O.T. What reason is given for giving our canal to Panama?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

In all the press releases there is no reason given for giving the canal away. France paid the Columbians for the right to dig the ditch. Then when Panama seceded from Columbia, they paid Panama. When the U.S. took over after France gave up, we paid France and Panama. The U.S. took all the risk and paid in lives lost. If it were not for the canal, it would still be a jungle that no one wants. The inhabitants should be paying us for creating a country and economic viability for them. Again , Why did we do it??? Does anyone have a credible answer??

-- Herb (herb01@prodigy.net), December 15, 1999


I read somewhere recently that only 5% of shipping now uses the Canal because modern-day ships are simply too large to navigate its banks. Just as Britain had to give back Hong Kong, so the US had to return the Canal.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), December 15, 1999.

Well, the Canal IS in their country. What I think the U.S. would like are partners, NOT "indentured servant" countries. Perhaps "noblese oblige" (the noble are obliged) would be appropriate?

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 15, 1999.

It is our guilt complex for being a strong country. Panama was nothing, literally, until we entered, built the canal and maintained the peace. Over the years there has been various degrees of internal stability, and it is good that they are a functioning country. But for us to design, build, and protect the canal with American lives only to give it away is a one sided guilt trip. We again apologize to the world for being strong. Thank you again Jimmy Carter. Strength through surrender. He should have been a French President instead.

-- enough is (enough@enough.com), December 15, 1999.

The canal was scheduled to be given away by Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Carter was our first CFR (Council for Foreign Relations) president! There was an article in their official publication, Foreign Relations, in the Spring of 1974 entitled "The Hard Road to World Order" (by Stobe Talbot?) in which their ideas for a "New World Order" was outlined. It has since been implemented by almost every president (notable exception 'may' have been R. Reagan).

Being 'pals' with every third world/third rate dictator is part of this plan--so long as it furthers the NWO agenda. Nationhood is a baaaaaad word--look no further than past & present Israeli leaders. Netanyahu was strictly pro-Israel. Their current 'leader' is giving away their "Panama Canal" -- the Golan Heights. They will have to once again deal with Syrian gun emplacements directly above their northern settlements & towns--we'll have to deal with Communist Red Chinese (the same nice folks that have stolen our nuclear weapons & bribed their way into the Oval Office) gun emplacements at both ends of one the world's most important "choke points". Wonder if they'll let our Navy through if we ever have a 'disagreement?'

How stupid can we be to continue to allow such traitorous actions by our NWO leaders?

-- Sceptic (DontLetThemFool@You.com), December 15, 1999.

The simple answer is that it's not your damn canal.........

Nor is it our canal here in Canada.........

Panama is a sovereign country. The USA cannot own the whole world.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 15, 1999.


By virtue of purchase of the land and creation of the asset it WAS ours. (Cities all over buy land not inside their boundaries which becomes theirs. Cleveland Airport is a perfect example of land bought from another city which has no connection to Cleveland but IS considered part of the city).


-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 15, 1999.

So Chuck, if I as a Canadian buy a plot of land in California, does that then mean that the piece of land belongs to Canada?

Or if an American owns a piece of land in Texas and he wants to simply give it to Russia, would Russia then have the right to do what they wanted on that piece of land by declaring it to be Russian even though it is in the heart of Texas?

Anyway, I suppose it's all a moot point now that Panama have control over it again.......

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 15, 1999.

It wasn't our's to begin with. Did you know that there is a clause in the treaty that gives the US the right to defend the canel militarily??? So what's all the hot air about??

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

As a certain congressman said, "we stole if fair and square". (Before we started meddling in the area, Panama was a part of Columbia.) Now we know that we don't need to own it to effectively control it.

-- more skeptical than you (xx@xx.xx), December 15, 1999.

Well, it depends, Craig. If you are a foreign government and have a special agreement with the host government, such as is negotiated when embassies, consulates and some canals are built, then the answer is yes.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), December 15, 1999.

'Scuse me, folks, but the history books I've read say that France had permission from Colombia to build the canal, but never finished it. The U.S tried to take over the construction, but was denied permission.

The U.S., a.k.a. Teddy Roosevelt, put together an independence movement in the provence of Panama, to secede from Colombia, with the condition that the new republic LEASE the canal zone to the US.

There have been numerous uprisings over the years by the citizens of Panama, objecting to the US's attemps at propriety.

We never owned the canal, and should be embarassed by our ancestors' manipulation of the people of Latin America.

Enough is says

Enough Is, you are not only extremely rude and jingoistic; you also make yourself look pretty stupid when you say "literally" in this context.

Looking inside your head, a person would find, FIGURATIVELY, nothing there (except,perhaps, a huge ego.)


-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), December 15, 1999.

Sceptic--what have you been smoking???

Carter, in 1976, our *first* CFR president???


There are other lists of our CFR "presidents," but I'm having a hard time tracking down my urls.

Please look into this further before you spread this disinfo (albeit unintentionally)!


-- sean (skeptical@of.sceptic), December 15, 1999.


Who owns and maintains the Alaskan highway?

-- HERB (herb01@prodigy.net), December 16, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