Extremely interesting reading 👏👏. Would you mind answering the two comments below? One of which denigrates our future president soundly (but I suspect he will not mind, having been savaged for 4 long years by the current administration, led by a senile, bumbling fool - I am resembling him as I'm in my late70's 😉).
It’s worth mentioning that there is not one Chinese soldier at the Panama Canal, not one. That alone makes Trump’s inane bluster risible. That this article glosses over the very essence of Trump’s bombast makes it suspect.
I was at the Canal Zone for work the week before Trump’s speech. I was at the memorial for the many students the US murdered in 1964 the day after his speech. He has managed to enrage a country that has been a close ally of the US. Also, this article fails to mention the enormous expansion of the canal completed by the Panamanians in the last decade. Besides doubling its capacity, it more than tripled the allowable size of container ships it can accommodate. Servicing this debt (something the Chapter 11-loving Trump knows little about) explains the rates to use the canal, which shipping lines readily commit to paying by securing slots up to a year in advance.
Finally, this unfortunate article breezes past the many challenges of the Nicaragua scheme, not the least of which are the myriad sharp bends in the rivers. Over 120 years ago these were deemed impossible for the little ships of the day. The amount of earth that would need to move for a 26,000 TEU container ship cannot be imagined and is beyond ‘preposterous.’
These are all very good points. And I'm grateful for you making them here. But I think you may have mistaken the point of this piece. It wasn't an attempt to fact-check Trump's claims (there are plenty of news sites where you can find those articles if you're after them) but simply a look at some of the more distant and fascinating history of the canal - in a slightly light hearted tone. As for the Nicaragua scheme... as I said, it's "utterly, utterly preposterous". Perhaps I should have added another "utterly"?
I understand that you wanted to take the opportunity to retell history, but just to state the obvious, something that is unfortunately necessary, the fact that something has a historical background does not make it any less preposterous. I'm sure most people can think of a long list of many things in history that they would find preposterous to bring back.
It's a pity that you felt obliged to rebuke the author for not writing the article you would have written. Perhaps you should have made more of an effort to read it as well, then you might have noticed that he regards the Nicaraguan scheme as preposterous
You are missing a huge context. Panama wasn’t just “a province of Colombia”. Panama gained independence from Spain in 1821 and willingly joined what was supposed to be a larger country made up by Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. When the union didn’t materialize Panama was stuck being a part of Colombia. Panama had 11 attempts of independence from Colombia. To this day there’s no roads to Colombia. Panama always considered itself not Colombian and in 1903, fed up after a long Colombian civil war, took advantage of the US interests to gain independence. No need to promote independence really.
Extremely interesting reading 👏👏. Would you mind answering the two comments below? One of which denigrates our future president soundly (but I suspect he will not mind, having been savaged for 4 long years by the current administration, led by a senile, bumbling fool - I am resembling him as I'm in my late70's 😉).
It’s worth mentioning that there is not one Chinese soldier at the Panama Canal, not one. That alone makes Trump’s inane bluster risible. That this article glosses over the very essence of Trump’s bombast makes it suspect.
I was at the Canal Zone for work the week before Trump’s speech. I was at the memorial for the many students the US murdered in 1964 the day after his speech. He has managed to enrage a country that has been a close ally of the US. Also, this article fails to mention the enormous expansion of the canal completed by the Panamanians in the last decade. Besides doubling its capacity, it more than tripled the allowable size of container ships it can accommodate. Servicing this debt (something the Chapter 11-loving Trump knows little about) explains the rates to use the canal, which shipping lines readily commit to paying by securing slots up to a year in advance.
Finally, this unfortunate article breezes past the many challenges of the Nicaragua scheme, not the least of which are the myriad sharp bends in the rivers. Over 120 years ago these were deemed impossible for the little ships of the day. The amount of earth that would need to move for a 26,000 TEU container ship cannot be imagined and is beyond ‘preposterous.’
These are all very good points. And I'm grateful for you making them here. But I think you may have mistaken the point of this piece. It wasn't an attempt to fact-check Trump's claims (there are plenty of news sites where you can find those articles if you're after them) but simply a look at some of the more distant and fascinating history of the canal - in a slightly light hearted tone. As for the Nicaragua scheme... as I said, it's "utterly, utterly preposterous". Perhaps I should have added another "utterly"?
I understand that you wanted to take the opportunity to retell history, but just to state the obvious, something that is unfortunately necessary, the fact that something has a historical background does not make it any less preposterous. I'm sure most people can think of a long list of many things in history that they would find preposterous to bring back.
It's a pity that you felt obliged to rebuke the author for not writing the article you would have written. Perhaps you should have made more of an effort to read it as well, then you might have noticed that he regards the Nicaraguan scheme as preposterous
ED, you forgot to mention the recent canal expansion and the Panamax shipping being built for it.
Yes good point. Thanks Andrew. Hope you are well!
You are missing a huge context. Panama wasn’t just “a province of Colombia”. Panama gained independence from Spain in 1821 and willingly joined what was supposed to be a larger country made up by Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. When the union didn’t materialize Panama was stuck being a part of Colombia. Panama had 11 attempts of independence from Colombia. To this day there’s no roads to Colombia. Panama always considered itself not Colombian and in 1903, fed up after a long Colombian civil war, took advantage of the US interests to gain independence. No need to promote independence really.