08 May '09 12:28>
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt was the right thing to do.
Think of all the moeny he saved by giving back the Panama Canal, too!
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."
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]
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by rbmorrisGod damn Christians. Bunch of morons. The lot of them.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/