Originally posted by kmax87I already said I agree Australia hasn't been perfectly correct in the whole issue. But to say that they sent troops to topple the Prime Minister is absurd.
The whole ppoint of my posts was that Australia initially offered a much more favourable 60/40 split in favour of ET and then settled on an 85/15 split in favour of ET, only as long as ET agreed that that arangement would only be limited to the TST and as long as ET recognised Australia's right to extend its claim for oil under the sea bed way past the limit ...[text shortened]... n rob someone of something and then claim humanitarian Kudo's for at least not murdering them.
Your government withdrew from the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea shortly before Timor's independence. If they joined them again, all this would be over much more transparently.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou asked a stupid question, I gave the obvious answer. That was why they maintained support.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether he's Prime Minister or not they serve until the end of the mandate; he did resign and the members of parliament are still in office until next year's election.
Originally posted by no1marauderMy point exactly is that whether you are red white & blue, pink, green, black or grey the fact that Phillips and El Paso have had expectations placed on them to pump oil in the direction of the world's 6th largest economy(that's Californighyeah to you yokel) surely must place the microcosm of minituae of political events on the ground in ET in some sort of perspective. A colony set adrift by its colonial master to somehow get a working functioning democracy underway whilst a hegemon sits waiting to pounce on its bounty before the local waking giant China starts ruffling the feathers of the worlds largest Muslim democracy Indonesia. Call me a glutton for conspiracist pap, but there's more to the picture than meets the eye, hey hey, my my.
Yes, every time there is a riot in any country the usual procedure is to have foreign troops move in and then one month later the leader resigns. Happens all the time. I guess France wasn't stable last year so all its agreements should have been deferred for 50 years.
Originally posted by PalynkaBy your, I suppose you mean the US or did you mean Australia, in either case it doesnt matter, but how many years before ET's independence did 'your' withdraw from its International obligations, and if you claim that that was a small detail a mere coincidence, then the dynamics of oil and large scale economies might seem like toy town simplification and yes, the notion that Australia in any way could have helped foment any unrest outside of its own borders is patently absurd.
..Your government withdrew from the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea shortly before Timor's independence. If they joined them again, all this would be over much more transparently.
Originally posted by kmax87I meant Australia.
By your, I suppose you mean the US or did you mean Australia, in either case it doesnt matter, but how many years before ET's independence did 'your' withdraw from its International obligations, and if you claim that that was a small detail a mere coincidence, then the dynamics of oil and large scale economies might seem like toy town simplification and yes, ...[text shortened]... in any way could have helped foment any unrest outside of its own borders is patently absurd.
I don't understand the rest of your post, sorry.
(with the exception of the last sentence, and that was what I was arguing here with no1: He claims Australia sent troops to force the resignation of the PM by intimidation)
Originally posted by PalynkaWTF??? Why would Parliament be dissolved?? HE DID RESIGN AND PARLIAMENT WASN'T DISSOLVED! Therefore, the party asking for his resignation would have had no effect on their "mandate". What about that don't you get?
The Parliament wasn't dissolved and didn't block Ramos Horta appointment. What's wrong with your picture?
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd you claim it was all a fantastic coincidence.
I meant Australia.
I don't understand the rest of your post, sorry.
(with the exception of the last sentence, and that was what I was arguing here with no1: He claims Australia sent troops to force the resignation of the PM by intimidation)
Originally posted by PalynkaMarch 2002 - two months before East Timor's independence, Australia withdrew from the maritime boundary jurisdiction of the two international arbitration bodies used to settle such disputes, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
I already said I agree Australia hasn't been perfectly correct in the whole issue. But to say that they sent troops to topple the Prime Minister is absurd.
Your government withdrew from the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea shortly before Timor's independence. If they joined them again, all this would be over much more transparently.
If Australia joined these agencies again, East Timor could demand arbitration which they would certainly win. So Australia won't join them again until their puppet in East Timor gets the treaty ratified. And the troops will stay there in the interim to keep "order".
Originally posted by PalynkaI was arguing by contradiction by attempting to indicate the context of the world players around East Timor for whom the extraction of oil is an imminent and present ongoing concern. In terms of California's economy the oil that is extracted from ET has to be done so at a price that does not destabalise the broader US market by oversupply or hinder the market by not meeting optimum demand. The concerns of Island people's who had been under the colonial influence of a European power for a very long time within that context seem to suggest that the concerns of the East Timorese are of no concern to the wheels within wheels that make up economies like California's.
I meant Australia.
I don't understand the rest of your post, sorry.
(with the exception of the last sentence, and that was what I was arguing here with no1: He claims Australia sent troops to force the resignation of the PM by intimidation)
It is not unreasonable to assert or suggest therefore that the price offered for ET's oil was a function of an allowable variance within the commodity price of oil on some future's market. Within the volume of trade and commerce that that sort of speculation undergirds, it is therefore also not unreasonable to suggest that the demands made by East Timorese nationals for a better return on their resource would probably in some inverted way come to represent a form of extortion or in this current war on terror, be seen as a hostile act.
If therefore, Australia were to engage with the country as in its role as deputy it is sworn to do, it would therefore not be absurd for it to be in some way culpable for some of the recent trends and turns of events in ET.
Originally posted by kmax87I wouldn't expect their concerns to be in the equations of the oil companies.
I was arguing by contradiction by attempting to indicate the context of the world players around East Timor for whom the extraction of oil is an imminent and present ongoing concern. In terms of California's economy the oil that is extracted from ET has to be done so at a price that does not destabalise the broader US market by oversupply or hinder the market ...[text shortened]... for it to be in some way culpable for some of the recent trends and turns of events in ET.
But that's different from saying that Australia is putting a puppet there. Especially when the person in question is Ramos Horta.
No1 is all flurry and up in arms, because Ramos Horta was in favour of the War in Iraq. For him, anyone with such opinions must be a stooge for the oil companies.
Australia's fault in all this has been with regard to territorial claims, which they have no right to IMO, and this has over-extended negotiations about the exploration. Until these are concluded, the vultures will continue to circle and stability is hard to maintain, since there is much to be gained through corruption.
The sooner they are done, the better. This deal is an ok one and I'd rather see it go through than restart everything again and increase the danger of civil war.
Originally posted by PalynkaIn a lot of ways I would agree with you. Its a bit like being a musician who wants total artistic control in every aspect and phase of their product with the result that they overlook the word business in Music Business. Would you rather have 10% of a million bucks or 100% of bugger all.
The sooner they are done, the better. This deal is an ok one and I'd rather see it go through than restart everything again and increase the danger of civil war.
I have also been in a union that would regularly go out on strike, such that by the time you worked out how much the reduction in earning power while striking set you back economically, you would need a lot more than the 3 or 4 percent over and above the offer already made that the union I was in would often hold out for to ever compensate for all the lost wages.
I am a conservative in this sense that it makes more sense in the long run to be a bit like the de Rothschild's and settle for less. You can build on a steady flow.
I dont agree that Australia doesnt meddle however. Its too much to ask to believe that the conclusion to this affair will somehow magically and fortuitously just happen to also be coincident with the plans of big oil.
Originally posted by kmax87Well, it's about an oil deal. And there's no such thing as small oil...
I dont agree that Australia doesnt meddle however. Its too much to ask to believe that the conclusion to this affair will somehow magically and fortuitously just happen to also be coincident with the plans of big oil.
Good to see we both ended up on a more reconciling tone.