Posted on 04/16/2012 9:50:48 AM PDT by Mr Apple
“If you look at the islands in question, it will become clear why we agreed that they should be Russian, and why so few people are worked up over this.”
Not this crap, yet again...
State has NEVER had a claim on these islands, they are far closer to Russia, than to Alaska, and the largest has been the home of of a Russian colony since the 1910’s, as well as a Soviet Early Warning Radar Station, and an Interceptor Air Base until the late 80’s.
Jimma Cotta gave away the Panama Canal, your bozo POS r-sident has to follow suit to some how make friends with China as a double down deal.
FUBO!
Excerpt:
[Carl] Olson believes that the United States has lost three groups of islands: one off the coast of Alaska, one in the central Pacific, and one in the Caribbean. He asserts that some of the lost Alaskan islands -- there are eight in all, including Wrangel Island, which he describes as being "the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined" -- were acquired from Russia in the 1867 Alaska Purchase and that the rest were claimed for the United States upon their discovery, by various explorers, in 1881. Today, though, they are all claimed by Russia -- something that is not contested by the United States. This bothers Olson. A lot. He filed several inquiries with the State Department and never, he says, received a satisfactory response.
> Thats all he can do for now.
> After the election hell have more flexibility....
That’s when he’ll be able to give away the whole state of Alaska.
The one bright side to this us that the US would probably never authorize the exploitation of the oil fields up there. Or if we did the process for getting approval to do so would be so time consuming and burdensome that it would never be practical.
The Russians operate under no such constraints or limitations. If we can’t get that oil out at least someone will, and getting it onto the world market will offset demand and lower, or at least slow, energy related price increases. And it’ll be done by the fairly pragmatic Russians (who need the revenue stream) rather than Middle Eastern theocrats or Central American ideologues.
Would not the original treaty of sale, in 1867, have clearly defined the boundaries?
Might as well claim that region between Alaska and the Lower 49. (Formerly known as “Canada”.)
And with little regard for the environment, unlike American oil companies. The current will carry their spills toward the rest of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (US and Canada).
Then the Communist Ecowhackos here will blame it on our oil industry.
It did, very clearly. The islands are in Russia.
This is a fake issue Joe. Those islands have never been part of the US.
On to real stuff, WTI is going to start getting a little more competitive with this:
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/04/16/537913/
Enbridge Inc. and Enterprise Products Partners LP plan to start crude oil shipments on the Seaway pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the U.S. Gulf Coast on about May 17, according to a filing with regulators.
...
The shipping duration will be reduced to about five days after the lines capacity is boosted to about 400,000 barrels early next year...
Uncommitted rates will be $3.82 a barrel for light crude and $4.32 for heavy crude...
Five-year committed agreements to ship light oil in volumes less than 100,000 barrels a day will cost between $2.75 and $3 a barrel. Ten-year agreements for the same grade of oil and the same volume will cost between $2.50 and $2.75...
I can not find a direct link to this Miller piece, but I am sure the facts presented here are correct.
A simple google search produced numerous stories on the issue, which caused me to believe there is far more to the story then what was presented here.
If you do your own search, you may not find anything Sarah Palin has said about the subject. If not, that should tell you all you need to know about the island issue.
If you read the article, the treaty of 1867 did not address these islands. Some were later discovered and “claimed” by an American afterwards. The U.S. has never officially asserted a claim to them. Clearly, any U.S. claim would be outside of the 1867 sale of Alaska. Certainly the Alaska legislation cannot have any say, since the Constitution leaves foreign relations to the Federal Government, and the land in question was never part of Alaska. In this case, I agree with the Russians and the State Department.
One the islands, Copper Island, is directly mentioned by name as the border was placed between it and Attu. Copper was on the Russian side.
The treaty does not list every island in the area, but uses some islands and some of the mainland to determine where the dividing line was drawn. All of those islands reside on the Russian side of the border.
Read the following description of the Western border from the 1867 treaty and tell me how any of those islands west of the border actually belong to the US:
The western limit within which the territories and dominion conveyed, are contained, passes through a point in Behring's straits on the parallel of sixty-five degrees thirty minutes north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes midway between the islands of Krusenstern, or Inaglook, and the island of Ratmanoff, or Noonarbook, and proceeds due north, without limitation, into the same Frozen ocean. The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, proceeds thence in a course nearly southwest through Behring's straits and Behring's sea, so as to pass midway between the northwest point of the island of St. Lawrence and the southeast point of Cape Choukotski, to the meridian of one hundred and seventy-two west longitude; thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and the Copper island of the Kormandorski couplet or group in the North Pacific ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that meridian.
Thanks for clearing that up ;)
Sorry, only the first sentence was intended a direct response to you. The remainder was intended as general info to the thread readers and should have been shown in separate post.
Cheers.
I am still sincerely grateful. Your response was clearer, more informative and more detailed than the original article.
Obama has made many, many real mistakes. Accusing him of false items only makes us look like fools. It makes the real problems doubtful when combined with stuff like this.
I would not be surprised to learn that some of them are written by his supporters, trying to draw in gullible conservatives.
To be clear, I don’t consider Joe Miller an Obama supporter.
I was very surprised when I first learned of this article. I suspect someone he trusted was fooled by this an encouraged him to write it, without doing any real research. But I am only guess.
My fear is he has recognized the fund raising ability of accusing Obama of this junk and is willing to deceive gullible supporters. I have nothing to base that upon, only a worse case scenario.
As his article concludes at the end, Obama has done the exact same thing as President Bush did on this issue, that is nothing. The maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department and Russia only confirmed the original 1867 treaty as the border still today. The dispute of the islands only exist in the minds of a few, and not with either government.
bm
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.