument - Dubai doesn't practice anything of the sort.

So that's an improvement.

"National Defense Protectionists"

Sign me up!

[groanup]

And how do you spread the idea of free republican form of government with people in the mid-east while telling them that commerce with us is off limits?

[jess35]

Please cite any information you have showing the UAE was in negotiations to buy ports.

[OKIEDOC]

Excellent reply.

It's time to pull in our horns a bit and reassess where we are.

More immigrant workers and foreign takeover's is not my cup of tea.

I see all this sudden surge for foreign take overs as nothing more than a weakening of America.

[MissouriConservative]

"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.

[Paul Ross]

concerns over infrastructure and defense related entities - are real.
if the UAE had wanted to buy Applebees, would anyone have cared? no. they own alot of manhattan real estate, did anyone complain? no. if they want to buy a casino, do we care? no.
the arguments about this being "protectionism", are laughable.

Agreed.

[razzle]

Security issues regarding management of port operations by UAE are a smokescreen for arab haters, not protectionism. I believe in fair trade but always buy American. We would have achieved much Security more by bringing in our allies in the war on terror, letting them have a small (non security) investment in the future of the US, instead of spitting in their eye.

[RFT1]

What a shock, the WEJ, the other side of the same coin that the NYT is on(being an elite operation that cares nothing about the average American) wouldf whine about the collapse of this deal and again call people wanting to protect the intrest of Americans from other nations a bad thing.

Anyways, as long as the WSJ fools have a stnglehold over the GOP, I just opt out so to speak.

[jonrick46]

Most Americans are not happy with the outsourcing of jobs. This is the right hand of protectionism. Many are comfortable with the right hand. It is ignorance of the basic economics of capitalism that causes so many by habit to accept this type of protectionism.

In-sourcing is another area of foreign activity that many Americans see as beneficial. It brings jobs. This is the left hand of protectionism that many Americans are not comfortable. To reject that hand means more jobs from foreign capitalists.

On the other "hand" it is the ignorance of the basic economics of capitalism that allowing a growing acceptance of this "hand" of protectionism. In-sourcing is rejected because of irrational nationalistic motivations. It is easy to motivate people through manipulative plays on irrational fears to drive this kind of protectionism. It is made even easier when so many have accepted the anti-capilistic thinking/training that has been spoon-fed by the left through the education system and the MSM.

Recently the left has discovered how to manipulate the sheeple through the age-old psychological tactic of generating irrational fears about "outsiders." All you have to do is assign some imaginary threat to the "outsiders," and you can cause enough panic to make people do anything to protect themselves from the boogieman. Such tactics have stirred communities to hang "witches" and burn Protestants for heresy as seen when Queen Mary Tudor ("Bloody Mary") in her five year reign of terror burned 274 poor souls. This is an old tactic. Isn't is ironic that this same tactic is being used by the Islamo Facists against those "outsiders" the infidels.

I will wait for the next episode of the left to ring that bell so the sheeple, like so many Pavlovian Dogs, will respond like the well trained dogs they are.

Ding ding!

[LowCountryJoe]

No, what's laughable is how often you come down on the side of the very people who disdain capitalism and then claim to be a conservative...okay, yes, conservative in its traditional sense.