Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: denizen48 who wrote (276669)	2/26/2006 12:29:05 AM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 1572707

LOL, well said

To: denizen48 who wrote (276669)	2/26/2006 12:31:17 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572707

re you really that dense? Our side of the argument boils down to racism & yours is a lock analogy? Rather than rant, why don't you try to answer the key question? I'll repost it for you. These are not the questions - the question is does the organization managing the port have any control over US security? If so, how? If not, it's immaterial to US security which company manages the port. being concerned about the United Emirates controlling our port operations strikes you as politically incorrect? I didn't say that, I just said I haven't read or heard what EXACTLY it is about having an Arab company take control over port operations that increases US security risk. As far as I know, operating the port has ZERO to do with guaranteeing security. Did you read this part of the earlier post, or not? The explanations that I have read and heard are that "US security" at ports is handled by US agencies such as the coast guard, customs, etc., and they are completely unaffected by the transfer of management contracts from one company to another. It makes sense - as I've said we have Chinese and Singaporeans managing ports, I doubt the US gave up any security authority to the Chinese.