SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (52359)10/20/2006 7:48:10 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (2) of 90947
 
"I also said the default was that ships do pass through. That's not as much an issue of force, but rather an issue of what actually happens"

CRAP! US ships may pass through on proper notification pursuant to the 1988 agreement between our two countries. Other nations have no such agreement with us. If they did pass through it would not be evidence of entitlement, but merely the use of force. Capishe?

"That seems to be Canada's argument more than mine."

Hardly. They are internal waters. The fact that the US (as you said) has enforced freedom of passage even with military operations is NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO. I say once again: FORCE is not an argument. Get away from that, please.

"I've made other arguments"

You've made claims or assertions. These are not arguments. Saying that the Canadian claim is fictional or later vacillating to maybe not so fictional and later digging in your heals as being dismissible or meritless--none of these rambling and disjointed opinions are arguments. If you have an argument that the internal waters of Canada do not belong to Canada, please make it.

If Canada was a part of the US, these waters would certainly be sovereign waters, wouldn't they, Tim???
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext