Fanta, I finally read your historical comments regarding panama. I
remember some of that detail about Columbia from school, many years ago.
Its a wonder my brain functions so well as to recall the tiniest detail,
so long ago it was. Interesting bit of history there. As for the Treaty
of 1903 though you missed one detail. The original treaty of 1903 did in
fact give perpetual possession of the canal zone to the United States. I
pasted the text of that portion of the treaty in an earlier post in this
thread.

Ocean, I was not speaking about Uranium Hexafluoride in particular, and
I wasn't thinking of gas either. The fact that they are accumulating
radioactive material in large quantities is more the issue I was
addressing. An Iranian friend of mine assures me that they have no need
for an atomic bomb because they can create a dirty bomb any time they
want that can kill essentially all the people of Israel in short order.
He also makes the point that if Iran is attacked they will use it
against Israel, and the US as well. He points out how vulnerable the
American troops are in Iraq. So his argument is that they don't need the
bomb, so therefore they aren't producing one.

Then he follows up by saying they already have one anyway.

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.

oh my...

what about this child.

I don't wana grow up.

he he he

Anytime, AB, anytime...

Regarding the review of the CIA over the years after the cold war.

Ok that might be a good idea, but without fair and balanced reporting I
would prefer that not to happen.

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.

On the other hand the inner workings of the USSR during its day, and
Russia now are much more difficult to ascertain and expose. The same
holds true for China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, even Iraq during its
day. So if you expose every poor choice made by the US without also
showing what the other countries were doing at the same time, then you
give no historical context for the action. That would unfairly
characterize the United States in a bad light, by comparison to other
countries who may well do as bad or even much worse, but simply protect
their secrets better.

So for all the ones here who would jump all over the US and the CIA,
lets see you drag out the dirty Laundry of the USSR at the same time.
Otherwise, you may be right, but you'll not have my respect. Further
you'll do a lot of harm to the US image unfairly, which it doesn't need
or deserve. Someone has to watch out for our image in the world when
there are so many with an agenda to destroy it.

I find it somewhat incredible that so many people just love to jump the
CIA and the United States, but nobody goes after Russia or China, at
least so far as our media are concerned. You would think that Russia
never had a foreign policy department whatsoever. The KGB was a bunch of
guys who sat around and played cards. They never tried to influence
international events.

Think about Vietnam for a moment. There was always an understanding
that Russia and China were involved. But nobody ever wanted to take them
to task for it directly. Fight the North Vietnamese harder and harder.
But go after their supplier and end the war? Not a chance.

Russia responsible for the ascension of Castro? Nobody ever asked the
question. They might say, yes, Russia supported him once he was
established, but help him get there? Preposterous.

Same thing with Chavez and the recent election of Ortega. Nobody is
asking if Russia got involved in aiding the rise and takeover of
Venezuela. Is there anybody in the state department with the
intelligence to ask the question? I think there is. But I don't think
they share their thoughts with the media, and I don't think the media
are smart enough to ask the question on their own, particularly if their
agenda is to investigate the CIA instead of looking a the whole picture.

For the media, investigating the CIA and pointing fingers at them is
easier than investigating the other side. So basically I think they are
lazy, and trying to make a lazy buck off sensationalism. Profit.

The state department and the CIA can not publicize what information they
might gain because doing so would compromise their sources and
jeopardize their ability to get such information in the future. In
addition they have their reasons to keep secrets. Tipping their hand
that they know this or that might make their responses obvious and
transparent to others. Likely they prefer not to have so much
visibility.

I think rather than expose the critical things the CIA has done it would
be much better to expose the things done by our adversaries, and that
the CIA and state department should implement a campaign to release as
much of that sort of information as possible.

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.

Freedom isn't free. It's just that simple. We do what we can. We fail,
on occasion. But so does everyone. Being fallible doesn't mean being
evil. And sometimes the other side doesn't play nice. Peaceful
coexistence only works when both sides want it. Why they want it can
vary dramatically. In some cases, it's because they're rational,
civilized people. In other cases, it's because our guns are bigger than
theirs- and the prospect of guarenteed death makes them shy away.


Men with guns rob banks. No one's ever tried to rob Fort Knox. Despite
the fact that it has (had, actually- I'm pretty sure it's been moved
since) the largest known storehouse of pure gold in the world. That's
quite a catch. Why go after a few thousand bucks that can be traced when
you can go after hundreds upon hundreds of untraceable gold that can be
sold on the international market without question or difficulty. Answer-
because the guys there are better trained and have better weapons. It'd
take a small army to get to the reward.

Some people love peace because of what it means. Some love peace for
what it brings. Some don't so much love peace as hate war. And some
accept peace because they know they'd lose.

Very good points made by Alada, I agree throughout.

Poet makes the point that countries can get along if they want to but
they don't always want to.

I agree with that too. With any two people, they have to agree if the
choice is to dance together, but if only one wants to fight, they are
fighting.

Alada, what about the discussion of possibly building a new, larger
canal in a new location. Hasn't that been discussed some in the past?

Yeah. What is going to be done with that canal, anyways?

Although it's really a moot point. We can launch from shore enough
military firepower to sink most any air or sea invasion. Our carriers in
the atlantic could easily deploy to defend Hawaii.

In the modern military theatre- even if we could use the canal- it
wouldn't be fast enough to get the ships to the field.

Quick thoughts on a US 'Truth and Reconciliation commission.'

1. I wasn't focusing on the CIA and its deeds and or misdeeds, rather,
my concern is with the government as a whole. For example, the CIA knew
that the Bush administration was lying through its teeth about a) 'WMD
in Iraq', b) any connection between Iraq and Sept 11, 3) Niger
yellowcake, 4) mobile 'biochemical' labs, 5) centrifuge purchases by
Iraq. The Bush neocons made up each one of those, got their patsy's in
the media (e.g. Judith Miller, NYT)to repeat the false accusations, and
repeated the falsehoods themselves before Congress. The CIA weren't the
villains at all, nor the other US intel groups that also knew and told
the truth: DIA, State Dept, NSA, etc.

2. Focus on the US. Good point about examining the actions of ther US
government in the larger international political context, including the
Cold War. Keep in mind, that for us, there is one vast impotrant
difference: we, for the most part in this forum are American, and it is
not only our right but our responsibility as citizens to understand and
guide the activities of our government. True, other governments do bad
things, but it is the US that is my primary concern, for it is my goal
to help make future Viet Nams, Palestines and Iraqs more difficult for
the forces of darkness that exist within our own society.

3. I would welcome all invesitgations into conflicts that still wrack
our country, including Viet Nam and the Israeli seizure of Palestine.
There is something of vital importance for us to learnb about our
country, and until we learn these things we will continue to be
vulnerable to manipulation by special interest groups that reside here
and take advantage of our hospitality.

4. And, back to the CIA, regarldess of what else the CIA may have done,
they are not responsible in any way for these major conflicts that I
have listed (leaving aside the matter of the CIA's coup against Iran in
1953, which was inexcusable -- a personal adventure by Kermit
Roosevelt).

:conversing:

Oceans

^^^^^^^^ I did say I had ambiguous feeelings about it... I am still
making up my mind. But I do agree in a couple things. Freedom isn't
free. And it also takes two to Tango. If one wants to fight and the
other doesn't, then it becomes bullying. We (Panaman)have danced with
the Devil in the Pale Moonlight... for as long as I can remember... and
we have paid the price and harvested the rewards as well.

In regards to the discussions about other routes for a Canal in the
region, before the French settled for Panama, there were 2 other routes
discussed, one through Nicaragua and one throught the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec Mexico.

The route through Nicaragua was dismissed mainly due to the fact that
they due have volcanic activity. The discussions have ressumed, and
there exists the believe that there is enough commercial traffic
(trade)in the region to support two canals. In my opinion, there isn't.

The main reason Nicaragua was proposing to build a canal was to
accomodate Post-Panamax vessels, and that reason is no longer valid, as
the project to enlarge the Panama Canal was voted for and approved and
construction already began. The enlargement is self-supportive, and
foreign private investment will be used as well, whereas no additional
loans from International banks will be necessary.

I think that the reason some individuals in the US are trying to push
for a Canal in Nicaragua, is because the US have lost the stronghold it
had in Panama. The government is no longer under it's control and under
fear of interference due to the Canal Neutrality. The hopes to see
failure befall the Panamanian Administration of the Canal has not come
true.

So I believe that's one of the major reasons to push forward an
initiative to build a transoceanic canal through Nicaragua. But it was
an initiative that had the blessing of former President Bolaños. Bolaños
is no longer the President, but Daniel Ortega is. And although Ortega
has sworn to cooperate with the US, I think it would be under his terms.

For any one who does not think the canal has military signifigance.

In any protracted military engagement the side with the better supply
line has the best chance of winning.

Sure in the moderen age supplies can be moved by air very quickly but
the logistics to move large amount of supplies by air is costly and
requires a lot of aircraft.

Sea based movement using large cargo ships may be slower but will
provide much more to the combat zone over time than aircraft.

the canal is still the quickest way from one side to the other.

If there were a larger canal built I would expect smaller vessels which
are designed to pass through Panama would have a little obsolescence
problem over the next few decades. People would build larger vessels to
take advantage of the wider route. Panama revenues might be affected,
but the smaller ships could still use Panama.

The Canal through Nicaragua is not happening... and this is not wishful
thinking.

The costs of such an enterprise are too high and the investors have seen
that it is better to invest in the enlargement than to build a new one.
The is a land Canal in place already. It is the Panama Railroad that
goes from Cristobl in the Atlantic to Balboa in the Pacific, and it
transports mainly containers to be shipped in the vessels that travel
from port to port in the different locations, be it Atlantic ports or
Pacific ports, without necessarily having to cross the canal.

The Panama Railroad was first built to expedite and safeguard the lives
of US citizens traveling overseas and due to its timing, accomodate the
need of people from the US East Coast to travel to the West Coast during
the California Gold Rush. To go across the expanse of the US and to face
the natives, was unthinkable, and to build the railroad through the US
was going to be a larger enterprise than building it through Panama,
despite yellow fever and dengue. It was completed in 5 years.

There are other alternative routes, but it has been proved that they are
not feasible, otherwise not one, but two or three canals would have
sprung in the region.

Although, if we really work at it- we might be able to get global
warming to build a NATURAL waterway through central america.

Yep,

Perhaps even a new ocean or two.

This will be a never ending story... the Canal will be expanded, and the
vessels will be built bigger, and then we will expand the canal again,
until there is no Panama, and there will be expeditious pass for every
vessel in the world, we Panamanians might have to use our air-space to
build our living quarters!

Nope. You'll just use all that dirt you dug from the canal to build
yourself a nice island off your own (now nonexistant) coast.

funny, but we have plenty of islands... we can join all of the San Blas
Islands, I think there are like 365 of them, or enlarge Isla del Rey
(where the Survivor show Pearl Islands was shot). Or we can all migrate
to the US, and cause the immigration authorities there an even major
problem...