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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (3913)	10/31/2006 7:55:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

As a practical matter, agreeing to Canadian control (assuming they could actually exercise control) would probably be beneficial, at least if there was an understanding that American operations would not be hampered. But for both Canada and the US this is not a purely practical matter but also a matter of principle. The US is sensible enough to to include Canadian claimed waters in one of these operations state.gov and diplomatic enough not to list the claim here fas.org, but it still thinks that there should be freedom of navigation through the area. Canada is similarly restrained. Your unlikely to get any kind of actual armed conflict over these waters. But for many Canadians its also a matter of principle. If the principle is important, and strongly disagreed on, but the practical effects are very minor, you might be able to paper over the disagreement, either ignore it and lets each side assume their position is correct, or find some language that can be interpreted different ways so you can have an agreement without real agreement, or possibly find some practical compromise as an interim solution while each side holds to the idea that their ideas are correct and will be the final solution.