It's basic due diligence to make sure that whenever a foreign entity acquires a controlling interest in a U.S. company that national security isn't threatened.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Individuals want to know that none of their own money is being invested in companies that put their profits ahead of international security.
No one would argue that it's in the United States' interest to have independent knowledge of the plans and intentions of foreign countries. But we need to think about where to draw the line on these kind of operations so we're not always attacking our allies, the people we trust, the people we need to rely on, and to have them in turn rely on us.
The example that America knows how to govern itself is one of the compelling aspects of our national security.
Multinational companies use their technological know-how in their foreign subsidiaries, so reciprocal multinational relationships are key - they lead to a vested interest in both countries to remaining open.
The U.S. and Israel probably lead the way in terms of venture investment in technologies companies focused on the security paradigm. That is quite encouraging.
If the United States wants access to Chinese, Indian or Vietnamese markets, we must get access to theirs. U.S. protectionism is very subtle but it is very much there.
It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else.
This notion that we're going to prop up foreign governments, that we're going to invade other countries for some kind of perceived benefit where we're going to install somebody who's going to be supportive of American interests or American corporate private interests needs to stop.
The fact of the matter is that the United States faces real threats from criminals, terrorists, spies, and malicious cyber actors.
I imagine that the intention is to get rid of them. The interests of security demand that we get rid of them.
No opposing quotes found.