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: Elroy who wrote (277388)	3/1/2006 11:26:37 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572931

Admittedly, I don't have much knowledge of port operations other than what I've read recently, but I suspect you are in the same boat. So are you claiming to be an expert in this area or more of an expert than me? If not, then your opinion is about as useful as mine is. As it stands now, my opinion is that operations and security are inextricably interlinked. To deny that link is taking a risk in a very high stakes game. If there's no reason to take the risk, then why do it?

To: Elroy who wrote (277388)	3/2/2006 2:46:34 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572931

Yes, I would argue that ports should be all American owned. Or at the very least, only very strong, time tested allies should own them (like the UK or Israel). As far as I know the US ports are all American owned, we're talking about managing the operations, not ownership. We're also talking about foreign companies owning the contract to manage the operations. The feet on the ground at US ports (as far as I know) are probably 100% unionized Americans. So it'w ownership of operations contracts that is causing this uproar, not ownership of facilities or even foreign workforce. Yes, you are right......its ownership of the mgmt contracts, not the ports that's up for discussion.