Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: faithincowboys

Define "control of our ports" in this context. From what limited info that is out there by our pathetic media (and poor job by the administration BTW) I'm not seeing that any functions will change because of this ownership change. There will be Americans and Brits managing and running the ports. I think we need to understand exactly what functions this new company will perform as a result of the ownership change. What actions could an owner of this British management company take that could concern us? What will the contract state in this regard? We just need more details. Your analogy seems oversimplistic based on what I'm seeing so far.


250 posted on 02/22/2006 8:16:14 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: plain talk; All

Would we have allowed them to run terminals at our ports during WWII?

I don't think so. Patriotism was too strong to allow that. People weren't so self concerned. Arab Golden Parachutes didn't trump national security back then.


262 posted on 02/23/2006 11:37:40 PM PST by faithincowboys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson