Originally posted by TerrierJackActually Carter did save money by negotiating the return of control of the Panama canal to the Panamanians.
Actually Carter did save money by negotiating the return of control of the Panama canal to the Panamanians. Fighting and endless insurgency there would have been extremely costly both in terms of raw dollars and the lost good will of many other nations. Problems are not solved thru violence. Didn't your parents teach you anything? My father spent 37 ...[text shortened]... ong-winded circuitous reasoning. He simply said, "We don't do it because it is not right."
The original treaty was with Colombia, not the Panamanians.
Fighting and endless insurgency there would have been extremely costly both in terms of raw dollars and the lost good will of many other nations.
Who gives a rat's ass about the supposed "lost good will of many other nations?" The two countries signed a 99-year lease which was not set to expire until 2002. Carter acquiesed to bullies.
Problems are not solved thru violence.
Unless, of course, you are the bully and you have folks like Carter on the receiving end.
Didn't your parents teach you anything?
Didn't I tell you? I was raised by wolves.
My father spent 37 years in the US Army and when I asked him about torture he didn't offer justifications or long-winded circuitous reasoning. He simply said, "We don't do it because it is not right."
I wonder if your dad had only spent 36 years in the US Army if his response would have been the same.
Nonetheless, his thinking is right. We shouldn't be because it is wrong.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStick to the Bible, the Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty), November 18, 1903
[b]Actually Carter did save money by negotiating the return of control of the Panama canal to the Panamanians.
The original treaty was with Colombia, not the Panamanians.
Fighting and endless insurgency there would have been extremely costly both in terms of raw dollars and the lost good will of many other nations.
Who gives a rat's ass abo ...[text shortened]... the same.
Nonetheless, his thinking is right. We shouldn't be because it is wrong.[/b]
was between the US and Panama:
The President of the United States of America, John Hay, Secretary of State, and
The Government of the Republic of Panama, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Panama, thereunto specially empowered by said government, who after communicating with each other their respective full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/pan001.asp
Originally posted by no1marauderI shall stick to the Bible. Thanks for the encouragement.
Stick to the Bible, the Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty), November 18, 1903
was between the US and Panama:
The President of the United States of America, John Hay, Secretary of State, and
The Government of the Republic of Panama, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plen ...[text shortened]... pon and concluded the following articles:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/pan001.asp
In your quest to one-upmanship, you probably neglected to read too far into the history of the Panama Canal. The first treaty signed by the US was the Hay-Herran Treaty, when Panama was still a province of Colombia. The one to which you refer was rejected (and a continual source of contention), as Bunau-Varilla--- although a legitimate ambassador for Panama-- was a citizen of France, and therefore unqualified to enter into any treaty agreements without the country's agreement.
This second agreement was an end-run by Teddy to get what he wanted out of the area, once Colombia was eliminated from the picture.. The original treaty wasn't perfect, but was closer to legitimate than anything else the US acted upon. Instead of ousting Colombia, the US ought to have worked on their first "diplomatic" overtures in the area.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou've got it backwards. The treaty with Columbia was rejected by the Columbian Senate and never came into force. So the US arranged a little revolution in Panama. The treaty I referred to remained in force until 1979.
I shall stick to the Bible. Thanks for the encouragement.
In your quest to one-upmanship, you probably neglected to read too far into the history of the Panama Canal. The first treaty signed by the US was the Hay-Herran Treaty, when Panama was still a province of Colombia. The one to which you refer was rejected (and a continual source of contention) ing Colombia, the US ought to have worked on their first "diplomatic" overtures in the area.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs stated, the only treaty that should have been acted upon--- given the lack of authority associated with the second one--- is the one ratified by our senate and a legitimate representative from the rightful country. While Colombia's senate did, indeed, reject it, instead of overthrowing the country the right thing to do would have been to work out whatever differences they had with the first one.
You've got it backwards. The treaty with Columbia was rejected by the Columbian Senate and never came into force. So the US arranged a little revolution in Panama. The treaty I referred to remained in force until 1979.
And, by 1979, I assume you mean 1977.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou shouldn't assume. The effective date of the 1977 Treaties was October 1, 1979.
As stated, the only treaty that should have been acted upon--- given the lack of authority associated with the second one--- is the one ratified by our senate and a legitimate representative from the rightful country. While Colombia's senate did, indeed, reject it, instead of overthrowing the country the right thing to do would have been to work out whatever differences they had with the first one.
And, by 1979, I assume you mean 1977.
Well of course my point was exaggarated and fanciful. But the point (though lost) was, it could have been just as bad or worse if we had the opposite kind of president in office when the towers went down. Bush was one end of the spectrum while the "Carter" policy is on the other end of the spectrum. We probably would have been better off with a middle of the road president handling the situation.
Bush was an opportunist; the towers went down and it was his opportunity to yes, go after the culprits but also do everything in his power to end the reign of radical Islam terror, by establishing a foothold right in Iraq.
I like the idea; I like having a well fortified, permanent base in Iraq with Saddam removed from power. But all that it took to do it, including making most of the world mad at us and trying to mislead everyone into thinking Saddam was partly responsible for 911... well that didnt work out to well.
He misled our country and the world, and that is bad thing but I still believe his ultimate goal was correct. You can't just keep swatting away angry hornets... you have to destroy the nest to irradicate the problem. The only way to do that is to establish a presence right there in the thick of it. He succeeded at that at least... perhaps at too great a cost.
