Maybe the U.S.A. should just tax the rest of the world.

[Scooter]

The so-called Turbot War was but one incident, your warped rendition of it notwithstanding. The $500,000 was a bond, and last time I checked, bonds are generally returned when the situations giving rise to them are resolved. There was never any ruling that Canada had done anything illegally, as the ICJ refused to even hear the case when Spain attempted to make it. But there were also multiple incidents, also in international waters but within Canada's exclusive economic zone, which had to be dealt with, and which we dealt with ourselves, and for which your assistance was neither asked for nor required.

And the Arctic waters I was referring to are those where the United States entered into an agreement in 1988 to ask Canada's permission for transit of ships, after having done so without permission in 1985.

[Rick]

After doing a little search Andrews rendition was brief.

Yers is nonexistent, it was an EU problem but the US watched because it could certainly have affected US negatively, Canada was arbitrarily regulating by type of boat and the economic water of "Canada" concerning the Grand Banks at that time was iffy at best. The fact that Canada acted as Pirates, although not pursued by the ICJ, was never denied.

[Scooter]

Not even Spain referred to it as an act of piracy. Try again.

[Rick]

On March 9th, 1995, the Canadian Coast Guard seized the Spanish fishing trawler Estai off the coast of Newfoundland. The Canadian government claimed the vessel was over-fishing turbot. Quotas of allowable catches were set by the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) an international organization with member countries from all over the world. The Canadians claimed that Spanish and Portuguese vessels were catching more than the quotas.Emma Bonino, the EU Fisheries Commissioner, called the seizure “an act of organised piracy.” The Spanish demanded that the Canadian government return the ship to its captain and crew along with its catch of Greenland Halibut, or Turbot. They said Estai was fishing in international waters. Two weeks later, a Canadian ship cut off the nets of a Portuguese vessel, the Pescamar 1, and the nets of two more Spanish vessels, the Juan Antonio Nores and Ana María Gandón, in the same waters. The relationship between the two countries became tense and Spain even sent a warship to protect its fishermen.On April 16th, 1995, Spain, Canada and the EU reached an agreement, ending the dispute.

http://www1.carleton.ca/ces/eulearning/ ... urbot-war/

Start there then work yer way around...

[Scooter]

sigh

Article 101
Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed—
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

Article 102
Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied

The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship or aircraft.

Article 103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft

A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.

Words actually do mean something. None of those conditions apply = it wasn't piracy.

Try again.

[Gob]

How did the superior fire-power of the US navy stop this from happening?

[Scooter]

Rather makes the point, doesn't it? The US witnesses what its own citizens are calling an act of piracy happening in its own backyard, and sits back and does nothing.

The Spanish should be demanding a refund of their taxes before they pay any.

[Andrew D]

The fact remains that in the so-called turbot war, it was Canada which seized a vessel of another country in international waters. If protecting international shipping -- but, of course, the dispute was about fishing rights, not shipping rights -- had required US intervention, it would have required US intervention to protect the victim, not the perpetrator, of the seizure.

That is not, of course, to say that Canada did not have a valid position. Indeed, its position was, in the end, partially vindicated, as was Spain's. It is simply to point out that as a matter of first contact on the scene, protecting international shipping on the high seas means, in large part, keeping one country from snatching another country's ships in international waters.

There was never any ruling that Canada had done anything illegally, as the ICJ refused to even hear the case when Spain attempted to make it.

Disingenuous. An accurate, if bare-bones, description would be:

The ICJ concluded that it lacked the power ("jurisdiction") to hear the case, whether it thought the case meritorious or not. Therefore, we have no way of knowing what the ICJ would have decided.

And it was Canada that (desperately?) did not want the ICJ to hear the case. As the ICJ observed:

[ I]t is evident from the parliamentary debates and the various statements of the Canadian authorities that the purpose of the new declaration [i.e., Canada's Declaration of 10 May 1994] was to prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over matters which might arise with regard to the international legality of the amended legislation and its implementation.

