Political Crossfire Forums

[Gremlin]

The United States, under Theodore Roosevelt, bought out the French equipment and excavations, and began work in 1904, after helping Panama to declare independence from Colombia in exchange for control of the Panama Canal Zone.

The canal was formally opened on August 15, 1914, under United States control of the canal and the canal zone surrounding it became contentious as relations between Panama and the U.S. became increasingly tense. Many Panamanians felt that the canal zone rightfully belonged to Panama. Student protests were met by the fencing in of the zone and an increased military presence. Negotiations toward a new settlement began in 1974, and resulted in the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Signed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos of Panama on September 7, 1977, this set in motion the process of handing the canal over to Panamanian control. Though controversial within the U.S., the treaty led to full Panamanian control effective at noon on December 31, 1999, and control of the canal was handed over to the Panama Canal Authority.

Before the 1999 handover of Canal operations, the government of Panama negotiated a 25-year contract for operation of the Canal's container shipping ports (chiefly two facilities at the Atlantic and Pacific outlets) to the Chinese firm Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based shipping concern whose owner Li Ka Shing is the wealthiest man in China.



Now in our current Global environment free trade prevents war more then diplomacy. Even so the fact that America does not have control over the canal is a concern of mine. America has the most to lose and the canal is one of the keys that to our fast moving Navy. if the proverbial s**t hits the fan we may need that canal and im not sure cutting threw red tape of another sovereign nation will bring the best results to getting the job done.

President Carter bent over in his deal to hand over the canal, but the fact remains it would not exist without America. America needs this canal today just as it did when it was built. What are your thoughts?

[perdidochas]

Gremlin wrote:



The United States, under Theodore Roosevelt, bought out the French equipment and excavations, and began work in 1904, after helping Panama to declare independence from Colombia in exchange for control of the Panama Canal Zone.

The canal was formally opened on August 15, 1914, under United States control of the canal and the canal zone surrounding it became contentious as relations between Panama and the U.S. became increasingly tense. Many Panamanians felt that the canal zone rightfully belonged to Panama. Student protests were met by the fencing in of the zone and an increased military presence. Negotiations toward a new settlement began in 1974, and resulted in the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Signed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos of Panama on September 7, 1977, this set in motion the process of handing the canal over to Panamanian control. Though controversial within the U.S., the treaty led to full Panamanian control effective at noon on December 31, 1999, and control of the canal was handed over to the Panama Canal Authority.

Before the 1999 handover of Canal operations, the government of Panama negotiated a 25-year contract for operation of the Canal's container shipping ports (chiefly two facilities at the Atlantic and Pacific outlets) to the Chinese firm Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based shipping concern whose owner Li Ka Shing is the wealthiest man in China.



Now in our current Global environment free trade prevents war more then diplomacy. Even so the fact that America does not have control over the canal is a concern of mine. America has the most to lose and the canal is one of the keys that to our fast moving Navy. if the proverbial s**t hits the fan we may need that canal and im not sure cutting threw red tape of another sovereign nation will bring the best results to getting the job done.

President Carter bent over in his deal to hand over the canal, but the fact remains it would not exist without America. America needs this canal today just as it did when it was built. What are your thoughts?




If we needed the canal back, I'm sure we have groups of special ops units who have made detailed plans on how to take the canal back. Heck, for a lot of special ops units, Panama is almost their backyard (at one time, the majority of US jungle fighting training occurred there, I'm sure the senior NCOs know that area like the back of their hand).

[Gremlin]

perdidochas wrote: If we needed the canal back, I'm sure we have groups of special ops units who have made detailed plans on how to take the canal back. Heck, for a lot of special ops units, Panama is almost their backyard (at one time, the majority of US jungle fighting training occurred there, I'm sure the senior NCOs know that area like the back of their hand).


I have no doubt that there are contingencies to take back the canal if we had to, but doesnt that put a monkey wrench in the reason that we might need to take it back?

My concern is that if the time comes that we need to take it back, for what ever reason, that time will be of the essence. Intervention into other sovereign nations asset usually leads to bad relations that may create a blowback effect.

[perdidochas]

Gremlin wrote: perdidochas wrote: If we needed the canal back, I'm sure we have groups of special ops units who have made detailed plans on how to take the canal back. Heck, for a lot of special ops units, Panama is almost their backyard (at one time, the majority of US jungle fighting training occurred there, I'm sure the senior NCOs know that area like the back of their hand).


I have no doubt that there are contingencies to take back the canal if we had to, but doesnt that put a monkey wrench in the reason that we might need to take it back?

My concern is that if the time comes that we need to take it back, for what ever reason, that time will be of the essence. Intervention into other sovereign nations asset usually leads to bad relations that may create a blowback effect.

That is why we have a west coast fleet and an east coast fleet.

[Gremlin]

good point, i wasnt taking that into account.


Well gezz, thanx for shooting down my concerns in on swift move
. :-D :tu:

[bigstick61]

Part of the strategic importance of the canal was to rapidly transfer warships from one fleet to the other. Otherwise they have to go around S. America or circumnavigate the globe. Personally, I think we should have never turned it over and still have full control over the PCZ. And we do have a plan to seize the canal zone and secure it for the U.S. if/when the time comes. It was formulated not long after the canal was turned over.

[thundertaker]

I'm pretty sure if the americans said they really REALLY needed to use the canal, the Panamanians wouldn't give them the finger....

[Bobicito]

I don't see why we would need it considering Panama would probably let us use it whenever we wanted. I mean they can't be that stupid to think that they can close it and take on the Americans.

[superskippy]

If a US fleet needed to force it's way through the Panama Canal do you really think Panama could stop American from forcing it's ships through, or that a Panamian force would really try and deny entry to the most powerful navy on the planet? It would be suicide.

[Bobicito]

Thats what I said. Panama would not dare try and stop us from using the canal.