Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.
By Joel Havemann and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers
March 3, 2006


WASHINGTON - House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter
(R-El Cajon), seeking to derail a government-owned Arab company's plans
to manage port facilities in six American cities, said Thursday he
would introduce legislation not only to kill that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Hunter's legislation could affect the Los Angeles-Long Beach port
complex, where 13 of the 14 container terminal operations are
foreign-owned. "It makes sense in this new age of terrorism that
critical infrastructure be owned by Americans," Hunter said in an
interview. He said his proposal could apply not only to ports but also
to power plants and "other infrastructure that is critical to the
nation."

Hunter's plans put him on a collision course with President Bush, who
has vowed that he would use such a bill to deliver the first veto of
his presidency.

The furor has also proved awkward for former President Clinton and his
wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Facilities at the port of
New York are included in the sale, which she has strongly opposed. Her
husband, meanwhile, had apparently talked with leaders of the company
about a public relations strategy to rescue the deal. The company,
Dubai Ports World, is owned by the government of Dubai, one of the
sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates.

Hunter led a hearing at which Republicans and Democrats took turns
bashing first the company's corporate leadership and then
representatives of the executive branch committee that approved Dubai
Ports World's purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a
privately owned British firm that operates container terminals
worldwide. Among the assets included in the sale are operations in
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York and Newark, N.J.

A British court Thursday denied a legal challenge to the takeover,
which, if appeals fail, will become final next week. But the company
has separately agreed to postpone taking over management of the U.S.
terminals for 45 days to give the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States time to subject the takeover to greater scrutiny.
That committee, made up of 12 government representatives, determines
whether national security might be compromised when foreign companies
seek to buy American industry or invest in it.

Legislators castigated members of the foreign investment committee for
initially approving the purchase at a relatively low level of the
bureaucracy, with no involvement of Congress, Bush or his Cabinet.

"You'd have to be a turtle with your head in the ground" not to realize
the political firestorm that would follow a decision to allow an Arab
company any role in U.S. ports, said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).

Eric S. Edelman, who as undersecretary of Defense for policy ranked too
high to have participated in the initial approval of the sale, said the
United Arab Emirates had been a model economic partner of the United
States and had supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Armed Services Committee members of both parties castigated the
Arab nation for harboring terrorists and allowing them to use its banks
to launder money.

Dubai Ports World officials were on the defensive during several hours
of questioning. "Dubai can't be trusted," Hunter said.

The company's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, responded to the
attacks, saying, "We are not a security risk."

The United Arab Emirates' role in maintaining the Arab boycott of
Israel has also fostered opposition to the deal, but the chairman of
Israel's largest shipping line came to Dubai Ports World's defense in a
letter to Sen. Clinton.

Idan Ofer, chairman of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, urged her to
drop her opposition, saying, "I sincerely hope this unnecessary
political storm will cease."

Dubai Ports World officials, meanwhile, said that Bill Clinton had
suggested they hire his former spokesman, Joe Lockhart, to assist in
their public relations campaign. Lockhart decided against doing so.

"We seem to be our own worst enemies," Hunter said at Thursday's
hearing. "We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in
U.S. hands."

Hunter said he would introduce his legislation next week. It would
require foreign companies to divest themselves of any operations
determined to be "critical U.S. infrastructure" by the Defense and
Homeland Security departments.

Hunter's legislation would go further than what has been introduced in
the House so far - a bipartisan measure backed by at least 90 House
members that would give Congress the right to kill the Dubai ports deal
once the new security review was complete.

Manny Aschemeyer, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern
California, which tracks vessel movements at the ports, said that any
effort to bar foreign companies from operating port terminals would
"shut most of the major container ports down in the United States,
including Los Angeles-Long Beach.... That would be an absolute
disaster."

The foreign investment committee is concurrently investigating two
other corporate takeovers for their national security implications.

Dubai International Capital is paying $1.2 billion to buy Britain's
Doncasters Group, a manufacturer of precision components that go into
military aircraft and tanks. It has plants in Georgia and Connecticut.

And Israel's Check Point Software Technologies, a world leader in
online security, has agreed to buy Sourcefire, a Maryland-based company
with a similar mission.

