Skip to comments.
Ecuador sends military to guard oil facilities seized from Occidental
AP via Charleston Daily Mail ^
| 17 May 2006
| Gonzalo Solano
Posted on 05/17/2006 12:52:30 PM PDT by Rockitz
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
Presidente Jorge Arbusto is acting decisively to protect US oil interests, but can't quite claim the same with regard to the borders of his own country? Is it sinking in yet Bushbots?
1
posted on
05/17/2006 12:52:32 PM PDT
by
Rockitz
To: Rockitz
"But officials said the cancellation of Occidental's operating contracts and the seizure of its assets did not mean the Andean nation is nationalizing its oil industry."
You have to wonder about the intellect of someone who would ask such a question, or who would make such a suggestion.
2
posted on
05/17/2006 12:55:25 PM PDT
by
Brilliant
To: Rockitz
Please explain exactly what you mean, Rockitz. I don't see what you are driving at. Be explicit.
3
posted on
05/17/2006 12:55:26 PM PDT
by
rlmorel
("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
To: Rockitz
seizing Occidental's facilities is probably acting to protect the intrests of free human beings anywhere....Considering the purpose of that companies existance.
4
posted on
05/17/2006 12:57:38 PM PDT
by
Dead Dog
To: rlmorel
Please explain exactly what you mean, Rockitz. I don't see what you are driving at. Be explicit.Surely you jest? Read my tagline.
5
posted on
05/17/2006 12:58:46 PM PDT
by
Rockitz
(This isn't rocket science- Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
To: Dead Dog
Uhhhhh... maybe I'm missing something, but how does seizing the assets of a US oil company protect the interests of free human beings everywhere?
6
posted on
05/17/2006 1:00:59 PM PDT
by
snowrip
(Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
To: Rockitz
Surely you jest? Read my tagline Does that mean you don't have anything else to offer other than goof ball innuendo?
7
posted on
05/17/2006 1:01:08 PM PDT
by
paul51
(11 September 2001 - Never forget)
To: Rockitz
No. I am not jesting. I am curious.
8
posted on
05/17/2006 1:01:16 PM PDT
by
rlmorel
("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
To: Rockitz
The looters have started.........Ayn Rand, you were a profit......sic
9
posted on
05/17/2006 1:04:35 PM PDT
by
Red Badger
(Liberals reward sloth and revere incompetence...........)
To: Rockitz
Is there any way you can raise your points/concerns without the rancorous disrespect for the President? Honestly, this is the sort of crap that has really been getting out of hand lately and needs to stop.
10
posted on
05/17/2006 1:06:30 PM PDT
by
Spruce
(Keep your mitts off my wallet)
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: Rockitz
This move by Ecuador and the actions of that Venezuelan nut-job Chavez does no bode well for foreign investment in that area. Without foreign investment, expertise and leadership, they'll never get out of the stone ages, especially with their vast supply of stones.
To: Rockitz
But officials said the cancellation of Occidental's operating contracts and the seizure of its assets did not mean the Andean nation is nationalizing its oil industry. Oh? So IOW they're going to hold it for ransom?
13
posted on
05/17/2006 1:07:59 PM PDT
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: Dead Dog
Occidental is an old Soviet front business that helped prop up the Soviets.
14
posted on
05/17/2006 1:08:43 PM PDT
by
Dead Dog
To: Red Badger
When I saw this thread, I was going to come in and post "Ayn Rand Looter Ping"...but I was curious when I read his commentary.
I can draw a lot of inferences from his tagline, but I was interested in what exactly which inference I should follow through to the conclusion.
15
posted on
05/17/2006 1:10:05 PM PDT
by
rlmorel
("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
To: Spruce
Is there any way you can raise your points/concerns without the rancorous disrespect for the President?Admittedly, it's been difficult of late. I'll leave it at that.
16
posted on
05/17/2006 1:13:55 PM PDT
by
Rockitz
(This isn't rocket science- Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
To: Spruce
I agree, his tone is disrespectful not just to President Bush but to people who support the President on many issues and are labeled "Bushbots" even if you agree with him or defend him on ANY issue. Heck, if we can't discuss the issue civilly here, how can we expect to have the discussion with liberals? And how can we get upset if our elected officials adopt the same tone and nothing gets done?
Anyway, I *think* I know what his point is, but I want to hear it to be sure what his point is.
17
posted on
05/17/2006 1:15:05 PM PDT
by
rlmorel
("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
To: Rockitz
18
posted on
05/17/2006 1:15:25 PM PDT
by
rlmorel
("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
To: rlmorel
It is difficult to ascertain just what he means........
19
posted on
05/17/2006 1:15:50 PM PDT
by
Red Badger
(Liberals reward sloth and revere incompetence...........)
To: rlmorel
I've read it thrice and I'm not sure what he's driving at either, but I suspect he's insinuating that Bush only acts to protect Big Oil (a handy bugaboo).
20
posted on
05/17/2006 1:16:07 PM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll. 17,400+ snide replies and counting!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 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