|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
In 1978, the Carter administration made a deal with General Omar Torrijos, the uniformed socialist strongman who had seized power in Panama, to abandon America’s crown jewel.
The Panama Canal had been built with over a decade of labor and half a billion of early twentieth century dollars by American engineers and visionaries who succeeded where the British and the French had failed, in the process they created a new country, Panama, and new trade routes.
Jimmy Carter had run for office promising to oppose a surrender of the canal. As with most of his policies, he turned out to have been lying. Even though the majority of Americans opposed the giveaway, Carter, Democrat Senate Majority Leader and KKK leader Robert Byrd, teamed up with GOP Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker, the worst RINO in Senate history, to conduct the surrender. This move would cost Baker his chances at a presidential nomination.
While Reagan’s election triumph tends to be credited to the economy, there is no doubt that his declaration, “we dug it, we own it” about the Panama Canal powered him to a primary win over Baker who was the favorite son of the D.C. establishment and Rockefeller Republicans.
Carter, the Klansman and the RINO managed to get the two Senate Republican votes they needed, including former Sen. Bob Packwood, and ensured the rise of Reagan and a conservative revolution. America lost the canal but it also bid goodbye to Jimmy Carter.
The Panama Canal treaty was similarly unpopular in Panama. Legal ratification of the treaty required a referendum. The leftist military dictatorship claimed to have carried one out in which a majority voted for the deal, but they did so at gunpoint. When Carter visited Panama in the summer of 1978, the leftist government had suppressed protests by shooting, killing and beating political opponents, making the treaty as illegitimate on Panama’s end as it was on America’s.
Since then the Panama Canal has always represented unfinished business.
The surrender of the Panama Canal had been based on worthless assurances that America would retain strategic control over it. These assurances were particularly worthless since Panama was under the boot of a Communist affiliated military dictator who, as Reagan rightly noted, is “there, not because he had the most votes, but because he had the most guns.”
Now China has effectively taken over the Panama Canal while America has done nothing.
Panama joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It recently renewed a contract with Hutchison Ports, a Hong Kong based company, to manage the canal. The ports around the canal are also controlled by Chinese companies. China has built four bridges over the canal and controls much of the construction projects and the vital infrastructure in Panama.
China for all intents and purposes controls the Panama Canal, the ports around it and the local infrastructure that makes international trade possible. The canal is essentially Chinese property.
The Biden administration had watched impotently as China dug its claws into the canal.
“We do not want to put Panama in a situation where they have to choose between the United States and the People’s Republic of China,” Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte, who dates back to the Carter administration, whined.
President Trump took a very different approach, arguing that if the “principles” of the Neutrality Treaty aren’t followed,“then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question.”
When President George H.W. Bush announced he was intervening militarily to remove General Noriega from power, he did it by invoking the “integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty.”
China’s dominance of the Panama Canal is a far graver threat to the treaty than Noreiga.
A former Joint Chiefs chair argued back in the 1990s that China’s control over the Panama Canal allows it to “control the order of ships” and has “the right to deny ships access to the ports and entrances of the canal if they are deemed to be interfering with Hutchison’s business” which is “in direct violation of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, which guarantees expeditious passage for the United States Navy.” Panama has been in violation of the Neutrality Treaty for a generation and the situation has only worsened with the expansion of China’s naval power.
America should reclaim one of its great achievements and protect its national security.
The wording of the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty stated that “the Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity, the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal.”
The Carter administration had argued that its Neutrality Treaty would allow America to give up physical control of the Panama Canal but still prevent the Soviet Union from taking it over.
Torrijos himself had stated that “we are agreeing to a treaty of neutrality which places us under the protection of the Pentagon.”
Now Communist China has all but taken over the Panama Canal.
The Neutrality Treaty was supposed to assure that American vessels would be able to rapidly move through the canal in the event of a war. Are we supposed to believe that Chinese companies, in the event of a war with China, would not interfere, obstruct or spy on the movement of US Navy ships?
Carter’s treaty, passed over the objections of most Americans, with a military dictator and his repressive regime, was never even legitimately ratified on Panama’s end and certainly was not upheld by that country. After a generation of violations that have never been remedied, President Trump is right to call on America to reclaim physical control over the canal.