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Why let Arabs earn the business on merit when we can give the business to
Bush cronies?

I hope the UAE reciprocates by banning the US military from using their
ports.

Maybe then something may sink in...

Amen!



"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.
By Joel Havemann and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers
March 3, 2006


WASHINGTON - House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter
(R-El Cajon), seeking to derail a government-owned Arab company's plans
to manage port facilities in six American cities, said Thursday he
would introduce legislation not only to kill that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Hunter's legislation could affect the Los Angeles-Long Beach port
complex, where 13 of the 14 container terminal operations are
foreign-owned. "It makes sense in this new age of terrorism that
critical infrastructure be owned by Americans," Hunter said in an
interview. He said his proposal could apply not only to ports but also
to power plants and "other infrastructure that is critical to the
nation."

Hunter's plans put him on a collision course with President Bush, who
has vowed that he would use such a bill to deliver the first veto of
his presidency.

The furor has also proved awkward for former President Clinton and his
wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Facilities at the port of
New York are included in the sale, which she has strongly opposed. Her
husband, meanwhile, had apparently talked with leaders of the company
about a public relations strategy to rescue the deal. The company,
Dubai Ports World, is owned by the government of Dubai, one of the
sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates.

Hunter led a hearing at which Republicans and Democrats took turns
bashing first the company's corporate leadership and then
representatives of the executive branch committee that approved Dubai
Ports World's purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a
privately owned British firm that operates container terminals
worldwide. Among the assets included in the sale are operations in
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York and Newark, N.J.

A British court Thursday denied a legal challenge to the takeover,
which, if appeals fail, will become final next week. But the company
has separately agreed to postpone taking over management of the U.S.
terminals for 45 days to give the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States time to subject the takeover to greater scrutiny.
That committee, made up of 12 government representatives, determines
whether national security might be compromised when foreign companies
seek to buy American industry or invest in it.

Legislators castigated members of the foreign investment committee for
initially approving the purchase at a relatively low level of the
bureaucracy, with no involvement of Congress, Bush or his Cabinet.

"You'd have to be a turtle with your head in the ground" not to realize
the political firestorm that would follow a decision to allow an Arab
company any role in U.S. ports, said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).

Eric S. Edelman, who as undersecretary of Defense for policy ranked too
high to have participated in the initial approval of the sale, said the
United Arab Emirates had been a model economic partner of the United
States and had supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Armed Services Committee members of both parties castigated the
Arab nation for harboring terrorists and allowing them to use its banks
to launder money.

Dubai Ports World officials were on the defensive during several hours
of questioning. "Dubai can't be trusted," Hunter said.

The company's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, responded to the
attacks, saying, "We are not a security risk."

The United Arab Emirates' role in maintaining the Arab boycott of
Israel has also fostered opposition to the deal, but the chairman of
Israel's largest shipping line came to Dubai Ports World's defense in a
letter to Sen. Clinton.

Idan Ofer, chairman of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, urged her to
drop her opposition, saying, "I sincerely hope this unnecessary
political storm will cease."

Dubai Ports World officials, meanwhile, said that Bill Clinton had
suggested they hire his former spokesman, Joe Lockhart, to assist in
their public relations campaign. Lockhart decided against doing so.

"We seem to be our own worst enemies," Hunter said at Thursday's
hearing. "We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in
U.S. hands."

Hunter said he would introduce his legislation next week. It would
require foreign companies to divest themselves of any operations
determined to be "critical U.S. infrastructure" by the Defense and
Homeland Security departments.

Hunter's legislation would go further than what has been introduced in
the House so far - a bipartisan measure backed by at least 90 House
members that would give Congress the right to kill the Dubai ports deal
once the new security review was complete.

Manny Aschemeyer, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern
California, which tracks vessel movements at the ports, said that any
effort to bar foreign companies from operating port terminals would
"shut most of the major container ports down in the United States,
including Los Angeles-Long Beach.... That would be an absolute
disaster."

The foreign investment committee is concurrently investigating two
other corporate takeovers for their national security implications.

Dubai International Capital is paying $1.2 billion to buy Britain's
Doncasters Group, a manufacturer of precision components that go into
military aircraft and tanks. It has plants in Georgia and Connecticut.

