See five brief insertions below:
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] multibanger prospects looking up Re: Islands in dispute
between USA and others
> hmm
> 2 weeks now
> & i still think it was a good idea you asked
> even if just to gauge the possible degree of bewilderment caused by the
> question
You are correct. Not a word from the folks at Insular Affairs.
> & when i checked back at their website today just to see if they have reacted
> to you yet
> http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/disputedpage.htm
> i noticed if i point the mouse to
> united states
> at the bottom of the tabulated list under sovereignty on the left side of the
> page
> there is a dysfunctional link still indicated there expressly for serranilla
> http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/disputedpage.htm#Serranilla%20Bank:
>
> i also noticed that the word
> none
> which appears under
> remaining united states claims
> is not in the original font
> suggesting someone may have quietly monkeyed with this text after the fact
>
> possibly the same party who enlarged upon kiribati in paragraph 1 in the wrong
> font too
>
> but whoever & whatever caused this could well have been in conjunction or in
> parallel with
> the similar change at the cia site
> which you mention in message 17391
>
> & yikes
> now look at this other oia page too
> which the revisionists must have overlooked
> http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/acquisition_process.htm
I called that page to their attention specifically.
> & which came from here
> http://www.doi.gov/oia/Firstpginfo/islandfactsheet.htm
> which is dated today at top right
> tho actually not so freshly updated at lower left
Todays date at top right is inserted by your own computer in response to a
Javascript in the HTML of the web page. Lots of web sites use that trick.
> & i also noticed in the meantime this interesting footnote to appendix 2
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/gov.us.fed.congress.gao.reports/browse_thread/
> thread/c77a97955d7a1d0/5860e0a1590eabd6?
> q=serranilla+bajo+nuevo&rnum=15&hl=en#5860e0a1590eabd6
> which at least postdates all the purported cessions of the 1980s
The original source of this material is the GAO document that I quoted in BP
post 17361.
> but dont you think all these oia jokers are really too insulated anyway
> or just out island hopping or having affairs or something
> & that we really do need to hail the chief himself in this case
>
> i know they sometimes do answer pointed queries over there at the oval office
> especially if no one else can
> as appears to be the case here
>
> not to mention the likely political sensitivity again
>
>
> so how about redirecting your original inquiry at this point
> to the place where you have already determined the buck really does stop in
> this case
I'm not interested in contacting the White House on this topic. Feel free to do
so if you wish. See my next post for some newly found old information that
might help.
[End of insertions]
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>>
>> good thinking
>> since why bother bush
>> when this may suffice to settle it
>>
>> & will be fun in any case
>> as i think we may well have stumbled on at least 1 quadribanger
>> miniarchipelago here
>> which might at least equal the greatest number of known national claims to
>> any
> naturally
>> dry land in the world that we are aware of
>> on several of the individual spratly islands
>> even if we dont any longer have
>> or never had
>> a true quintibanger
>>
>>
>> but doesnt the situation feel eerily similar to the way china dropped her
>> claim to sikkim
>> by quietly modifying a map & or list on a government web page one night in
>> 2003
>>
>> except that that occurred rather poignantly in the midst of a cnin
>> negotiation iirc
>>
>> whereas in this case
>> there would not appear to have been any specific discussions between the usa
>> & any of
> the
>> 4 other putative claimants sufficient to have driven such definitive events
>> or at least i dont recall being aware of any
>> while there would appear to be some political factors to inhibit dropping the
>> claims
>> out loud anyway
>>
>> & so the question may well boil down to exactly how & when do claims such as
>> these
>> cease to have legal effect
>>
>> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
>> wrote:
>> > Mike D. wrote:
>> >
>> > > & i like your subsequent truly original finding
>> > > as well as your laying it at the feet of bush where it apparently
>> > > actually now
>> > > belongs
>> > > as we scribble
>> > > but are you then just going to stop there
>> > > or are you going to ask freakin bush
>> > > hahaha
>> >
>> > > or am i supposed to take responsibility for your extravagance & ask him
>> > > myself
>> > > hahahaha
>> >
>> > Before receiving your question above, I have just sent an e-mail inquiry to
>> > Nikolau Pula, Director of the Office of Insular affairs. After setting out
>> > the
>> > inconsistencies on the OIA web site concerning the two places in question,
>> > I
>> > asked him:
>> >
>> > > What is the current position, if any, of the US government on the status
>> > > of
>> > > these islands? Has there been any official determination, or is it the
>> > > policy
>> > > just to ignore them? If there has been any official renunciation of the
>> > > US
>> > > claims, I would appreciate knowing when and to whom.
>> >
>> > Lowell G. McManus
>> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>