It may be time to revert back to Teddy Roosevelt’s Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and its promise of American control “in perpetuity,” over Carter’s failed promise of neutrality exploited by China.
The surrender of the Panama Canal had been a longtime project of State Department globalists in the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations who had argued that maintaining control of the canal led to resentment against us in Latin America and the Third World. Despite their arguments, surrendering the canal did nothing to make America more popular, only weaker.
Panama was a country that President Teddy Roosevelt created using military force to make the canal possible. The idea that a province we turned into a country to enable us to build a canal has ‘sovereignty’ over something that we had created was absurd to begin with. It’s even more absurd now that Panama has become a Chinese puppet to talk about its sovereignty.
As Reagan said all those years ago, “we dug it, we own it”. China bought it from the people that Carter gave it away to in violation of the treaty that we signed with those people.
The Panama Canal is no longer in Panama’s hands and hasn’t been in a while. It’s in China’s hands. That gives us every reason we need to take what we built back from Communist China.
The same is true for all the oilfields in the Middle East, they belong to the West.
“October 2, 2001—Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.
Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West’s property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible. The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran. The rest, observing our frightened silence, hurried to grab their piece of the newly available loot.
The cause of the U.S. silence was not practical, but philosophical. The Mideast’s dictators were denouncing wealthy egotistical capitalism. They were crying that their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew their viewpoint was true by means of otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer that Americans, properly, were motivated by the selfish desire to achieve personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.
The Muslim countries embodied in an extreme form every idea—selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group—which our universities, our churches, and our own political Establishment had long been upholding as virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent side wins.” – Leonard Peikoff
Hey, here’s an idea. Why don’t you, our own Mr. Objectivist Tough Guy, go over and tell those Saudis and Iranians to just hand those oil fields and refineries over. Or, if they don’t comply, you can hold your copy of The Fountain Head, along with that Lenny screed, up and show ’em who’s boss.
But that might violate your “I me mine” prime directive: “I don’t recognize any such absurdity as service to my country. I recognize a moral responsibility to my freedom and liberty and the freedom and liberty of those I love.”
Your comment reads like asshole wrote it. Which you did.
Sorry you feel that way, ass-wipe.
Your downvotes and my upvotes tell another story.
This is a very strange response to a thoughtful post. THX 1138 quotes an author who explains the deeper philosophical problem that plagues our culture – resulting in our “turn the other cheek” foreign policy. In doing so, he connects Carter’s actions re: the Canal to earlier actions on the part of the U.S. Government.
Intrepid’s slip is showing …. S/he appears to have an ax to grind re: THX,
An intellectually bankrupt mind incapable of civilized debate.
It’s ironic that Trump is floating the idea of taking back control of the Panama Canal, when in 1956 President Eisenhower got the American government to back Nasser’s play to nationalize the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was owned and run by both the British and French, when Nasser moved to nationalize it, the 1956 crisis was born. Israel successful took the Sinai Peninsula in order to end Egypt’s blockade, while British and French paratroopers were dropped to secure the Suez Canal. The Eisenhower administration got involved, when it shouldn’t have and working via the United Nations, forced the IDF to surrender the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt. As well, the American government took Nasser’s side, which ended the last strategic asset in the Middle East being in the control of the British and French. This move by the Eisenhower administration marked the beginning chapter of American foreign interventionist policy in the Middle East. This emboldened Nasser’s Pan-Arabism mixed with Ba’athism, which set the conditions for both the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War.
Trump is repeating history, he wishes to reclaim American control over the Panama Control just as Britain and France wanted to regain their control over the Suez Canal. It would be ironic if Trump attempted to militarily regain control of the Panama Control while the British and French would intervene via the United Nations, forcing United States to relinquish control back to Panama. It would be just deserts due to America’s actions of taking the side of Nasser, which saw the end of British and French domination in the Middle East.
Trump would be wise to let United States’ history of foreign interventionism in Central America to be put to rest and forget the idea of taking back control of the Panama Canal. Like the 1956 Suez Crisis, there’s a price to be paid in the future by unforeseen consequences. Had the Eisenhower administration not got involved, Israel would have held the Sinai Peninsula, while the British and French would have regained control of the Suez Canal. Who knows maybe this would have prevented Nasser looking like a savior to the Arab people and could have snuffed out the Pan-Arabism movement. It could have also prevented the 6 Day war and Israel could have economically developed the Sinai Peninsula.
