OT: So hard to believe, Alaskan islands given away? WTF??

Here is an article about seven Alaskan islands being given away to Russia!! If this is true, WTF!!!?????
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/02/ ... oe-miller/

The Russians have been saying for years that Alaska was just a lease--not a sale.
But their economy has been in the crapper even longer than ours.
Maybe this is part of an agreement to make that go away?

Maybe you could say that there are "weapons of mass destruction" on the island and invade it and claim it that way.

With climate change (or not) and the opening of the Arctic seas it is all going to become a dog fight.

I never knew. Always thought was always part of the United States.

It was ours (USA's). That is, until someone in Washington thought it was theirs to do whatever they pleased with. Last I checked, the people of the state of Alaska and every law abiding citizen of the United States owned the land as they are ...or, WERE law abiding American tax paying citizens that helped pay for it. It doesn't and never did belong to some politician to just give it away willy-nilly. Imagine if politicians gave away long island, or Catalina Island off the coast of California. Same differrence. Is this a Democratic Republic, or a dictatorship?

I'm curious where the information comes from that says those are, or ever were, US islands. I can't find that documented anywhere.

From the State Department Fact Sheet (2009):

"The U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement was signed in 1990. The negotiations that led to that agreement did not address the status of Wrangel Island, Herald Island, Bennett Island, Jeannette Island, or Henrietta Island, all of which lie off Russia's Arctic coast, or Mednyy (Copper) Island or rocks off the coast of Mednyy Island in the Bering Sea. None of the islands or rocks above were included in the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and they have never been claimed by the United States, although Americans were involved in the discovery and exploration of some of them."

"The U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union on June 1, 1990, defines our maritime boundary in the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea, and northern Pacific Ocean. The U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement is a treaty that requires ratification by both parties before it formally enters into force. The treaty was made public at the time of its signing. In a separate exchange of diplomatic notes, the two countries agreed to apply the agreement provisionally. The United States Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement on September 16, 1991."

"The Russian Federation informed the United States Government by diplomatic note dated January 13, 1992, that it “continues to perform the rights and fulfill the obligations flowing from the international agreements” signed by the Soviet Union. The United States and the Russian Federation, which is considered to be the sole successor state to the treaty rights and obligations of the former Soviet Union for the purposes of the U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement, are applying the treaty on a provisional basis, pending its ratification by the Russian Federation."

"The United States regularly holds discussions with Russia on Bering Sea issues, particularly issues related to fisheries management, but these discussions do not affect the placement of the U.S.-Russia boundary or the jurisdiction over any territory or the sovereignty of any territory. The United States has no intention of reopening discussion of the 1990 Maritime Boundary Agreement."

"Maggie's Notebook" does not look like a reputable non-partisan source of information.

Have you reviewed the Wikipedia article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR–USA_M ... _Agreement

The oil in the area and sea around the islands has been found to be worthwhile so our leaders have decided to give it to our enemys and later buy the oil back at inflated prices. Or maybe just buy it back and give it to europe or japan. This country is up for grabs from all sides, the sharke are circleing and the worst ones work for us. Jim

NateS wrote:"Maggie's Notebook" does not look like a reputable non-partisan source of information.

I'm not sure it's a reputable partisan source even! Same for World Net Daily from which they extracted their info.

idamtnboy wrote:

NateS wrote:"Maggie's Notebook" does not look like a reputable non-partisan source of information.

I'm not sure it's a reputable partisan source even! Same for World Net Daily from which they extracted their info.

