I'd just like to clarify something, because I've seen this brought up here and in other threads on this.
There's a repeated accusation that supporting relocation of the Baku is representative of neo-con or (to avoid overly American-centric) extremely right-wing philosophy.
In what way is this so? "Property rights must be defended 100% at all costs, no matter the context!" strikes me as pretty right-wing thinking, so I'd group the anti-removal crowd in the conservative camp, yet I've heard more than just one or two posters make the "neo-con" accusation, one writing that I had the ideology of Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.
Can someone who feels this way explain their point of view? Because if you really think that property rights trump giving billions the cure for cancer, then I'd think you were basically a right-wing libertarian, who opposed taxes, welfare, and basically any kind of regulation that interfered with property rights.
Because make no mistake about it, the Baku position here is "f--- off Jack, I've got mine!"
They stumbled upon this magical treasure, and they want to hoard it for themselves, while telling others, even those defending them from removal, to go jump in a lake. They're like a group of Old Money rich folk who inherited their fortune, have never worked a day in their lives, and have contempt for the poor schlubs who weren't lucky enough to be born rich. Don't even THINK about asking them to give up some of their money, because it's THEIRS!"
(I hope I connected this enough to INS to not make it a purely political post. I'm just looking for why the anti-removal crowd thinks that the pro-removal crowd's position is right-wing.)