Skip to comments.
Dubai seeks to defend ports takeover
MSNBC, Financial Times(UK) ^
| 2/20/06
| Robert Wright
Posted on 02/20/2006 4:13:19 PM PST by Dane
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-177 next last
I guess all those Americans that work for DPWorld are "traitors" to some on FR.
BTW, I wonder if hillary will try to shake DPWorld down. What am i thinking of course she will, that's her way, IMO.
1
posted on
02/20/2006 4:13:20 PM PST
by
Dane
To: Dane
I guess all those Americans that work for DPWorld are "traitors" to some on FR.No, but neither are 100% of the employees American.
2
posted on
02/20/2006 4:18:47 PM PST
by
King Moonracer
(All your exploding-head-deities are belong to us!)
To: Dane
This is somewhat tantamount to having a Chinese firm take care of the janitorial services (or maybe the security services) over at Los Alamos. There are Chinese forms capable of doing the job effectively, and in fact at considerable economic advantage (for us, due to cost), however it would not be prudent. Same thing here .....I'm certain there are some economic benefits to this arrangement, and there is the possibility that this firm may do the job every year 'til Kingdom Come without any problems whatsoever (just as there is a chance -LOL- that the Chinese firm would do what it's supposed to do at Los Alamos without any espionage taking place).
However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked. Especially when you consider that ports are a huge Achilles heel for the US.
3
posted on
02/20/2006 4:23:42 PM PST
by
spetznaz
(Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
To: spetznaz
This is somewhat tantamount to having a Chinese firm take care of the janitorial services (or maybe the security services) over at Los Alamos Huh? DPWorld has American citizens running it's operations and on it's Board of Directors.
4
posted on
02/20/2006 4:27:54 PM PST
by
Dane
( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
To: Dane
5
posted on
02/20/2006 4:35:02 PM PST
by
GrannyK
To: GrannyK
I'll pass simply because the answers are clearly a joke. In a more serious poll I would gladly participate. If approved there would be Arabs up to no good, no doubt about it.
6
posted on
02/20/2006 4:47:47 PM PST
by
Racer1
To: Dane
Huh? DPWorld has American citizens running it's operations and on it's Board of Directors.Very few seem to know or even care about this fact.
To: Irish Eyes
Very few seem to know or even care about this fact. I know, it almost like some put their hands up to their ears and scream "lalalalalalalalalalala, I don't hear you".
8
posted on
02/20/2006 4:50:26 PM PST
by
Dane
( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
To: spetznaz
However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked.There are other questions that are equally important. Like, for example, if this company doesn't do it, who will? There aren't any American companies who can, and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution.
To: Dane
The media sure is not helping.
To: Dane
And all those folks will keep their jobs, and they don't have to worry about any orders that might let something slide by, because, obviously, even though the company is run by an Arab government, the American employees will be running everything... //sarcasm
11
posted on
02/20/2006 4:55:59 PM PST
by
ER Doc
To: speekinout
There are other questions that are equally important. Like, for example, if this company doesn't do it, who will? There aren't any American companies who can, and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong. Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution But it feels so good to go knee jerk without thinking of the consequences.
12
posted on
02/20/2006 5:00:08 PM PST
by
Dane
( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
To: spetznaz
"However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked. Especially when you consider that ports are a huge Achilles heel for the US." I believe the times in which we live demand that no foreign nation be given charge over any point of entry and that any person employed within the area of that port be thoroughly screened by American security officials. I know that's asking a lot, but how much are you willing to do in order to stop something very very lethal from entering through these ports?
I don't limit my objections to muzzie nations. Although they would be at the top of the banned list.
I have no illusions about the sincerity any of the Democrats complaining about this. If Bush wasn't behind it they would support it in the name of tolerance.
13
posted on
02/20/2006 5:02:41 PM PST
by
isrul
To: Dane
The company may be ok, but ya can't trust the Arabs working in it. 99.9% muslim = at least 10% sympathetic to terror groups.
14
posted on
02/20/2006 5:03:00 PM PST
by
observer5
("Better violate the rights of a few, than of all!)
To: Dane
This issue is a "perception" problem, Dane.
And, the Republican's have handed the Rats a gift horse.
sw
15
posted on
02/20/2006 5:04:07 PM PST
by
spectre
(Spectre's wife)
To: spectre
and they are killing us with it. tis story is even making the news blurb at the top of the hour on music radio stations.
To: spectre
And, the Republican's have handed the Rats a gift horse.
At least now the Democrats are on record supporting profiling. Can we start searching Mohammed more than granny at the airport?
17
posted on
02/20/2006 5:07:47 PM PST
by
P-40
(http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
To: speekinout
So they had been running fine for 200+ years by us; what happened?
To: Dane
But it feels so good to go knee jerk without thinking of the consequences.LOL.
To: villagerjoel
So they had been running fine for 200+ years by us; what happened?The Brits have had those contracts for years. Most ports are owned by local Port Authorities. The Port Authority has a lot of varied work (some of them are also responsible for airports). The largest ports have a lot of the routine work contracted out, and container transfer is just one of those things.
I don't know why no American co. has ever gone into that business, but the truth is that none did. Internationally, there seems to be only 3 cos. left who do it - this one, based in Dubai, and one each in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-177 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson