Bush will allow arab company to take over 6 major seaports

[JR]

i had no idea that "Great British" was proper grammar.

had to look it up.

Bush - 1
JR - 0

this very well might become the most depressing day of my life.

[ben]

Yeah, I dont think its a smart move to allow a people that shout out "death to America" to run an already somewhat vunerable structured shipping system.

Not to mention the killing these people [s] do over simple cartoons...



Ben

[JR]

Originally Posted by ben

Yeah, I dont think its a smart move to allow a people that shout out "death to America" to run an already somewhat vunerable structured shipping system.

Not to mention the killing these people [s] do over simple cartoons...



Ben

is there something a dubai management company can do at a port they manage that can't occure in any other port? Customs and Homeland Security and the Coast Guard are responsible for port security, not the port owner.

and since when are people in dubai are not shouting out "death to america"?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by JR

is there something a dubai management company can do at a port they manage that can't occure in any other port? Customs and Homeland Security and the Coast Guard are responsible for port security, not the port owner.

and since when are people in dubai are not shouting out "death to america"?

Uhhh ... please.

Are you really trying to say that having an "in" with the management company of a port [or anything else, for that matter] doesn't provide an advantage to people who might wish to do us harm?

For the record, I don't think port operations should be run by a foreign company - period. Not some limey bastards, not ragheads, kikes, wops, spics, micks, japs, polacks, or fucking martians.

Because of the enormous implications for national security, I'm not even sure this is something that should be left for the market to take care of.

[JR]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Uhhh ... please.

Are you really trying to say that having an "in" with the management company of a port [or anything else, for that matter] doesn't provide an advantage to people who might wish to do us harm?

For the record, I don't think port operations should be run by a foreign company - period. Not some limey bastards, not ragheads, kikes, wops, spics, micks, japs, polacks, or fucking martians.

Because of the enormous implications for national security, I'm not even sure this is something that should be left for the market to take care of.

actually, i realize the ports are weak. i go to one in seattle all the time to see my friend and they dont ask for anything but to show ID. i just meant to say that it will not matter who is managing the port because the security issues are the territory of the US Govm't - so there is nothing you can't get away with at one port, that you can't at another. if security was a concern that was being properly addressed, it woudl not matter who owned the port... just like it does not matter who owns an airport.

[JR]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Because of the enormous implications for national security, I'm not even sure this is something that should be left for the market to take care of.

its not. its the territory of the coast guard and homeland security. a city can own an airport.. even a private citizen can own LAX, it does not change the security requirements, screening processes etc.