On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:01:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:49:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:56:51 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in
oups.com:

Gene Kearns wrote:
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, this is just nuts!
I agree 100%!

Absolutely - I mean it's been proven with total certainty that every
Arab
is an uncivilized, bloodthirsty mongrel hellbent on turning the US
into
a
3,000-mile-wide Circle-K.


Fred thinks it is a good idea to turn US port security over the the
United Arab Emirates.

Not security, operations.

Since the NSA (theoretically) only monitors phonecalls to naughty
countries,
I wonder if bad guys already here (like in Florida or New Jersey) could
make
private calls to offices in Baltimore, once their pals are set up as
port
managers.


Do you not think there may be some bad guys there right now? We don't
have
a rule prohibiting Muslims from being supervisors at our ports.

I'm sure there are. But, I see no reason to make their job easier. The UAE
is theoretically a country that's friendly to us, at least according to
the
CIA's web site. But, the CIA's got an exquisite knack for misunderstanding
the world, so I really question the idea of turning over ownership of
anything important to a Muslim country, especially when said country could
probably be OBL's next target.


Where did 'ownership' come into the picture?

Ownership of the company which presently manages the ports. There may be
contractual obligations which prevent us from changing those arrangements,
even if the ownership of the company changes.

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:06:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:01:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:49:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:56:51 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in
oups.com:

Gene Kearns wrote:
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, this is just nuts!
I agree 100%!

Absolutely - I mean it's been proven with total certainty that every
Arab
is an uncivilized, bloodthirsty mongrel hellbent on turning the US
into
a
3,000-mile-wide Circle-K.


Fred thinks it is a good idea to turn US port security over the the
United Arab Emirates.

Not security, operations.

Since the NSA (theoretically) only monitors phonecalls to naughty
countries,
I wonder if bad guys already here (like in Florida or New Jersey) could
make
private calls to offices in Baltimore, once their pals are set up as
port
managers.


Do you not think there may be some bad guys there right now? We don't
have
a rule prohibiting Muslims from being supervisors at our ports.

I'm sure there are. But, I see no reason to make their job easier. The UAE
is theoretically a country that's friendly to us, at least according to
the
CIA's web site. But, the CIA's got an exquisite knack for misunderstanding
the world, so I really question the idea of turning over ownership of
anything important to a Muslim country, especially when said country could
probably be OBL's next target.


Where did 'ownership' come into the picture?

Ownership of the company which presently manages the ports. There may be
contractual obligations which prevent us from changing those arrangements,
even if the ownership of the company changes.


As the current company is British, and as it is being acquired by Dubai
Ports World, I don't think we can interfere with who owns the company.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Where did 'ownership' come into the picture?

Ownership of the company which presently manages the ports. There may be
contractual obligations which prevent us from changing those arrangements,
even if the ownership of the company changes.


As the current company is British, and as it is being acquired by Dubai
Ports World, I don't think we can interfere with who owns the company.
--
'Til next time,

John H

Sometimes contracts are written in a way that nullifies certain agreements
if one party to the agreement is sold to another party. That's not
interference.