Reply With Quote
Maybe put in place a toll booth.Originally Posted by Schadenfreude
the real threat the uprising in egypt poses to the western world
the loss of use of the suez canal
whatever new government takes over in egypt, the western world has to hope that it will be friendly to the west like mubarak is
come dance w Jak o the shadows
freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose
first there was the leg race then the arms race and now the brain race
all animals are created equal - G. Orwell
some animals are more equal that others - SCOTUS
Maybe put in place a toll booth.
"May your reality be as pleasant as mine."
thanks to jimmah cahrter we lost panama....
This learned article from the Harvard Business School may help to understand the complex issues surrounding the Panama Canal. Here is an excerpt.
In short, the United States no longer had any interest in owning the canal. American end users no longer needed to ensure that Washington kept tolls low, and American taxpayers no longer gained from the canal's profits. Jimmy Carter struck a deal in which the United States would slowly turn the Panama Canal over to Panama, in return for the elimination of almost most aid transfers—with the Neutrality Treaty tacked on to ensure that the United States retained the right to return should canal operations be threatened. President Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said it best when asked by Congress what would happen if a future Panamanian government shut down the Panama Canal "for repairs." He responded, "In that case, according to the provisions of the Neutrality Treaty, we will move in and close down the Panamanian government for repairs."
When you add together the lack of strategic value, the decline and disappearance of the economic value of ownership (although the existence of the canal remained important), and the guarantee of the Neutrality Treaty, then the Panama Canal treaties start to look like a no-brainer … and that is why Harry Truman first proposed "ditching the Big Ditch," and Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford all made serious efforts to negotiate a handover. That said, it took Jimmy Carter's willingness to cut endless deals and risk political suicide to get the Panama Canal treaties through the Senate. The reason was that a large swath of American public opinion opposed the Panama Canal treaties, but their motivation was a defensive American nationalism, not American national defense.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6402.html
Last edited by Aoxomoxoa; 02-05-2011 at 05:02 PM.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're going, and hook up with them later.
it was brought up before, but people should realize that the real threat is that it could happen here too.
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. —CHARLES A. BEARD
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. - Patrick Henry
What could happen here, too?
the people could rebel
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. —CHARLES A. BEARD
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. - Patrick Henry
If the west spend more money on supporting moderate Islamic voices and less of Dictators, they wouldn't be in this mess.
But hey! There is much more profit in supporting dictators(note sarcasm)!
America must keep their war machine industry employed at all times!
What people could rebel?
The suez cannal brings a lot of money to egypt why would a new government jeopardize that.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks