[Ben Ficklin]

Of course, and it is easy to demonstrate.

As you may(or should) know, the opposers say that because of existing treaties and international law, coupled with the fact that the US has the world's strongest navy, we don't need LOST.

Obviously the USN enjoys being the strongest, but they certainly don't want to be in a position in which their casual activity is dependent on gun-boat diplomacy, or having to shoot their way out of a dispute.

This is where the opposers get very illogical. They say that if the US signs the treaty, many countries will try to be un-cooperative with the US. But they ignore the reality that without the treaty, these same many countries, knowing that the US will not have recourse afforded by the treaty, will go beyond being un-cooperative to being provactive towards the USN's casual activity.

The Straits of Hormuz will be a point of contention for decades, and given the projections, the Formosa Straits will eventually be more sensative than it is today. The treaty covers military activity in 136 straits around the world, many of them controlled by tin pots.

[Czar]

My post was tongue in cheek, Ben, but thanks for your well thought out analysis. The essential point is that it doesn't matter who happens to be president--no military man is going to state an opinion contrary to what the commander-in-chief wants. Just isn't done. The only kind of military man who would count on this would be one who has retired--maybe--assuming he isn't another Wesley Clark.

I am not in favor anything advocated by the UN. LOST will force the United States to abide what this gaggle of third world losers want, regardless of the merits. Surely you must know this. So tell me, what is there in the UN record that makes you believe our country well be treated fairly by these thugs?