I wonder... why intelligent people keep on trying to make others
understand that I debate is based on real facts and your opinions, not
copy and paste? It is so disrespectful. At least discuss base on real
facts, not others "non-espert" opinions.

JMHO

hello Dana!

<achooo!!!>

Sorry!

Sick!
<achoo!!!>

flu-ish

Quoting Philosopher: "I'll explain it like this. The United States has
done some things that people would like to expose in order to paint a
picture of a government out of control. With our freedom of information
and government accountability that could be done."

I my own very personal opinion, I think that freedom of speech, freedom
of information and government accountability are double edged weapons.

A criminal has the same rights as a victim, just about anybody can voice
out the most insane and inane comments, and even if they are accountable
for it, it will always fall back on the freedom of speech clause,
turning into a vicious circle.

Leaders are democratically elected, yet, we, the regular citizens
criticize every action, condemn every act and just won't let them do the
job WE chose them to do.

I have very ambiguous feelings about this, but I have always thought
that if we choose a president or a leader, we should let them do their
job, if they don't do it, there should be processes, not hard, but very
simple ways, to tell them to get off and let someone else handle it. But
everything in our worlds are just too complicated. Leaders have close to
absolute power and at the same time, their hands are tied.

The US desire to be well liked and accepted by the rest of the world,
keeps them advertising all the good and the bad that ever came from
their Nation's leaders, under the freedom of speech commandment. When
you bare your most inner situations and share it with the rest of the
world, you are putting it there open to criticism and judgment.

Nobody goes after Russia or China because they don't tell. Anything that
we know is hearsay. They have never admitted to anything, they will
always deny everything and make excuses for it. Dirty laundry is done at
home. Whatever proof is found, they will deny it, or just don't
acknowledge it.

I don't know much about World politics, or the US politics, I just know
of what I hear and see on the news, I don't take the time to go deeper
or further.

Freedom is wonderful. But it has to be handled carefully, all us.

Anytime, AB, anytime...

In response to Poetnartist post: "Not that we could fit even the
smallest of our effective military vessels through the canal. Your
tiniest of battleships are at least three times wider than the waterway.
And forget about sliding a sub through.... heh...."

First: One of the reason to enlarge the Canal is precisely the
Post-Panamax vessels (Panamax standing for the current measures of the
Panama Canal and it's maximum capacity). Note that vessel measures are
done in direct relation to the Panama Canal.

Second: The other treaty of the Panama Canal, subscribed Sept. 7, 1977
(The Torrijos-Carter Treaties <plural>)Was the "Neutrality Treaty", and
I summarize: this treaty, the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality
and Operation of the Panama Canal, or simply the Neutrality Treaty, was
a much shorter document. Because it had no fixed termination date, this
treaty was the major source of controversy. Under its provisions, the
United States and Panama agreed to guarantee the canal's neutrality "in
order that both in time of peace and in time of war it shall remain
secure and open to peaceful transit by the vessels of all nations on
terms of entire equality." In times of war, however, United States and
Panamanian warships were entitled to "expeditious" transit of the canal
under the provisions of Article VI. A protocol was attached to the
Neutrality Treaty, and all nations of the world were invited to
subscribe to its provisions.

"In times of War"... So if any of your tiniest war vessels wanted to
take a leisurely sail through the Panama Canal, or to slide a submarine,
it would be a direct breach of the Neutrality Treaty. And the UN is the
organism in charge of overseeing the compliance of the Canal Treaty.
Together with the Security Council of the UN. And Panama holds a seat in
the Security Council.

So, no. You couldn't slip a submarine or pass an armed vessel through
the Canal, even if it fitted.

About the comment of me being out of your age range: I have children of
my own. I don't need to finish raising and educating another child.

Oceans, this topic of the Panama Canal and the Separation from Colombia,
is exactly the topic of the book that I am currently translating, called
"With Ardent Flames of Glory", I will be happy to send you a copy when
finished.

In response to Oceans: "Alada, Many thanks for this history on the
Panama canal and its legal status....so much to know!

How significant do you think it is that the US may in effect have set up
'Panama' as a break away state in order to have more complaisant
'partner' for the Canal.

