Posted on 10/01/2006 2:32:23 PM PDT by kellynla
A late 19th century idea has been resurrected to build a new canal in Nicaragua, at the same time Panama is planning to widen its own canal.
Nicaraguan officials say next week they will announce their $20 billion proposal to build a canal linking the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans that would accommodate ships too large to use the Panama Canal, according to the Los Angeles Times.
If it meets with the necessary approval by Nicaragua's Congress, the project would be a joint public-private venture financed by unnamed investors, Lindolfo Monjarretz, a spokesman for Nicaraguan President Enrique Bolanos, told the Times.
"We will have a deeper draft than the Panama Canal and reach a different market than Panama," Monjarretz told the Times. "The construction of the canal . . . will be pushed forward by Nicaragua because it's necessary for global trade."
That contention was disputed by Rodolfo Sabonge, a top official of the Panama Canal Authority, the quasi-independent body that has run the canal since the United States turned it over to Panama in 1999. Sabonge told the Times that there was insufficient ship traffic to support both a widened Panama Canal and a second canal in Nicaragua.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
So ship spinach through it.
. A short vacation, .... and a little .... 'CHELATION'
The benefits are too large to dismiss!!
I'd never heard of 'Sedan' before, ... had you?
I'm REALLY sure I'd never heard of the toxic effects of 'this' radiation cloud in Mississippi!!
After all, how would they know the difference?
I've done tons of research and papers on nuclear weapons in the last 4 years. I've even visited three different nuclear test sites including Trinity.
Sea level? I'm pretty sure I read that the Pacific is 80 feet higher than the Atlantic. (No, I'm not going to explain it)
A few more tests and we could have fixed that.
yitbos
And that handshake took place when Ortega was committing genocide against thousands of Nicaraguan civilians.
Zero. I never visited Nazi Germany or Cambodia, either, but I studied history.
Nicargua has come a long way since the Sandinistas and the days of Iran-Contra.
It has ratified a free trade agreement with the US and is actively seeking foreign investment.
It is true that Daniel Ortega is running for President again this year, and he might just win, although the majority of the country opposes him. There are too many conservative candidates in the race, and he could win if he collects 35% of the vote in the first round of balloting.
Obviously, that would be a setback. My hope is that he comes up a little bit short, because he'd be trounced in the final election. Hugo Chavez has tried to interfere in the election and that has caused some backlash against Ortega, which is helpful. However, we are doing the same thing, and hopefully that won't backfire on us.
Really?
Unless you rewrite history US build the Canal in 1911 and US had a 100 year lease on it. In late 70's Carter gave the lease up long before it expired, he did not even get a bunch of bananas as a compensation.
Instead of us still being in control of this important strategic point today, the Chicoms control it.
"Sea level? I'm pretty sure I read that the Pacific is 80 feet higher than the Atlantic. (No, I'm not going to explain it)"
The route through the lake is closer to sea level. It is still easier to avoid the cut through the mountains considering the huge canal cross section.
Yes, there is an average sea level difference (higher on the Pacific side) by about 20cm, but an even bigger problem is the 20 ft tides on the Pacific side.
Russians???
"China already controls the panama canel. Why would they be interested in a second one?"
How do they control the panama canal?
" Instead of us still being in control of this important strategic point today, the Chicoms control it."
they don't control anything, unless balboa and cristobal ports through a chinese/HK company count. Have you ever been to either of these ports since HW started running them?
also I am fairly certain you are wrong on the 100 year lease - the US owned the canal zone as sovreign 'in perpetuity.'
the issue in the late 90's for the US was loss of Howard AFB with some secondary facility issues as well (JOTB lost its fort as well). 'Protecting' a ditch with 3 lock-sets in the age of modern warfare and asymetrical warfare is a very different proposition than it was in the 1940's.
If US owned the canal 'in perpetuity' giving it up for nothing was a grave mistake wasn't it?
No mumbo jumbo here just a straight reality.
"also I am fairly certain you are wrong on the 100 year lease - the US owned the canal zone as sovreign 'in perpetuity.' "
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/pancanal1.html
The canal and the canal zone were handed back by Carter after the Senate approved the Panama Canal Treaty.
Regarding Chinese control of the canal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a384f25db438e.htm
and
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/1999/e-11-18-99-5.htm
"pointing to the fact that Panama has signed a 50-year lease for two ports at each end of the Canal with Hong Kong's Hutchison Whampoa company, run by Li Ka-shing, who is closely associated with the Beijing regime, Moore said this "gives China's Communist Party de facto control over the most strategic waterway in the West."
your first link agrees with me.
"AFTER ENCOURAGING PANAMA'S INDEPENDENCE from Colombia, the U.S. signed a treaty in 1903 that gave it the rights to build and operate the canal for perpetuity. The agreement also gave the U.S. the right to govern the 10-mile wide, 40-mile long strip of land around the canal, called the Panama Canal Zone."
obviously the carter treaty changed this
second and third links quote the alarmists - these are the crowd that is responsible for the disinformation out there.
just because moore says so doesn't make it true. find these ports on a map and tell me what they have to do with canal operation or control.
"your first link agrees with me."
It agrees with part of what you stated. It also indicates that part of what you indicated was incorrect. Regardless, control of the canal was given up in an effort led by Carter.
"just because moore says so doesn't make it true. find these ports on a map and tell me what they have to do with canal operation or control."
And just because you say so doesn't mean its not. Big business in china is closely aligned to the government.
Hmmm... I'll have to dig through my stuff. I once had a map of this canal as proposed way back then with hand drawn ink revisions and notes.
The new rail route to Heartland USA from Mexico will lower the walmart cost cheaper than this canal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.