And Israel's Check Point Software Technologies, a world leader in
online security, has agreed to buy Sourcefire, a Maryland-based company
with a similar mission.

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Yeah that was a hoot Dave, and the Clintoons against each other.

The best part is the news to introduce legislation not only to kill
that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Sounds like a good ideal to me.

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

In article .com, Joe
wrote:

Yeah that was a hoot Dave, and the Clintoons against each other.

The best part is the news to introduce legislation not only to kill
that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Sounds like a good ideal to me.

Yep. Should depress the company values very effectively.

Now, if/when other countries start doing the same thing to US firms,
you'll be all in favour of the idea, won't you?

Lessee - nationalisation used to be a dirty word to the free market
capitalists of the USA.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa............ ..

Another hypocrite reveals himself.

PDW

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

It's not Nationalisation but an issue of national security.

In the cold war we did not let the Russians make propellors for our
submarines.
Or fuel for our trident missles now did we?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's not Nationalisation but an issue of national security.

In the cold war we did not let the Russians make propellors for our
submarines.
Or fuel for our trident missles now did we?

We were at odds with the Soviet Union then.

Are we at odds with the UAE now?

Max

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Sort of..
They can not be trusted, and would chopp your head off in a heart beat
if it was in the best interest of the UAE.

They know how to protect themselves, did you see the posting on all
that is required to open a business in the UAE?

Even if we are not at odds with them ....allowing ANY foreign country
owned companies to run our ports is stupid. Something is totally ****ed
up if we need them here to do the job for us.

Hunter was right when he said "We seem to be our own worst enemies"
"We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in U.S.
hands."

Do you dis-agree with Hunter?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

The Ruskies make rocket engines for us now.

The US got some metallurgical technology from the Nazis in exchange for some
US technology.

The Japs were the only ones making low noise figure transistors for the US
military in the 70's and 80's.

Mitsubishi made the propeller milling equipment for US submarines.

Numerous Israeli companies make some very sophisticated missle radome
measurement and design equipment and sell to both the US and Red China.

Loral provided all the key info for China to upgrade their ICBM's aimed at
the US.





"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's not Nationalisation but an issue of national security.

In the cold war we did not let the Russians make propellors for our
submarines.
Or fuel for our trident missles now did we?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

The Ruskies are our comrades now since we can crush them at any time.

Sounds like a trade with the Nazi's. We musta did better since we
crushed them.

Re training the Japs to make us transitor radios was needed to break
the cycle of imperial ignorance and worship.
I have no problem sourceing parts from other countries as a last
resort, but never turn over to them what we can do and rely on for
national security.

Proof on the Mitsubishi milling BS ?

We own Isreal.

Loral should be burned to the ground...... if true... and they knew
what they were doing IMO.
A stiff prison term at the least for it's decision makers.

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Toshiba, not Mitsubishi on the 7 and 9 axis milling machines:

http://www.japanlaw.info/lawletter/april87/fdf.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/41/gill41.pdf


US Companies improving Chinese missle capabilities:

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050907/orfr.ob8-k.html

http://www.secinfo.com/dr89b.z21s.d.htm


Russian rocket engines on US military rockets:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...80730-eelv.htm

Loral, from the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...980617-kan.htm

We own Israel? Read on about what we own:

http://www.ussliberty.org/


Joe, in case you haven't figured it out, US defense contractors routinely
give our enemies technologies so they can stay in business building even
better technologies. If the US was truly superior to its enemies (which it
could be) the defense industry would go out of business. Why do you think we
have wars so often?

As far as training the Japs to make transistors, they are the ones who never
needed training. Never has US semiconductor capabilities matched the
Japanese.

What about parts from other countries not as a last resort but because they
are simply the best? There is no second choice to the best.





"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
The Ruskies are our comrades now since we can crush them at any time.

Sounds like a trade with the Nazi's. We musta did better since we
crushed them.

Re training the Japs to make us transitor radios was needed to break
the cycle of imperial ignorance and worship.
I have no problem sourceing parts from other countries as a last
resort, but never turn over to them what we can do and rely on for
national security.

