Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (52360)	10/20/2006 8:24:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

If they did pass through it would not be evidence of entitlement, but merely the use of force. Capishe? I didn't say it would be evidence of entitlement, only that it would be the default situation (assuming its nothing new). The default situation can of course be incorrect or suboptimal, but Canada is trying to change the default. It would only possibly be called the use of force if you start with the assuming Canada's opinion of the dispute is correct, and even then calling it a use of force is a bit questionable. (Is it a use of force when illegal Mexican immigrants cross the Rio Grande?) "That seems to be Canada's argument more than mine." Hardly. They are internal waters. Your begging the question again. Its fine to simply state your opinion, I did the same earlier, but when your basing arguments you use to support your claim on assuming your claim is correct you aren't making much of an argument. You've made claims or assertions. These are not arguments. I have made arguments. For example the argument that they aren't Canadian territorial waters because they aren't withing 12 nm of Canadian land. (Obviously the parts of the waters that are within 12 nm are territorial waters, we aren't talking about them, they aren't in dispute). Another argument is that even if they where to be considered territorial waters the International treaties allow for passages through a "strait used for international navigation, without the permission of the country the waters belong to. If Canada was a part of the US, these waters would certainly be sovereign waters, wouldn't they, Tim??? No.