Totally. It was by the hand of the US that Panama broke from Colombia.
When Panama independent from Spain, Simon Bolivar suggested that we
joined Colombia as we were and are, a very small country. Colombia never
took notice of us, as being separated from the Capital City by a
murderous jungle. It was the forgotten state. When the French Canal
initiative failed due to ill administration of the funds, lack of
knowledge of the terrain and infirmity (yellow fever, malaria and
dengue), the country was at its poorest level. When the US started
exploring the possibility of purchasing the rights to continue the
construction of the Panama Canal they met with the opposition of the
Colombian Senate, that wanted more money for the rights. Panama was only
one of the options of building a Canal through the region, one of the
other was Nicaragua, which did not present as many political problems as
Panama did. But Panama was geographically, more feasible of an
enterprise. So colombian leaders born in Panama or sympathetic to the
Panamanian cause, started lobbying to finally get the treaty and thus,
the Canal. With Colombia's refusal to sign the Herran-Hay treaty,
Panama's possible progress originating from the construction of an
interoceanic canal through the Isthmus would never become a reality.

That's when Pres. Roosevelt forced his hand in our separation (and note
that I say separation: we were a state freely associated to Colombia,
and at liberty of separating at will, our only independence was from
Spain in 1821), providing the troops and inabilitating the Colombian
troops from intervening.

The Panama Canal treaty signed Nov. 18, 1903, 15 days after our
separation from Colombia, was signed by a Plenipotentiary Ambassador, a
French Engineer called Phillip Bunau-Varilla, for Panama and Mr. Hay,
for the US. Of course the US wanted Panama to be independent as the
negotiations with Colombia would have dragged for years, causing the US
investors to probably, look towards Nicaragua and other possibilities.

If, the Panama Canal is not necessary to the US as you said, then the
largest shipping companies, US Based, wouldn't be so concerned as to
wanting to become participants in the process of enlarging the Panama
Canal, that wilbe completed by 2014, 100 yrs after it was open to the
world. Maybe it is not a strategic stronghold in the region, military
speaking, as there aren't any more Dictators in the region.

Nowadays, the Canal has seen more improvement in 8 years since it was
reverted to Panamanian Administration, than it saw during the American
administration. The revenues of the Panama Canal revert directly in
social works, education, medical assistance, etc. During American
Administration, a very small portion was "paid" to Panama, everything
else was sent to the US treasure.
FANTA46 POSTED: "In 1903 the US proposed a treaty that would permit a
renewed effort to construct a canal across Panama's isthmus. The
previous attempt by the French had failed in the 1880's. When the
Colombian Government refused to allow the US to build the Canal, the
Panamanian people rebelled, and
supported by the US, ( the US military prevented the Colombian troops
from intervening) The Panamanians declared their independence and the
new country (Panama) immediately granted the US the rights to the Canal
Zone, 10 miles in width and 50 miles long. No money involved (YES $40
MILIION US DOLLARS WERE PAID FOR THE GRANT) and the Panama government
allowed the US all rights, powers, and authority in the Zone as if it
were the sovereign territory of the US. In the 70's the Canal had more
traffic than now and was generating millions of dollars in tolls, and
Panama started demanding it back. Given that the original treaty did not
give the US permanant possesion of the Canal the US renegotiated a
treaty in 1977 qnd began a staged withdrawl from the Zone, which was
completed in 1999."

The original treaty was a perpetual treaty that granted the US the
Admnistration, safeguard and defense, in addition to authorization to
the US government to interfere in Panamanian Politics if, at any point,
these policies were deemed or "perceived" to be in detriment of the
Canal. The staged withdrawal began in 1979 and ended in 1999. TWENTY TWO
YEARS AFTER THE TREATY WAS SIGNED. And it wasn't or itsn't important to
US strategy. I guess that's why the US Embassy is building a gigantic
compound in former Ft. Clayton, across the street from the Miraflores
Locks, right?

And no, the US wouldn't have the Canal back.

I forgot. The new treaty gave a time table for the US to revert the
lands, buildings and the operations of the Canal to the Republic of
Panama starting October 1979 and ending precisely by midnight, December
31, 1999. The last US soldier left Panama that day.

until we left them too Nov. 3, 1903.

Truth be told, the original treaty gave the US of A the eternal right to
administer, defend and safeguard the Canal and the Canal Zone. C'mon
people, did you really think that in the XX Century, the US was still
going to have Panama as a colony?