There’s always been a price to pay in unintended consequences throughout the world due to American foreign interventionism, the best winning move is not to play.
There is always a deadly price to pay for suicidal altruism. Handing over the civilized world and its civilized achievements to primitive savages in the name of self-sacrifice and altruism is always suicidal.
Uh oh. The THX altruism drinking game in full effect. Kilt Lifters for everyone.
Handing over the civilized world and its civilized achievements to do nothing Objectivist intellectuals is a recipe for self inflicted suicide.
I’ll take the altruism any day.
I hope that President elect Trump will in fact retake the Panama Canal. When it was given away there were terms and conditions spelled out to make sure it benefitted the Panamanian people. As well as the Americans who provided the funding , and much of the blood, which was spilled along with all the workers involved in this monstrous task. When it was finished and the ships began to successfully transit this gigantic passage, their was much clelebration being done by everyone. How it ever got to the point that the Chinese wound up owning it is beyond the sane reasonable persons understanding, but however it happened it wasn’t legal or right, and whatever is necessary to obtain ownership of it is the right thing to do for the stability of the world. I’m not a legal expert just a citizen of the greatest nation on earth who by the help of almighty GOD strives to make this world a better place for everyone. I now expect the attack by those who don’t give God credit for anything righteous, but instead attack Him every chance they get. Paul
You got the argument assbackwards, Western foreign interventionism done in the name of civilizing other people who are considered savages – that’s suicidal altruism. The perfect example is the British, who in the 19th century sent their troops to South Africa where they were slaughtered by the Zulu warriors and don’t forget about the British staggering losses in Afghanistan. Ah yes, the good old days of Western Imperialism thinking, where European countries went on campaigns of foreign adventurism because they felt they were morally superior to the backwards people they came to civilize.
The Brits came back and fucked up those Zulus, though. Shaka Zulu. The Hannibal of the veldt. But he got his ass handed to him like the REAL Hannibal. Scipio Africanus fucked the real Hannibal right up his ass. I’m surprised the Zulus aren’t extinct. Say what you will about the Brits, they were good fighters back in the day.
Better than the Zulus, that’s for sure.
The British still lost the battle of Isandlwana against Zulus armed with nothing but spears and cowhide shields. That is quite a feat.
You kind of miss the logic of this thread. That is Western foreign interventionism is game that we’ve already learned from past mistakes that the best winning move is NOT to play. But your comeback is Western powers kicked ass of those people who they thought were inferior. You do see the irony of your opinion – right? So according to you, imperialism with its ‘might makes right’ policy should be looked upon in the annals of history as the good old glory days – is that your position?
The Zulus lost the rematch. They faced an incompetent commander the first time around but not the second. The Zulus were DECIMATED by the Brits.
“There’s always a price to pay in unintended consequences”? In other words do it, let the chips fall where they may. You defeat your own assertions.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that have lost their lives and the millions that have fled into exile due to America’s foreign interventionist policy in that region of the world. The ‘do it and let the chips fall where they may’ foreign inventionist policy of America has NEVER worked out well.
Tell me, why does United States need 750 military bases in 80 countries? When have the fallen chips of unintended consequences of American foreign intervention worked out well? Did it work out well in Vietnam, in Chile, in Nicaragua, in Iraq, in Afghanistan….huh, nope. Did planning a coup in Ukraine to favor a more Western friendly government work out well?
You sound like a diehard Marxist that keeps his/her faith alive by saying the experiment failed in every country that adopted this economic theory because they didn’t practice real Marxism. So Trump should take back the Panama Canal because all previous cases of American foreign interventionism weren’t done properly and that’s why horrible unintended consequences resulted from these failed experiments. But if Trump employs ‘the real’ foreign interventionist policy model in Panama, there shouldn’t be any future blowback.