I agree. Mainly because it's so hard to know who is telling the truth and who is a liar these days, or whether they are just giving you a half truth. They did talk to Joe Miller aparently, a senator, who claims the events are true and needs to be reveresed. It's so hard to know anymore who is lying to us and who is telling us the truth. So many politicians and media outlets are willing to lie right to our faces and while claiming it's the truth at the same time. I get so disheartened when I think about how our elected officials while toeing their party lines on all sides will put their ideology and party over all else. It's like no one has a concience anymore, like they are all con artists, or willing to be led by can artists. How do you get to the bottom of things when you can't tell who's lying and who's not? You can't even follow the money now most of the time, and figure it out that way because they have learned to hide their money trails.
Another thing, like when they name bills in ways to make it seem they will benefit you, while it's really just a new favor for their crony friends. The titles have nothing to do with what's inside. Like putting porn inside the cover of the Bible, and saying garbage like "you have to pass the bill to know what's inside the bill". I'm losing faith in humanity I suppose. No one seems to want to stand up for what's right anymore. Or, they've been so confused on what's right and wrong they don't know the difference now.
Did this really happen? Or, did it not? I don't know. If so, how, and better yet, WHY? What's worse, really, is that we'll likely never be told the truth. It will be covered up. People in power don't respect the law unless it futhers their political adjenda.

Lies are everywhere.
The first words one should doubt are, "trust me".

"The U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union on June 1, 1990,

The date on this is important. At that time Climate Change was a small rumble that was easy to deny and mostly only concerned Ozone holes. They didn't expect to have the possibility of open waters in the Arctic or the need of Arctic oil. They were giving up rocks in icy water.

It was also just after the fall of the Berlin wall and communism so it was a nice gesture to give them a barren rock

islandboy5150 wrote:Mainly because it's so hard to know who is telling the truth and who is a liar these days, or whether they are just giving you a half truth. They did talk to Joe Miller aparently, a senator, who claims the events are true and needs to be reveresed. It's so hard to know anymore who is lying to us and who is telling us the truth.

I came across a discussion of this issue on statedepartmentwatch.com (I think that's it). It's a clearly biased site. The 1990 treaty was negotiated in secret by Kissinger and Nixon, but most all high level government to government agreements are negotiated in secret so what's the big deal? The Senate did ratify the treaty. The 1990 agreement was to clarify what was agreed to when Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1897. The wrench in the works is the treaty was with the Soviet Union which dissolved not long after. Russia has stated it is honoring the treaty as the successor to the SU. The guys stirring up the pot are arguing the treaty was never ratified by the Russia. But things work different over there, right? How valid that argument is I have no idea.

But another complication is several of the islands had not been discovered when the US bought Alaska. Some were on the Russian side, and some off the Arctic coast, closer to American territory but apparently never formally claimed by the US.

Joe Miller, I think, maybe is trying to an "Indian giver" as we used to say when we were kids. Now that we have a better idea of the oil reserves around the islands he thinks we should take them back.

idamtnboy wrote:

islandboy5150 wrote:Mainly because it's so hard to know who is telling the truth and who is a liar these days, or whether they are just giving you a half truth. They did talk to Joe Miller aparently, a senator, who claims the events are true and needs to be reveresed. It's so hard to know anymore who is lying to us and who is telling us the truth.

I came across a discussion of this issue on statedepartmentwatch.com (I think that's it). It's a clearly biased site. The 1990 treaty was negotiated in secret by Kissinger and Nixon, but most all high level government to government agreements are negotiated in secret so what's the big deal? The Senate did ratify the treaty. The 1990 agreement was to clarify what was agreed to when Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1897. The wrench in the works is the treaty was with the Soviet Union which dissolved not long after. Russia has stated it is honoring the treaty as the successor to the SU. The guys stirring up the pot are arguing the treaty was never ratified by the Russia. But things work different over there, right? How valid that argument is I have no idea.

But another complication is several of the islands had not been discovered when the US bought Alaska. Some were on the Russian side, and some off the Arctic coast, closer to American territory but apparently never formally claimed by the US.

Joe Miller, I think, maybe is trying to an "Indian giver" as we used to say when we were kids. Now that we have a better idea of the oil reserves around the islands he thinks we should take them back.

Makes perfect sense to me. Probably right on with that one. Im sitting here telling myself "I shoulda thought of that"