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 (4037)	11/1/2006 9:55:00 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

It is a channel because it is a channel, and it goes through our country. But your argument also depends on "the width is irrelevant". If the width is relevant your argument falls apart. You can of course simply make "the width is irrelevant" an assumed premise, but its one I disagree with. "Sovereign territory" really isn't the applicable debate, although it can be argued that whether or not it is territorial waters. The active debate is about freedom of navigation. Just as the US supports freedom of navigation through Indonesian waters it supports the same freedom for the Northwest passage. If you accept UNCLOS III (the US hasn't ratified it) than there is an argument for the treaty giving a right of passage through the area without needing Canadian permission. If you don't accept that agreement than Canada's claim to the water in the area outside 12 nm from Canadian land is weak.