Quoted:
Quoted:
He can direct his agencies and advisors to make every effort to comply with any proposed plan before it is even ratified. He has already done this with the Sea Treaty probably at a cost of millions to the US Economy by now.
Do you even have any clue what is in UNCLOS?
I didn’t have a clue since you didn’t short title what you were talking about.
A quick check revealed possibly you were referring to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS.)
What is "in UNCLOS?" I would hazard a bunch of representatives of different members of the UN talking about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) but perhaps that is a wildly incorrect guess on my part.
I have never taken the time to look up the details of who attended UNCLOS nor the final draft of LOST in its entirety. My connection for the Internet is not exactly fast. From what little I read some time ago it seemed to involve cessation of part of our sovereignty.
My statement earlier was meant to reflect on when Obama Imposed LOST on US by Executive Fiat/Executive order.
I saw that as a bad thing. IIRC the little I read on it said it would cost us a significant amount of money. Again forgive me, it was some months ago I read about it.
Given my view of it as bad, the tone of your reply leads me to believe you consider LOST a good thing. I try to be open minded.
(EDIT: Thinking about it, and noting your location says FL, perhaps your comment could be meant to reflect how monumentally bad it really is. I'm a little closer to land-locked here in the Peoples Republic of MN.)
If you would write a three page overview outlining the purpose of the treaty and how it is good vs. bad for the US I would be more than willing to read it.
I just love how helpful and informative these conversations can be.
Sincerely
Casper507