Proof on the Mitsubishi milling BS ?

We own Isreal.

Loral should be burned to the ground...... if true... and they knew
what they were doing IMO.
A stiff prison term at the least for it's decision makers.

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

In article .com, Joe
wrote:

It's not Nationalisation but an issue of national security.

Yeah, Joe, sure it is. Anything can be made out to be national security.

I mean, you can't get more fundamental than food, can you? Why don't
you forbid foreign corporations or individuals from owning productive
agricultural land?

Then there's telecoms. Better reserve that for US only.

What about steel & other metals? Better do them too, just to be safe.

Etc.

Hypocrisy, Joe, pure hypocrisy.

PDW

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

In article et, Bob
Crantz wrote:

Toshiba, not Mitsubishi on the 7 and 9 axis milling machines:

http://www.japanlaw.info/lawletter/april87/fdf.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/41/gill41.pdf


US Companies improving Chinese missle capabilities:

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050907/orfr.ob8-k.html

http://www.secinfo.com/dr89b.z21s.d.htm


Russian rocket engines on US military rockets:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...80730-eelv.htm

Loral, from the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...980617-kan.htm

We own Israel? Read on about what we own:

http://www.ussliberty.org/


Joe, in case you haven't figured it out, US defense contractors routinely
give our enemies technologies so they can stay in business building even
better technologies. If the US was truly superior to its enemies (which it
could be) the defense industry would go out of business. Why do you think we
have wars so often?

As far as training the Japs to make transistors, they are the ones who never
needed training. Never has US semiconductor capabilities matched the
Japanese.

What about parts from other countries not as a last resort but because they
are simply the best? There is no second choice to the best.

Wasn't it Heinlein that said there's nothing so expensive as a second
best military?

PDW

OT-Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Joe"
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.

Again, with all due respect, this is but the tip of the iceburg. A few of you
may recall when Nixon took the dollar off the silver standard. Since then major
oil producers have accepted only dollars in payment for oil. This has maintained
the dollars' value despite our constant negative balance of payments. Japan,
Tiawan, China, and all are willing to accept dollars even though the USA has
nothing they want to buy with them because they can use them to buy oil. But
what are the oil producing nations to do with all those dollars? Buy up America
of course! That's the legacy we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil for Euros like Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?

OT-Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Vito" wrote in message news

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil
for Euros like Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?


Invading Europe?

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et, Bob
Crantz wrote:

Toshiba, not Mitsubishi on the 7 and 9 axis milling machines:

http://www.japanlaw.info/lawletter/april87/fdf.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/41/gill41.pdf


US Companies improving Chinese missle capabilities:

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050907/orfr.ob8-k.html

http://www.secinfo.com/dr89b.z21s.d.htm


Russian rocket engines on US military rockets:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...80730-eelv.htm

Loral, from the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...980617-kan.htm

We own Israel? Read on about what we own:

http://www.ussliberty.org/


Joe, in case you haven't figured it out, US defense contractors routinely
give our enemies technologies so they can stay in business building even
better technologies. If the US was truly superior to its enemies (which
it
could be) the defense industry would go out of business. Why do you think
we
have wars so often?

As far as training the Japs to make transistors, they are the ones who
never
needed training. Never has US semiconductor capabilities matched the
Japanese.

What about parts from other countries not as a last resort but because
they
are simply the best? There is no second choice to the best.

Wasn't it Heinlein that said there's nothing so expensive as a second
best military?

True, but who bears the expense? In today's world the US pays for the best
and second best militaries.


PDW

OT-Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Joe"
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.

Again, with all due respect, this is but the tip of the iceburg. A few of
you
may recall when Nixon took the dollar off the silver standard. Since then
major
oil producers have accepted only dollars in payment for oil. This has
maintained
the dollars' value despite our constant negative balance of payments.
Japan,
Tiawan, China, and all are willing to accept dollars even though the USA
has
nothing they want to buy with them because they can use them to buy oil.
But
what are the oil producing nations to do with all those dollars? Buy up
America
of course! That's the legacy we are leaving to our children and
grandchildren.

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil for Euros like
Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?


Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

And that would be bad for Americans?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Mercantilism advocates trade restrictions through restriction of
imports and expansion of exports so as to accumulate gold and foreign
exchange.