Carter didn't have a thing to do with this. He was the President at the
moment, but it could have been Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon to sign the
Treaty... Gen. Torrijos was Chief of Government since 1968. The US kept
putting the negotiations off, as the US was too busy in Vietnam, you
see...

Get the facts straight before you insult the integrity of others.

Venezuela, as Ecuador and Chile are part of the Social-Democratic
culture started recently in the area. Hugo Chavez, Calderón and
Michelle Bachelet, Presidents of the mentioned countries, are making
examples of economies that were once oppresed, but are learning to work
in a social (communist-like) way. And this is not to the complete like
and pleasure of the US.

I might not know about the middle-east. Is far from me and we have more
immediate problems to contend with. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is a huge
pain the behind for all the region, but there is nothing the US can do,
he was democratically elected.

The CIA funded most governments in latin america in the 60's, to ensure
fidelity. The US wouldn't relinquish their control of Panama, because
it was its stronghold in the region. Not any more. Teh treaties will not
be renegotiated ever again.

Begging permission from all the posters, I will intervene here and take
this deabte back to the first page and the discussion of the Panama
Canal, it's treaties and the inaccuracy of the information that most of
you seem to have.

First of all: I am Panamanian, born and raised in this country, a
citizen that lived through most of the process that led to the Panama
Canal Treaties (yes, there are more than one, first one signed in 1903
and two signed September 7, 1977). That being said, let us talk about
the treaties.

The first treaty was called the Hay-Bunau Varilla and it gave the United
States of America the right to build, operate and safeguard a
transoceanic Canal to perpetuity, in an area close to 1,500 sqkm in the
Republic of Panama. Panama had just concluded its separation as a state
from Colombia, and the USA paid the amount of $40,000,000 for such right
(we are still looking for the 40 millions).

After several attempts to renegotiate the Hay-Bunau Varilla treaty
failed, and after a series of very unfortunate events were Panamanian
high school students, in the attempt to raise the Panamanian Flag in the
grounds of a High School located in the Canal Zone, which existed as an
entity, or better yet, like a small country with it's own laws and
government, within Panama, said students were beaten and the flag torn
to pieces and set on fire. This uncahined a series of violent protests
by the civilian citizenry demanding a change. Twenty Panamanian students
were shot to death by US Soldiers, from inside the Canal Zone firing
towards Panama City, and over 500 civilians were seriously injured. This
pushed the Panamanian President to break Diplomatic relations with the
US, and upon the request of the US to re-stablish relations, the
Panamanian Government demanded to restart the negotiations of a new
Treaty. This was January of 1964.

The final negotiations for the new treaty began in 1977, and the treaty
was signed September 7th by Gen. Omar Torrijos, de facto leader of
Panama and Pres. Jimmy Carter.

PANAMA was not given away under Carter, because PANAMA wasn't a property
of the US to be given away to begin with. PANAMA has been an independent
country ever since Nov. 28, 1821, when we parted from SPAIN, and
voluntarily joined COLOMBIA

sick!

MASH
CHEERS
GILLIGAN'S ISLAND
I LOVE LUCY
SEINFIELD

And I really don't remember the name of the show but it was an
investigative reporter of the Paranormal named Kolchack...

I wonder...If we are all here, who's there?


Welcome to all

Hello, sweet friend!

sadly but truly available!

Who's Aunt Nancy?


Never mind... Happy Birthday Aunt Nancy!

I am curvy. I have curves where I am supposed to have them. I am latin
and it shows. At 5'7 and 43 and with all the yo-yo dieting, I have
gained and lost at least 500 lbs in my life time. 6 months ago I started
a treatment for allergies and the Dr. started eliminating foods from my
"regular" diet which turned into a weight loss program, and I saw the
results immediately. All my allergies and maladies just disappeared,
now I enjoy a lot of freedom from medication. I lost 24 pounds in the
first month and a half, which was quick, and I decided to stay there
until my body grew used to the new weight. Now I am starting Phase 2, to
lose the other 24 lbs, and stay there.

Eating right, drinking water and exercising has become my life not a
part of it. Understanding what I eat and learning that what I was eating
was all wrong for me, have given me new confidence and a boost to my
self esteem.

I will never be thin. I still have bones and I really like my boobs, my
hips, my @$$, my legs... don't wanna lose it all.

OMG!

How much did you pay for sardines! I heard that Spain is really
expensive, and Marbella (or are you in Mallorca) is even more costly!

I had to do my last name!!!!!