Well, we all saw it on TV-Jimmy Carter signing away the panama Canal-to a bunch of thieves. Curiosly, Clinton didn’t show up-I wonder why.
My prediction: within 5 years time, the canal (which worked magnificently for years) will be a complete wreck-all the toll revenue having been stolen (look for it in secret Swiss bank accounts).
The US will the have to go in, take it over, and repair the whole mess!
and your question is… ?
Next thing you know your neighbor will try to steal that lawnmower you borrowed from him. Before you know it, he’ll expect you to ask before he lets you hold a yard sale in his front yard.
Yep, those lazy wetbacks can’t do anything right. Next thing you know, the canal will be up on blocks with weeds growing around it like an old Chevy.
People from other countries are so stupid. They can’t do anything right.
(Sarcasm disclaimer available upon request)
Elmer J. Fudd,
Millionaire.
I own a mansion and a yacht.
egkelly wrote:
There are those who might maintain that the thieves were the grantors, not the grantees, in this transaction. 
Fudd’s right. The friggin Monroe Doctrine just didn’t go far enough. We shoulda just annexed all of Central America.
egkelly:
Should Clinton have showed up? What’s he got to do with the whole thing? The treaty was ratified; we’ve known that the canal would revert to Panamanian control in 1999 for decades.
I don’t want to make people think like me, I want them to think like me of their own free will.
Glad I stirred up some comment!
Yes, I don’t think that Panama (as it is presently constituted) has either the will or the capability to maintain the canal.
My point is, why should we give away an asset to the whole world, to a 3rd rate ,flea ridden, corrupt place like Panama. Suppose they “elect” another dictator like Torrijos-then what-suppose he decides to sell it to China?
What if peanut butter came in spray cans?
I guess my primary disagreement with your beliefs, egkelly, lies in the realm of imperialism. I don’t think it’s a sound foreign policy. You seem to.
-andros-
If Panama sells the canal to China, does Panama pay to have it towed across the Pacific or does China pay C.O.D.?
Watch out for that tricky left turn around the top of Formosa. The Taiwanese might try to hi-jack it.
We never imagined that someone like Trujilo (yeah, I can’t spell it either) might get in power when we made that deal. We thought the guy we made the deal with would still be around; what was his name? I dunno, but I’ll bet it starts with a “T” and is hard to spell.
Too bad there wasn’t somebody as smart as egkelly to warn us about this back when we agreed to hand the Panama Canal over to (gasp!) Panamanians.
Elmer J. Fudd,
Millionaire.
I own a mansion and a yacht.
It was the US that made Panama. (Had a little war to push the Colombians back onto South America.)
We should contract with Nicaragua to build a canal there now. Run those Panamanians out of business.
So, AWB, what you’re saying is that since the US made Panama, that makes Panama part of the US and that would make the Panamanians really Americans. So we just gave the canal back to…AMERICANS! That sure is a relief!
Elmer J. Fudd,
Millionaire.
I own a mansion and a yacht.
As far as I know the Panama Canal is going to hell anyway. The locks are rusty and the canal is silting up. We haven’t taken good care of it since boats lost first place in world transportation game.
Seems to me a small week country that has few natural resources and no educated workforce of note would treat their passage like a golden goose. 'sides I think they sold the rights to a Hong Kong based firm…I don’t have the name in front of me. I say, “don wourry 'bout it” if there is anyone who can move mountains for industry it’s a Hong Kong based firm.
D’oh!.. BECAUSE IT’S THEIRS!!!
The canal was never part of the US. We only leased it from them, like how Britain leased Hong Kong. And now the lease has run out. Get it?
AWB said:
I’m trying to remember, wasn’t there a plan in the fifties that suggested making a bigger, better canal by using nuclear explosions to excavate across Nicaragua (back when their government was in our pocket)? Woo hoo, that would have fun!
Yeah, giving it back is the “leased” we can do.
I think a canal across Nicaragua would be relatively easy. Excavate from the Pacific to the lake, then widen the river that runs from the lake to the Atlantic. Most of it would be at sea level. But maybe there is something really hard about it I haven’t thought of.
Boris B: In one word: Volcanoes.
When France was looking into creating a cross-Americas canal in the late 1880’s, they settled up Nicaragua as the perfect spot- it was only a little farther to go than cutting across Panama, and wouldn’t require as many locks (IIRC). Then, just before building began, a few volcanoes went off in Nicaragua and caused massive devestation to the country- especially along the route that the canal was supposed to take. The French company in charge of building the canal decided to go back to the drawing board and look at Panama as an alternative.
This is all a recollection of something a history teacher told me over ten years ago, so I’ll see if I can find some real and solid facts on the matter.
JMCJ
Die, Prentiss, Die! You will never have a more glorious opportunity!
Aww, couldn’t they just bulldoze the volcanoes as well?
Actually, I didn’t know anything about the volcano angle, but it sure explains a lot. Maybe they should just extend the Rio Grande to the Pacific, or at least to the Colorado…
Yes, Boris, Clinton or someone close to that level of power SHOULD have been present for the ceremony turning over the canal. It may not be that important to the United States anymore, but I think the Canal is important to many other countries, and is a marvelous engineering project.
If Panaman screws up its operation – something I don’t think is outside the realm of probability – the rest of the world will hold us responsible.
Since we are the ones responsible for building the Canal, we should have had Slick Willy, Gore or at least Madeline Albright present for a ceremony of importance.
The Coyote gnaws …
but he does not swallow.
If the Panamanians gave/loaned/sold/leased/rented or otherwise gave control of the Canal to a company in Hong Kong, then that creates MAJOR problems.
-
Hong Kong now belongs to Red China.
-
Ergo, the company that manages the canal is under Chinese control.
-
Ergo, Red China controls the Canal.
-
Ergo, a major trade route for world commerce has now gone into the hands of a competing superpower.
Lovely.
Perhaps Clinton thinks that the Red Chinese will take great care of the Canal if we just ask them real nice, like he asked those Puerto Rican terrorists real nice if they’d swear off violence.