This is a broad defination of what I do in order to afford to sail off
into the sunrise, sailing the world re-dispensing my aquired gold and
currency.

It's a good plan and works for me, why should it not work for the USA?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mercantilism advocates trade restrictions through restriction of
imports and expansion of exports so as to accumulate gold and foreign
exchange.

This is a broad defination of what I do in order to afford to sail off
into the sunrise, sailing the world re-dispensing my aquired gold and
currency.

It's a good plan and works for me, why should it not work for the USA?

Joe



Joe,

If the government passed a law that said you will receive an annual salary
of $1 million per annum, it defintitely works for you.

So why not do it for everyone in the US?

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Whats that got to do with taking in less then you shell out?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Perhaps but I'm to busy stacking gold right now.

Thanks

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Are you really that ignorant and racist or are you just having fun?

How many generations of inbreeding are in your family?

Are there any branches in your family tree?

Lloyd Bonafide


"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Perhaps but I'm to busy stacking gold right now.

Thanks

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

the bonified idiot slurred out:

Are you really that ignorant and racist or are you just having fun?

Lloyd


You don't know Lloyd?
Damn...If bricks were dumb you would be the great wall of china.....


here fishey fishy fishy

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

I'm a Korean War Veteran and don't you dare to address me in that manner!

Lloyd Bonafide

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
the bonified idiot slurred out:

Are you really that ignorant and racist or are you just having fun?

Lloyd


You don't know Lloyd?
Damn...If bricks were dumb you would be the great wall of china.....


here fishey fishy fishy

Joe

OT-Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...


Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

Jeeze Louise, I hope we go right to nukes this time. These long, protracted
foot soldier conflicts don't make for good nightly news anymore.

Max

OT-Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...


Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

Jeeze Louise, I hope we go right to nukes this time. These long,
protracted foot soldier conflicts don't make for good nightly news
anymore.

Atomic weapons are cost effective and practical.

They reduce American casualties.
They impress savages.
Aim isn't that important.
The fallout will slow down our economic competitors in the region.
The have lasting psychological effect.
There have been over 500 above ground atomic tests in the world. A few more
blasts ain't gonna hurt anyone except the intended victims.

Amen!

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

No see here Lloyd,

I had to take time to explain to you.... and in the ruckass....... Dave
got off my hook.

And you have so many hook scars on your lips I'm pulling in my lures.

BTW you should let that cut under your nose heal :^/

Joe

OT-Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Maxprop" wrote
"Bob Crantz" wrote
Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

Jeeze Louise, I hope we go right to nukes this time. These long, protracted
foot soldier conflicts don't make for good nightly news anymore.

I doubt nukes are needed but these grunt-on-grunt fights really tick me off. I
spent most of my life helping invent and perfect weapons so that our kids
wouldn't have to fight savages hand-to-hand - weapons that let us whack Saddam's
well-equipped army easily. Now it's like Vietnam all over again thanks to the
politics.

Seems I remember some Brit (or Scot?) king faced with a Viking invasion. He
held a bridge that only let a few Vikings cross at a time, allowing his smaller
force to hold them off indefinately. Unfortunately, the Viking leader convinced
this fool that this wasn't fighting fair, so he allowed the vikings to cross and
have a pitched battle - which the Vikings of course won. Then they killed the
king and sacked the countryside killing and raping. I oft wonder if McNamara
and now Rummy are that kings descendents.

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Went to 2 Balt. and a 2 NJ ports last week. Asked around.
From the yard worker to the paper shufflers in the offices,
no one was concerned about the Arab deal. Said nothing would
change, except for who's writing the big checks.

Scotty


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article
.com, Joe
wrote:

Yeah that was a hoot Dave, and the Clintoons against
each other.

The best part is the news to introduce legislation not
only to kill
that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities
determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Sounds like a good ideal to me.

Yep. Should depress the company values very effectively.

Now, if/when other countries start doing the same thing to
US firms,
you'll be all in favour of the idea, won't you?

Lessee - nationalisation used to be a dirty word to the
free market
capitalists of the USA.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa............ ..

Another hypocrite reveals himself.

PDW