The crisis in Ukraine cannot be solely attributed to U.S. foreign policy. The primary aggressor is Russia, whose annexation of Crimea in 2014 and ongoing military operations violate international law and Ukraine’s sovereignty. The idea that the U.S. “planned a coup” in Ukraine is often derived from Russian propaganda, misinterpreting Ukraine’s internal revolution against corruption and autocracy. The U.S. supported democratic aspirations in Ukraine, which is distinct from orchestrating regime change.
The U.S. has indeed provided military and financial aid to Ukraine, this support has been a response to Russian aggression, not its cause. Blaming U.S. actions for the suffering of Ukrainians ignores the aspirations of Ukrainians themselves, who have overwhelmingly chosen a path toward closer ties with Europe rather than submission to Russia.
The presence of U.S. military bases is *not* synonymous with interventionism. These bases serve strategic purposes, including deterrence, rapid response to humanitarian crises, and support for allies. (There are US soldiers in my country at times, and I think it is great!) U.S. bases in Japan and South Korea contribute to regional stability in East Asia, helping deter North Korean aggression and providing security guarantees that reduce the likelihood of an arms race.
You do understand cause and effect – right? The Ukrainian Maidan Revolution was in February 2014, Putin annexed Crimea the next month! Then in April, the Russian minority living in the eastern provinces transformed themselves into militant separatists and then violent clashes began. So yes, all this was solely due to the neoconservative agenda of the State Department along with a cabal of high-ranking generals in the Pentagon.
Putin wasn’t the aggressor as you claim, the Obama administration was the instigator of this horror show. In terms of annexing Crimea, you do know why Putin did that – right. The Port of Sevastopol to Russia is the equivalent of what Pearl Harbor is to America.
If China interfered with the internal politics of Hawaii, where it encouraged the island nation to seek independence and Hawaii installed a government friendly to China, what do you think would happen? United States would annex the island of Oahu in order to keep Pearl Harbor in the hands of the American Navy. Putin annexed Crimea because he didn’t want the of Port of Sevastopol falling into the hands of any NATO members, especially the Americans.
Lastly, the vast reach of U.S. military bases around the world IS synonymous with interventionism. It’s the equivalent of Britain’s mastery of the seas in the 19th century. Britain’s fleet made possible its imperialistic policies of placing its troops in foreign countries, taking over the resources of other nations and to even govern colonies. The U.S. military’s wide reach today is the modern-day equivalent of the reach of the British Empire in the 19th century. The entire purpose of American military bases in foreign nations is based on the U.S. government’s desire to rule the world how it sees fit. The U.S. government doesn’t have friends, it only has interests and its interests are managed by the State Department backed up with action by the Department of Defense.
Well said, and historically factual. We should also not forget that it was the continuing appeasement of Putin by the U.S. and Europe after his invasions of Georgia, Chechnya, and Ukraine that set the stage for the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Obama and Biden were particularly responsible, but it was Biden who essentially gave Putin an invitation to invade that triggered this conflagration. Putin correctly assessed Biden’s demented state and the window of opportunity, though he did not correctly assess the Ukrainians’ will to fight. Putin for many years has made it clear that he views the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest catastrophe of the 20th Century. His role model is Stalin, and he has made it clear he intends to re-establish dominion over former Soviet territories.
I would really like to hear from any of the thumbs down readers, what I said they disagree with – I’m serious. Do you think the U.S. government’s backdoor planning of overthrowing an Ukrainian government friendly to Russia was a good thing? So Ukraine that was once a notorious corrupt country is now just a country in name only because without American financially assistance, it can’t even afford to pay its public employees’ payroll. So overthrowing a pro-Russian Ukrainian government, led to the Russian minority in the eastern provinces seeking independence, which then opened up a Pandora’s Box of a downward spiral of violent conflict. But of course, you see nothing wrong with America’s foreign interventionism that started all of this right?
Of course you see nothing wrong with America’s vast reach of military bases around the world as well – right? It’s not like this costs money to maintain and…oh wait, it does. But certainly America can continue spending endlessly on maintaining its close to $1 trillion annual military budget – right? It’s not like United States already has an unsustainable nation debt and…oh wait it does. But certainly you can agree that America’s foreign interventionist policies that have lead to installing corrupt foreign leaders, dictatorships and absolute monarchies that have terrorized their own people has been a bad thing – right? Because if you disagree on this point, I and I’m sure all the other readers would love to hear your opinion on this matter.
