Posted on 06/11/2007 9:29:54 AM PDT by processing please hold
Finally, on May 15, 2007, President Bush publicly urged the Senate to “to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress.” He said that joining “will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." His support, along with that of the Pentagon and State Department, as well as the Navy and Coast Guard, has created the political space to secure the support of 75 to 85 senators—far more than the 67 needed for accession.
(Excerpt) Read more at fpif.org ...
Whatever the left says can be turned around 180 degrees to find the truth. Bush is part of the left.
Possibly not. I’m searching for an article.....
I was just reading that article this morning. :)
At least Kerry would have waffled and hesitated on this issue, as well as the issue of illegal immigration.
...especially when the polls showed how deeply voters hate them!
Read my posts I added to it too.
I am. Maybe you aren't.
From Phylis Schafley:
Bush apparently expects conservatives to be mollified by the argument that the Navy supports the treaty. But conservatives are smart enough to know that it’s impossible for the Navy to oppose the commander in chief’s position.
What sovereignty are we giving up by signing this? Sounds to me like this is something that's been in the works since the 70s (Nixon), so it's nothing new.
Ah, very interesting. Thanks for the information.
Ok. I went back and read your post. A question? What am I not seeing in the connection between the L.O.S.T. and human trafficking?
Well, I guess LOST and amnesty would have Sovereignty in common.
But I added the link that had the human trafficking information in response to your post 36.
Human trafficking is related, well the core, for the Amnesty bill.
Perhaps this thread will answer your question.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410502/posts
If this link is already on this thread, I apologize.
I understand now thanks. Sorry for the delay in responding. With daughter and 5 gk living with us now........
No prob :)
Thanks for the info! Very interesting.
You’re very welcome.
There was a op-ed recently, linked in the DoD Early Bird, by a retired Navy Admiral who was Reagan's representative in the LOST negotiations. In the article, he stated Reagan liked LOST, except for 1 provision, and he (Reagan) ensured the US adhered to all the other provisions of the treaty even though we didn't sign it. The author went on to say that provision has since been fixed and there were several valid reasons this treaty was good for the US Navy.
The same Mullen?
* Admiral Michael G. Mullen, the vice chief of naval operations, states a LOST tribunal could rule adversely and harm U.S. "operational planning and activities, and our security."
* Further, Adm. Mullen warned that treaty ratification did not "suggest that countries’ attempts to restrict navigation will cease once the United States becomes a party to the Law of the Sea Convention (Treaty)."
* Free passage on the seas would be problematic at best if the power of the U.S. Navy was anchored by LOST.
* International law did not prevent North Korea from seizing the USS Pueblo in 1988, and approval of LOST would offer no real additional protection.
Looks like it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.