So Canada, for whatever reason(s), begged the ICJ not to hear the case, and you turn around and say that "the ICJ refused to even hear the case". Not exactly a scrupulously correct description of the proceedings.

The so-called Turbot War was but one incident .... But there were also multiple incidents ....

Those being? Identify them, and we can discuss them.

... also in international waters but within Canada's exclusive economic zone, which had to be dealt with, and which we dealt with ourselves, and for which your assistance was neither asked for nor required.

So there are instances in which countries -- at least some countries -- can deal with things all on their own. Great. Dandy. Saves us the trouble.

And if Canada would rather deal with everything on its own than help the US defray the cost of intervening on Canada's behalf, okay. Go for it. Rock on.

And the Arctic waters I was referring to are those where the United States entered into an agreement in 1988 to ask Canada's permission for transit of ships, after having done so without permission in 1985.

Disingenuous again. The Agreement on Arctic Cooperation explicitly reserves each country's claims with respect to the status of the disputed waters. As the CBC put it:

Boiled down to its essence, the agreement said the U.S. would not send any more icebreakers through the passage without Canada's consent, and Canada would always give that consent. The wider issue of whether Canada's Arctic waters were internal or international was left unresolved.

Anyway, the matter appears to be headed for a decision by a tribunal pursuant to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

[Rick]

It wasn't the US that claimed piracy it was EU...words mean something.

Just a couple years earlier we had taken care of a real war, guess we figgered you could handle a fishin boat...

[Andrew D]

The US witnesses what its own citizens are calling an act of piracy ....

Which of the US's "own citizens" were saying that?

[Scooter]

.

It wasn't the US that claimed piracy it was EU...words mean something.

What I said was that the US had done nothing about an incident that YOU, a US citizen, have characterized as piracy. So remind me again how much the US can be relied on for protection...

As I said, if I were Spain, I'd be asking for a refund

[Scooter]

The US witnesses what its own citizens are calling an act of piracy ....

Which of the US's "own citizens" were saying that?

Uh, keld just said it, right in this thread.

[Rick]

NO I wrote the EU said it was, comprehension issues?

[Scooter]

No, YOU stated it as "fact":

Canada was arbitrarily regulating by type of boat and the economic water of "Canada" concerning the Grand Banks at that time was iffy at best. The fact that Canada acted as Pirates, although not pursued by the ICJ, was never denied.

What was that you said? Sorry, can't hear you with your foot jammed so far down your throat.

[Rick]

.

It wasn't the US that claimed piracy it was EU...words mean something.

What I said was that the US had done nothing about an incident that YOU, a US citizen, have characterized as piracy. So remind me again how much the US can be relied on for protection...

As I said, if I were Spain, I'd be asking for a refund

According to you they got a $500,000 refund.

It was a fishin boat we send game & fish or the coast guard, the fact that you had to use an open water vessel to subdue an unarmed vessel says more about Canada than the US.

As for why we didn't respond I stand by a previous post...

[Scooter]

So you admit that the US will sit back and ignore blatant acts of what you (no, not just an EU hack, but YOU) have characterized as piracy.

So remind me again why anyone should be paying for such "protection"?

[Rick]

Give him his prize Gob I tire if this.

I will say this as my conclusion to the matter.

Without a strong US military world presence yer militaries would have to work a lot harder.

Ya'll prolly would fall immediately after the US fell but ya wouldn't be THAT far behind.

Good job Scoot enjoy yer prize...

[Scooter]

It's not my problem if you insist on making shit up and then are incapable of being man enough to admit you were wrong.

Is that lack of integrity common among U.S. citizens, or is it just you?

[Gob]

Without a strong US military world presence yer militaries would have to work a lot harder.

No one would deny this.

Ya'll prolly would fall immediately after the US fell but ya wouldn't be THAT far behind.

I wish I knew who we were all so fearful of, or at least who the Americans here are so fearful of.

[Crackpot]

Clowns.

They freak me the fuck out.

THe world would be better off without them.