First, the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine was not simply a product of U.S. interference but rather a reflection of deep-seated dissatisfaction among Ukrainians with their government. The protests arose after President Yanukovych, who was widely viewed as corrupt, abruptly decided to reject an association agreement with the European Union. This decision was seen as a betrayal by a significant portion of the Ukrainian population who viewed closer ties with Europe as an opportunity for reform and economic growth. While it is true that the United States and European nations supported the revolution rhetorically and diplomatically, it is reductive to dismiss the Maidan movement as a mere proxy of Western powers, as it erases the agency and legitimate aspirations of millions of Ukrainians.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, which you argue was a defensive move to protect the strategic Port of Sevastopol, must also be examined critically. While the port is indeed of significant importance to Russia’s naval operations, it is inaccurate to portray the annexation as an inevitable response to NATO or U.S. actions. Prior to the annexation, Russia already had a secure long-term lease for the naval base in Sevastopol, and there was no imminent threat to its access. The annexation violated international law, including the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia had guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons. This breach of agreements undermines the argument that Russia was merely acting defensively. Instead, it suggests that the annexation was part of a broader strategy to reassert dominance over former Soviet territories, as evidenced by similar actions in Georgia and Moldova.
The comparison to the United States hypothetically annexing Oahu in response to Chinese interference in Hawaii is flawed. Hawaii is a fully integrated U.S. state, while Crimea was internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Moreover, the situation in Ukraine involves a sovereign nation’s right to determine its foreign and domestic policies, free from coercion by external powers. Russia’s actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, including its support for separatists, represent a direct violation of this principle.
All,
As leaders, put the trivial matters aside. 1) It’s time to take back control of the Panama Canal 2) It’s time to take back the Alaskan Islands that Obama gave to the Russians 3) It’s time to purchase Greenland…
Yeah. Right. Like the weak ass world could do anything when Trump takes back OUR canal Go clutch your pearls, bitch. Shout at the sky when Trump gets back into office.
Yes, you cite history, but your take would serve as precedent for unfortunate intended consequences. National interest, not footnotes to history, are to be considered paramount.
Except of course Jon S its much less “foreign interventionism” and much more simply taking back what we built and bled for and created—plus Jon S its also illustrative to note that siding against the Brits etc. in the Suez Canal debacle didn’t help us in the long run with the Arabs.
Also highly unlikely the French and Brits would seek to rock the boat over a 50 year old mistake on out our part
The Chi-Coms have been building up their navy into a formidable foe.
The Chinese now have control of the Panama Canal. The Panama
Canal would be the quickest way for the American navy to get their
ships to and from the east and west coasts of the United States –
but not with China controlling which ships may have access to the
canal!
In the event of war with China – it would be that powerful Chinese
navy which could get its ships easily to either coast of the USA. If
things are allowed to stand as they are now.
President Trump is right to demand that either the principles of the
original neutrality agreement be followed by Panama or they must
return the Panama Canal to America “in full, quickly and without
question.”
Especially since Panama has allowed management of the Panama
Canal by Communist China – in violation of the original neutrality
agreement. I’m really surprised that American globalist communists
like Biden and Obama didn’t allow Chinese warships to just anchor
off both coasts of America while they were at it.
God bless America and President Trump.
IF we ever have a shooting war with China and China began sending it’s warships through the canal it would be like those roads in Iraq with destroyed enemy vehicles in long lines of smoking debris! The damage to the canal would be immense and the stopping of shipments would have massive world wide effects. BUT, if we get busy and Our Nation returns to a PRODUCING NATION and we don’t rely on cheap, disposable, slave labor goods then we can weather most storms!
I’m sure the left will fight any actions PRESIDENT TRUMP makes so buckle up!!
BLSinSC – China is a deadly threat to the United States.
About a year ago, even our America-despising leaders
were compelled to send US Navy destroyers to the coast
of Alaska – because Chinese and Russian warships were
doing joint maneuvers in nearby international waters.
They had all the oceans of the world to do that in. Why
did they pick a nearby coast of the United States?
