Bush Backs Enlarging Panama Canal

ap on Yahoo ^ | 11/07/05 | Deb Riechmann - ap

[DBrow]

I agree. A little longer, but flatter so no locks.

Who's running Nicaragua now?

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“I agree. A little longer, but flatter so no locks.”

Wrong. The reason for the locks is because the Atlantic side has about 3-foot tide, and the Pacific side has about a 15-foot tide.

[Sometimes A River]

Uh, we bought the land, and paid to have it built.

How is that "communist?"

People think we went in there with guns blazing, and built this thing in opposition to everyone. That simply isn't the case.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Thank you.

[Allen H]

Yeah my Grandfather was with the A.C.E. that helped build it. It makes me sick knowing that he spent years of his life helping to build it and now it is not in American hands anymore. 8( **sigh** carter is a piece of crap.

[Flavius Josephus]

Never mind, he's rolling...

[reelfoot]

How many billions of our money are you willing to throw at this boondoggle, Mr. Pres.?

Please don't take any more foreign trips. You're wasting more than enough money at home.

[DBrow]

The Gatun locks go up or down 26 meters. The Pedro Miguel locks are 10 meters, and the Miraflores locks are 16.5 meter lift/sink. Net is about zero.

The Miraflores lock lifts a ship up to the level of Lake Miraflores, 54 feet above sea level. The next lock, Pedro Miguel, lifts another ten feet to the main part of the canal (Gatun Lake). The Culebro Cut, where the Centennial Bridge is, is about 85 feet above sea level. The last lock, Gatun, drops the ship back down.

http://panamaliving.com/locks.html

Go to the schematic of the canal where it says Click On the Cutout of the canal for a side view of the canal, the locks, and the elevations.

Picking a flatter piece of land would mean that you would not need locks.

The maximum tidal range on the Pacific side is from +11.0 feet to -10.5 feet; hence the lift at Miraflores is actually from 43 feet at extreme high tide to 64.5 feet at extreme low tide. The tidal range on the Atlantic side does not exceed 24 inches.

The tides would mean a flow of water one way, then the other, through the canal, like the Cape Cod canal in Massachusetts. The tidal differences are small compared to the lift of the locks, which are designed to get the ship up to the level of the lake and canal, then back down again. Miraflores is the only lock that is needed if tide was the only problem, but the overall boost up is greater than the tidal swing.

By the way, what's a mango tree lawyer?

[wickedpinto]

Maybe not guns blazing, but (and this is my prime source) if you read "Marine" the biography of Smedley Butler, the BEST Marine Ever, no matter Chesty's propaganda, you will see that the US did deliberately insinuate itself into the Panamanian politics of the time, basically informing the Capital that if they don't get their crap together, the US will protect the canal.

That is why I love smedley, and why I LOVE Teddy.

[wickedpinto]

I don't disagree that Carter picked a despicable regime to surrender the land to, since we had an indefinate lease. However, the only way we could maintain indefinate control was to be an imperialist nation, and while we enjoy our FEDERALISM, which is a sort of empire, we are only better than the old English, and the current french, because we have dignity. Let the Panamanians Have it, but if it needs to be fixed? and they need to turn to the US? Then we should LEASE it for next to nothing, so that we can control the income. And we will return it when we have made a proffit.

I wasn't saying that the US was wrong in building it. and I don't think we were wrong in turning it over, other than the situation. Put Panama in graffiti or hier a PR firm to make a logo that is pasted on every locke wall, but the world knows, it was the US that built the Canal, and it is the US that will keep it open and safe at all times.

In the Mid 80's, my brothers best friend was one of them, the canal needed REAL protection so they hiered, as the libs call them, Mercenaries, to look out for the defense of the canal, MILES away from the canal.

The US built it, and in fact, the US IS the western Hemisphere, no matter what Canada thinks.


Totaly wordy, and totaly nationalistic, but I don't think this statement is wrong.

[miliantnutcase]

A wider one would be nice. Right now our carriers scrape the sides trying to get through.

[Non-Sequitur]

"We built it, we paid for it, it's ours." - Ronald Reagan

And then Reagan did nothing during his 8 years in office to modify or retract the Canal treaty. Why not, if it was so bad? If turning the canal back over to Panama was so bad then why blame it all on Carter when 9 years of Republican presidents did nothing to halt it.

[F.J. Mitchell]

It's not our problem anymore. Not a nickle unless we are first given a deed and absolute soverenty over the whole damn thing.

[Non-Sequitur]

Right now our carriers scrape the sides trying to get through.

Right now our carriers would have to scrape off about 12 feet on either side to fit through, not to mention about 30 feet off the bow and stern. We haven't built one that would fit in the canal since World War II.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Isn't that usually spelled with a "H"?

[tanknetter]

Right now our carriers would have to scrape off about 12 feet on either side to fit through, not to mention about 30 feet off the bow and stern. We haven't built one that would fit in the canal since World War II.

I think the LHAs and LHDs can still make it through. The last non-VSTOL fixed wing carriers were the pre-SCB Essexes.

Widening the Canal is going to take an ENORMOUS amount of money. Such an effort was proposed in WWII so the Canal could handle the Montana Class BBs (which were never built) and possibly the Midways. It was just too expensive both in terms of actual outlays and opportunity costs ... this in a full-bore wartime economy and spending environment.

[connectthedots]

Costco is a large national retail chain of discount warehouses founded in California.

That would be the state of Washington.

[Non-Sequitur]

Widening the Canal is going to take an ENORMOUS amount of money.

That's OK, Bush will give it to 'em.

[newbeliever]

Actually the reason for the locks is that due to the depth that would be required to make it sea level, the amount of material that would have to be removed would be too extreme. Many studies indicate that the tides would be manageable and only result in a current of some 8 or so knots, I believe,

[Loud Mime]

Have you read "The Path Between the Seas" by David McCullough?

Even though I lived in Panama for 4 years, it brought forward stuff I never knew. I highly recommend it.