.
Seeings as Alaska is the moral property of Russia, i could never really support the states governer.
How so? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Russia sell Alaska to the US for peanuts because they had no use for it all them years ago?
.
Seeings as Alaska is the moral property of Russia, i could never really support the states governer.
How so? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Russia sell Alaska to the US for peanuts because they had no use for it all them years ago?
By the way I wouldn't say I'm "switched on" just yet, more like very hopeful because I think both McCain and Obama are schmucks.Okay Gling, you seem pretty switched on when it comes to Palin, do you know her thoughts on the Law of the Sea Treaty? I know that Lisa Murkowski, Alaskan Senator, has been trying to get the country to sign up to it. I think it's a bad idea because it will lead to conflict with Russia over an overlapping claim on an area of the Arctics resources.
How so? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Russia sell Alaska to the US for peanuts because they had no use for it all them years ago?
Seeings as Alaska is the moral property of Russia, i could never really support the states governer.
They did, for 7.2 million. I don't want to derail Glinas thread, so maybe i'll start up my own discussion.
oops busted
so why did you make the first comment then :unsure:
I will give you the Manhatten one. but not the Ruskies and AlaskaIt was just an off the cuff remark.
You know who else sold their land? The Navajo tribe sold Manhatten for 15 dollars. Manhatten is their moral property, because American knowingly conned them. The same is true of Alaska... which despite it's nickname "something-folley", it was purchased because the government realised it's resources were important for the countries development. Taking into consideration the vast amounts of gold and oil found there, 7.2 million (or 2 cents an acre) is just as bad as buying Manhatten for 15 dollars.
Why did you like Giuliani?
I will give you the Manhatten one. but not the Ruskies and Alaska
and you really are quite the complicated person if you went from Rudy to Hillary :nod:
It was just an off the cuff remark.
You know who else sold their land? The Navajo tribe sold Manhatten for 15 dollars. Manhatten is their moral property, because American knowingly conned them. The same is true of Alaska... which despite it's nickname "something-folley", it was purchased because the government realised it's resources were important for the countries development. Taking into consideration the vast amounts of gold and oil found there, 7.2 million (or 2 cents an acre) is just as bad as buying Manhatten for 15 dollars.
I never really heard that Russia were conned seeing that the US wern't exactly a threat back then. Sure, they probably didn't know about the value of it then but that sounds more like an unlucky bussiness break on Russias part to me, not a deliberate attempt by the US to rip them off.
First of all America was not even in existence when this happened and second, it was the Dutch who bought it. Third, they paid the Canarsies and not the Navajo. Funny thing was it was the Wickquasgeck who lived there so they bought it from the wrong people.It was just an off the cuff remark.
You know who else sold their land? The Navajo tribe sold Manhatten for 15 dollars. Manhatten is their moral property, because American knowingly conned them. The same is true of Alaska... which despite it's nickname "something-folley", it was purchased because the government realised it's resources were important for the countries development. Taking into consideration the vast amounts of gold and oil found there, 7.2 million (or 2 cents an acre) is just as bad as buying Manhatten for 15 dollars.
I think as a gesture of goodwill, the USA should forget it, and just let Russia have the resources, since they got Alaska.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.