On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:06:37 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:01:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the US Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need to be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can be found
to pay for it.
You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel badly, many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.
Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply something
that's not true.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

It's a mighty fine line, once you get into it.

Don't you get weary of rationalizing Bush's dumb decisions?

Next time you ship a car overseas, or return it to the Port of Baltimore,
you'll see the difference between port security and port operations.
--


That's about as dumb as trailering a boat from here to the Gulf of
California.

OK.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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