Obama gives away oil to Russia

It is an old issue indeed. In fact, World Net Daily itself published a July 29, 2008, article critical of the State Department for the “island giveaway.” Of course, George W. Bush — not Obama — was president at the time. (The Bush administration’s official Arctic Region Policy stated that the U.S. would abide by the 1990 maritime agreement and would continue to urge the Russian Federation to ratify it.)
And we’re not sure why Miller mentions only seven islands when Olson always has insisted the U.S. has a claim to eight. But whatever the count, it is simply false to claim that Obama is “giving away” islands to which no U.S. president has asserted a claim for more than 85 years, if ever.

What is on these islands? What difference would it make?

What is on these islands? What difference would it make? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

JD is trying to bash Obama with this silly issue.

There is plenty of reason to bash Obama, why JD decided to use this stupid one is beyond me.

I could care less if anyone bashes the prez. but to sling shit just to see if it stcks to the wall is childish. Seems to be quite a few kids on this playground

Since we seem to be involved in military banter at the moment what do you lot think about the escalating Falklands situation? I think its getting a bit bad. Argentina are begging to get the shit shelled out of em again. Ricky Gervais does a funny bit about this in one of his stand up routines. Its bloody spot on! Originally Posted by liberaldevil

Here's an interesting article on how the Regan administration's position during the Falklands war, liberaldevil might find this interesting.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...osullivan?pg=1

Okay, I'll bite WTF. What is there to bash Obama about?

As for what I posted; will the islands end up in the hands of the Russians? The answer is yes. Will Americans be forced to leave or become Russians? The answer is yes. Did this happen on Obama's watch? The answer is yes.

Now let me hear you bash Obama.

Okay, I'll bite WTF. What is there to bash Obama about?

As for what I posted; will the islands end up in the hands of the Russians? The answer is yes. Will Americans be forced to leave or become Russians? The answer is yes. Did this happen on Obama's watch? The answer is yes.

. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Does anybody give a shit? No.

Now let me hear you bash Obama. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Obama,quit trying to help returning Vets find jobs. That is what the private sector is for. Government's job is to fights wars with its citizens, not to find jobs for those that return. Read the Constitution Obama! If you do not believe me just ask Tea Party JD.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...ens/?mobile=nc

Okay, I'll bite WTF. What is there to bash Obama about?

As for what I posted; will the islands end up in the hands of the Russians? The answer is yes. Will Americans be forced to leave or become Russians? The answer is yes. Did this happen on Obama's watch? The answer is yes.

Now let me hear you bash Obama. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

the fucking article you used for a reference said "your" claim was FALSE !

Laughing like a fool. That article did no such thing. What that article said that this has been an ongoing thing. There have been claims by Americans on the islands (you notice they are called Americans and not Russians). This reminds me of the Panama Canal Zone. The US BOUGHT the land on both sides of the canal when it was built. It was US territory owned by Americans. Jimmy Carter came along and gave it away. Land that was not even owned by the US in some cases was given away by Mr. Peanut. Now I guess you can tell me that since it has all been resolved then it was okay to do it.

Is it really necessary to point out that when I posted it was at the bottom of the page?

http://factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/
You can facts supporting what I said here and you can find facts opposing what I posted originally. An unratified treaty with a country that no longer exists is the basis that the US has no claim on these islands. Some of those islands have US citizens living on them but not all. The article concludes that no president has ever claimed the islands but the maps deny this. At one time the islands were US territory just like the Falklands were, and are, UK territory. There wasn't much question of that until the Argies tried to take them. I imagine that there all kinds of islands around the world that no one has ever claimed because no one ever really cared except the people living there.
So it seems to me that American citizens don't want to be Russian citizens.

I will also point out that the author Brooks Jackson is a left leaning writer/reporter for NPR, CNN, the Wallstreet Journal, and is the director of the Annenberg Foundation. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

sure it did ... see the factcheck link you posted above click it and read the last paragraph/s ... then read the c/p I offered you above with the live links

then consider yourself a moron.

glad I could help teach, fee free to call on me anytime

We are now arguing semantics. I didn't see your comment about Mr. Jackson and his biased journalism. The US is short some land if this continues. You can, and I am sure will, continue to proclaim victory but that does not change the results. This has gotten stupid so I'm done with this topic. I am hoping that you have some land taken from you some day by the government like so many others have.

and one day, I hope you have the courage to be man enough to say you were mistaken when you are.

The End

and one day, I hope you have the courage to be man enough to say you were mistaken when you are.

The End Originally Posted by CJ7

lol

Laughing like a fool. That article did no such thing. What that article said that this has been an ongoing thing. There have been claims by Americans on the islands (you notice they are called Americans and not Russians). This reminds me of the Panama Canal Zone. The US BOUGHT the land on both sides of the canal when it was built. It was US territory owned by Americans. Jimmy Carter came along and gave it away. Land that was not even owned by the US in some cases was given away by Mr. Peanut. Now I guess you can tell me that since it has all been resolved then it was okay to do it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What gets me is these are facts you could easily check before or confirm after you had posted.
Plus the fact you use incorrect facts for your anecdotal stories trashes any credibility you could have.

The US buying land in a foreign land does not make that land US territory.

Moot point.

The US backed a revolution and signed a treaty just 3 days after Panama broke away from Columbia. Not only did the US not buy the land it paid the French for the concession of building and operating the canal, paid money to Panama, and paid money to Columbia. The French never owned the land, only the right to build on it and operate the canal.

Pretty straight forward. You don't teach history, do you?


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h932.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal

“Panama declared their independence the next day, November 3, 1903. The U. S. quickly recognized the new nation of Panama. On November 6, 1903, Phillipe Bunau-Varilla, Panama's ambassador to the United States, signed the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, granting rights to the United States to build and indefinitely administer the Panama Canal Zone and its defenses.”

JDB, I went back and read your first 2 posts in this thread. You said it right there. Fuckem...