Skip to comments.
Ecuador wants military base in Miami
Reuters ^
| 10/22/07
| Phil Stewart
Posted on 10/22/2007 8:38:02 PM PDT by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 last
To: LibWhacker
Fine. He has to pay rent and abide by zoning and other land use laws.
61
posted on
10/25/2007 4:32:32 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(anti-razors are pro-life)
To: billbears; VOA; George W. Bush; Extremely Extreme Extremist
We live in scary times. Orwell was prescient, he was just a couple of decades off.
62
posted on
10/25/2007 4:44:36 PM PDT
by
NCSteve
(I am not arguing with you - I am telling you. -- James Whistler)
To: LibWhacker
"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States." His logic is impeccable.
63
posted on
10/25/2007 4:50:30 PM PDT
by
NCSteve
(I am not arguing with you - I am telling you. -- James Whistler)
To: traviskicks
U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes. We can't even secure our own borders or put down an insurgence in a country we're occupying, but we can run surveillance operations on Pacific drug-runners. What's wrong with this picture?
64
posted on
10/25/2007 4:53:45 PM PDT
by
NCSteve
(I am not arguing with you - I am telling you. -- James Whistler)
To: NCSteve
Good for ecuador! Saving US taxpayer dollars when our politicians won’t.
65
posted on
10/25/2007 5:17:54 PM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
To: rbmillerjr
Its time we slap one down as an example. Yes Im calling for military intervention.
So we should invade every rotting third world piece of earth? We should applaud this guy for standing up to the failed and counterproductive US 'war on drugs'; we should condemn him for pursing his leftist policies that are impoversihing his own country. The US has military in over 130 countries around the world, im not quite sure what is being accomplished in all those places.
66
posted on
10/25/2007 5:21:00 PM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
To: billbears
You misread his statement.
“don’t” and “shouldN’T” meaning, that he does not believe that Americans should be silent about their government.
He then WENT ON to elaborate about what he meant with regard to Carter/Church and the expectations of conducting foreign policy in a certain, unrealistic way.
I’m not sure where you got the idea he was saying Americans shouldn’t question.
67
posted on
10/25/2007 5:22:55 PM PDT
by
Skywalk
(Transdimensional Jihad!)
To: NCSteve
I forgot to ping you but billbear misread the poster’s statement. Disagree with the rest of his post all you want or let’s have a discussion but billbear clearly misread it as saying something totally objectionable to any member of FR when that is clearly (just read the statement) not what he meant or typed.
68
posted on
10/25/2007 5:24:38 PM PDT
by
Skywalk
(Transdimensional Jihad!)
To: LibWhacker
Close the base and then close our borders. You don’t need that type of drug interdiction unless the US keeps an open border policy.
To: traviskicks
To: billbears
Billbears, that was a double negative. VOA was in complete agreement with you, that people should question their governments.
To: billbears
I don't think US citizens shouldn't question actions of THEIR government.
I apologize.
I didn't know I was setting a trap by my use of that most improper
form of English, the double negative.
Here is what I should have said to MAKE IT SIMPLE:
I believe US citizens should question actions of their government.
At the same time, I understand some US citizens believe there should
be no government secrets and no covert actions.
Even in a world where a phalanx of foreign powers practice
covert warfare against the USA as part of government policy.
And in this free country, I disagree with that point of view.
72
posted on
10/26/2007 8:10:34 AM PDT
by
VOA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 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