I was for the deal, I don't think this is a bad thing but this will leave an unsightly mark on our reputaion that will last for years.
The ports were always and have always been under American control.
For the 900,000 th time, all we are talking about is six goat stinkin container terminals that are leased from us, not owned either. It never involved the transfer of security, just the goat steenkin loading operations.
So we insulted a entire country over a lousy lease.
now we will pay the price for that action, and our ports will actually be less secure because cooperation on the other shipping end will be affected. As well as military assets and ops in the area.
Actually, most who think this is bad simply didn't understand the context.
I was fully supportive of the port deal, and also fully support this move by a business to make a business decision for themselves based on the opposition.
I objected to the U.S. implementing a command economy regarding U.S. port terminal operations, and back-stabbing our allies.
If our allies want to be kind to us, that's fine with me. I fear that the new owners won't have the money to implement security, but that is not a big issue to me.
I'm sure all those who in this threat accused DP World of all sorts of evil will now apologize, since the announcement said that because of their long friendship with our country, and because they value the friendship, they are willing to make this concession.
I don't think that many people actively "SUPPORTED" the deal. The division was between people who opposed the deal, and people who thought the companies had a right to make a deal and we had no right to block it.
It's like the argument over free speech. If opponents want to block a KKK rally, those who support the RIGHT to have the rally aren't likely to actually SUPPORT the rally itself.