Also, only this past summer, while a huge Russian warship
was docked in Cuba – China proceeded along with its deep
infiltration into our South American backyard with China’s
Bric and Road Initiatives in many major South American
countries. These formidable enemies are too close for
comfort.
I heard President Trump say that the Panama Canal was
given to Panama – with provisions. And that if these principles
are morally and legally violated, the Panama Canal should be
returned to us immediately. In today’s provoking threats from
China and Russia – and the realization that pipsqueak Panama
has handed over the control of the canal to one of those U.S.
enemies – President Trump’s demand for return of the Panama
Canal means that safety and protection of America and its
people is his first priority.
Biden and Obama and the rest allowed all this to happen. And
kept wide open our southern land border to invasion while they
were at it. Not anymore. Not with President Trump at the helm
whom We The People so overwhelmingly love and support.
BUT…will China willingly give up the canal. I don’t think so……
The average Chinese soldier is only five feet tall and scrawny, so no worries.
Enemy warships in Cuba have since Castro always been bases for nuclear weapons.
Those Chink ships can be blown out of the water with no problems. It’s 2024, not 1904. You do know America has intercontinental ballistic missiles, right? And a Navy that has been tested? The CCP has never been in a war and it’s toy soldiers are bitches.
Also consider that Chinese construction is renowned for it’s poor quality.
It’s come to be called “tofu dreg”.
Pseudo communism coupled with crony capitalism yields extremely poor results that also show in their navy ships.
Yes, I think China is an overrated joke. “Made in China.” Like you noted, that means made of shit.
I’ve been there. They’re incompetent. Little rice dicked mofos.
I like the chicks, though. The stories about them all having flat asses and breasts aren’t true.
The US military has been decimated by DEI. The current military is dominated by individuals promoted because they were dumb, sexual perverts or minorities. Promotion was not based on merit or capability, which has made the U.S. military the laughing stock of the world.
Given our current situation of lack of qualified personel and weapons, the U.S. would have it’s butt handed to it on a silver platter in a war with China or Russia.
Time to rebuild our military and include the words “duty, honor and country”.
I can Remember when that Pathetic little Pipsqueak Peanut Eater Kid Carter gave it Back to Panama I guess as a Good Will Gift knowing how Carters polls were tanking even before the 1980 Election the Difference between Carter and that pathetic little Weasel Biden is Carters polls ran Higher then Bidens
Thanks Daniel !!! I’ve been thinking a lot about the Canal lately. It comes up a lot in Naval History.
Was incredibly stupid to give it away.
Yes, Jimmuh Carter is a retard for sure. And a traitor. Why not give away the Grand Canyon and Yosemite while he was at it?
It was stupid I agree, but just because America built it doesn’t make it American it’s like THX’s argument above which is also wrong because without nation states we end up with a global government and nobody wants that.
Happy new year.
The British built Yorktown. I’m pretty sure that makes it British. In fact. you Bits built a lot of cities on the Eastern coast of America. You can have Philly back, though.
The Panama Canal was built with the auspices of Theodore Roosevelt, who was a quintessential American. It belongs to America. Hell, “Panama” is only a country because America made it one. IN ONE DAY.
Thanks Daniel for putting together a factual response as to why the US should rightly take back the Panama Canal. Once again we see China flashing mega bucks to purchase a strategic piece of land. As you say this is another one of their belt and road projects. If we do not stop their march into western civilization, the CCP will be dominate without a bullet fired. Trump sees it and is doing the right move to take it back.
My attitude precisely. We built it. Carter was an idiot for giving it away.
Who remembers the “Canal Zone” on election days?
You didn’t build anything, you weren’t even born then. But there were plenty of West Indians, specially Barbados, who actually worked on the Panama Canal. And there were plenty of Chinese and Spaniards too but no Russian Lutherans.
Sorry for being so much younger than you, you desiccated husk.
I don’t know about any Russian Lutherans. They are mostly Eastern Orthodox. But I bet there were more than a few German Lutherans there, bossing around those poor oppressed West Indians, Chinese and Spaniards. Bleeding heart much? Go ahead, clutch those pearls. I won’t mind.
Even when you try to be insulting you come across as a total wimp.
