Nearly 80% of Texas' floating border barrier is technically in Mexico, survey finds
Nearly 80% of Texas' floating border barrier is technically in Mexico, survey finds
A joint U.S.-Mexico topographical survey found that 787 feet of the 995-feet-long buoy line set up by Texas are in Mexico.
A joint U.S.-Mexico topographical survey found that 787 feet of the 995-feet-long buoy line set up by Texas are in Mexico.
You're viewing part of a thread.
In the sense that we are all international citizens and that any action by anyone near any border is an international "incident", sure I guess.
But if you want to be honest and acknowledge that calling something an "international incident" is a pretty loaded term, then I would say absolutely not.
Im not sure I understand. You don’t think forcing another nation to clean up a mess we made is enough of an international incident to be called an international incident?
There's a reason the government started calling unidentified flying objects "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena".
Would that definitely be an occurrence between two countries? Yes.
Would that be an "international incident"? Maybe.
A friend of mine has land up in vermont that borders canada. Directly behind his property line is Canada. If I take a beer can and throw it into Canada, is that an "international incident"?
Is the collapsing fence that quite possibly goes into the Canadian border illegal? Is it an "international incident?"
There’s a news report about 80% of Vermont’s trash winding up in Canada, is that not an international incident?
I’m just trying to understand your own words, and you’re getting worked up. What do you think the words “international incident” mean?
The Cuban Missile Crisis, A U2 being shot down in Soviet Air Space, trash being blown into Canada, are these things equivalent to you?
You’re arguing for states having free reign to fuck with international entities by doing whatever they want - up to, but not including, the Cuban missile crisis?
Absolutely not. I'm saying that trash on an international border isn't an international incident unless you are trying to make mountains out of mole hills. Neither is building a fence there.
So if that’s not what you’re arguing for, where is the line when something becomes an international incident?
It seems to me like you aren’t sure or at least aren’t capable enough to communicate your position clearly, but you have a visceral need to keep arguing because your heels are so dug in already.
I'm not trying to come up with a general legal definition of "international incident." I am merely disagreeing with calling this specific thing an "international incident," at least unless the person using the term explains why they chose that term, and why that term matters in this case. But for me, international incident has much more weight then a fence that was built in the neutral area between two sovereign but friendly open-border nations.
If you still want to go down the international incident branch, I'd consider the agricultural practices of US farmers in California drawing too much water for our downstream neighbors much more appropriate.
It’s an international incident because it requires international intervention to solve.
If you look up the definitions of “international” and “incident” in any dictionary it should be pretty straight-forward to understand why anyone would use that term to describe the situation at hand. But somehow you’ve decided it’s not that - but you can’t say why specifically, nor can you define what qualifies as an international incident.
But he owes you an explanation?
Ok 🤣