Which are, I understand, being looked at again starting next week. Of course some countries allow other countries to run ports. I never said they didn't. What I said was that the countries you choose to allow into your security structure in such a way need to be trusted. Not all countries are trusted (nor should they be) by other countries. Each set of countries has a different set of interests (constantly changing) which control the interaction between those countries.
Before 9/11, we did not notice that ports were a potential security hole. We saw it as a cheap source of products. That the closer we could lure the external companies into our bossum, the better for our economy. This still may be true of the economy. We will learn in fairly short order. But we learned (I hope) after 9/11 that we have to temper open economic systems with some security concerns. Not everyone we want to trade with necessarily has our security interests at heart. Since this is a recent change in policy, and policy tends to swing in big pendulum motions before it settles down, we are probably going to err on the side of paranoia for a while. On 3/10/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Point being that outher countries allow foreign owned firms to run > port operations. Remember that this country does have several ports > that are run by a Chinese company. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199529 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