It’s the engineers that are the key factor. There were always lots of unskilled laborers but they never built anything complex until the engineers came along.
Yes. The French tried to build the Panama Canal and failed.
Engineers and managers make the world work. Worker drones are just that, automatons who barely matter.
The doctors were also vital.
“Desiccated husk.”
That’s funny. 🙂
lol, that made me laugh. Thanks Jeff 🙂
Those workers would not have accepted those jobs had they not found the wages satisfactory. Hard work, but they were glad to get it.
Lake Gatun, the driving force behind the Lockes, is drying up. Each year, the water level has fallen to a point now that restricts the draft of many vessels transiting the Canal. Do we really want to invest blood and money in an asset that will be a mudhole in 20 years? Be nice to Panama’s neighbor. They want their own canal so bad they can taste it. China might very well wind up paying up the wazzoo to sit on a barely functional waterway. An added thought…send Dr. Mengele (oops…Fauchi) down to breed a shit load of mosquitoes for the benefit of the Chinese. Any history buffs remember those pesky mosquitoes??????? Also, the Calubra Cut still hasn;t found its Angle of Repose. It’s slowly filling in the Canal.
Sadly someone in the American government will grasp the mosquitoe idea.
The Canal is a vital link for many reasons. It never should have been released from American control.
Only a traitor would relinquish control.
Jimmy Carter, that savvy peanut farmer DID sell it fair and square to Panama….. FOR ONE DOLLAR.
If anybody can take the Canal back, it’s soon to be President Trump. That guy talks a lot of shit but I’ve noticed that he always keeps his word. If he says he’s going to do something, he does it.
As if “Panama” or China could stop him. China is the “paper tiger” of record. The CCP has never been in a war and couldn’t beat the Girl Scouts. Tiny dicked little ching chongs.
Considering who China’s allies are – can you imagine the fun the Houthis might have with the Panama Canal?
The Panamanian governments intentional and flagrant violations of the Panama Canal Treaty, which have literally permitted China to gain administrative and physical control over the canal, through the illegal construction of port facilities and bridges in violation of exclusive treaty Neutral Zone demarcation boundary stipulations, demands the immediate US governments cancellation of the ratification of this pathetic joke of a treaty, and its treasonous give away of a critical US strategic asset.
Not only was the Panama Canal built by America, so was Panama which became independent of Colombia in 1903 with the support of President Theodore Roosevelt. There were Panamanians seeking independence from Colombia and economic benefits from a canal. Roosevelt opposed Colombia’s efforts to retain control of Panama, which if I remember correctly, resulted in one donkey as a casualty.
You are correct, Sir.
It was by Satanic purpose that a Democrat, Carter (as they usually do under Demonic pressure), just “gave it up”. It was U.S. Territory, the “CZ” (should have made it a State). The West, that is the “Judaeo-Christian West”, have “given up a LOT of ‘Gates’ the Bible actually says it (if it means the Judaeo-Christian West born of the Celts) would control. “That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;” Genesis 22:17 KJV. Just ask yourself WHO controlled Suez, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, the “CZ”, Singapore, and so on. Anyway, as for the CZ, we should just march right on back in and resume OUR control. Not much the Panamanians could do about it except fume and fuss. A nice “weekend project” for Seal Team Six. DO IT! Just DO it!
I agree but I think this give China a strong card to play with respect to Taiwan.
Daniel Greenfield makes a strong case for taking back the canal, but there are arguments on the other side too. Chuck Holton, a war journalist and Trump supporter, an American citizen with a home in Panama, disputes Trump’s figures and history, and sees considerable down sides to taking over the canal, if in fact that is actually Trump;s plan, rather than putting China on notice to back off. regarding other imperialist moves it could make.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JOdXg19C08&t=3s.
So IMO, it’s something to learn more about before taking sides.
China is engaged worldwide in taking over the resources of other nations. Not a lot of concern about this apparently.
Suttee is no longer the fate of widows in India, because sometimes a moral responsibility exists which Western powers can meet with integrity, and without assuming another culture is inferior except with regard to one barbaric practice.
Female genital mutilation also fits into this category.
There is no justification for these practices.
All are capable of evil; but sometimes something good actually happens, and credit is due to those who take risks to bring less suffering into this world.