You sure about that?
Well that depends on how you look at it. Some Panamanians felt it was fair. It created a ton of labor for them both in its construction and maintaining it. The nationalist intellectual types hated it since it was US territory on their land. They are the ones who ultimately got control of the decision making levers and pushed for it to be completely turned over.
I would think that would be the case. Otherwise it would be one of the preferred paths. I’ll freely admit i haven’t researched it deeply.
Or maybe their cost per ship is whack these days or something.
And the best laugh ever. 
2 Likes
What? Who told you that?
Would you say it was fair? I’m just going based off the economics of its construction. But that never matters to nationalists.
Either way, trying to get it back now is stupid. Let bygones be bygones. No one on either side would go for it today.
“Fair”-interesting word. And pretty irrelevant here I think.
There’s a lot of history here. Generations. For example the “country” of Panama and how it came to be. And the US fear of the Colombian military.
The French involvement. The Chinese laborers.
The Canal Zone government.
I lived close enough to the Canal to run to it for 5 years.
1 Like
Oh yeah Panama was a part of Colombia back then before the Canal became a thing. That really complicates matters since Panama is kind of our creation.
Why was the US afraid of the Colombian military at the time? This was before the World Wars and the modern enormous US military (back then it was tiny by European standards) but I would assume it was still top dawg in the new world.
1 Like
Was that fair?
Not to Colombia, that’s for sure.
Or annexing Canada.
Well… there’s more to it than that. Now you’re into La Guerra de los Mil Dias.
Ok that’s either the name of someone or the name of an organization and I’ve got no idea. Got to look that up sometime.
I think organization since doesn’t de Los together specify something or a goal of some kind when you combine it with another word immediately after it? I don’t speak Spanish but that layout I’ve heard before. A lot of those Latin revolutionary groups had names formed like that in structure.
we will include them, on the other side of it, where they belong
Issue with that is let’s assume you would use the border portion of the Rio Grande to widen for that section of the canal.
Both Mexico and the US have historical rights and claims to the Rio Grande as a whole that were negotiated a really long time ago.
I think we would have to include them in such project. It would be good for both countries to work together on such a project. It would be a jobs boon for the southwest US and Northern Mexico.
■■■■ mexico
2 Likes
Eh I get it. We’ve ■■■■■■ each other on several occasions. It not a one sided thing in our relationship. We both have rights to be mad at each other.
I still desire a healthy relationship with them because they are both our southern neighbors and people of Mexican descent make up the third (hell maybe second now) largest group of Americans in the country. Since they are the majority of Latin Americans with citizenship in the US.
That doesn’t mean I support just giving them things, though. It should be a two way street and our relationship should be based on mutual respect and moving on from our complicated history. Weirdly enough, I think Trump might be the guy who can pull that off. All too often, American politicians just submit to the Mexican point of view solely because they’re brown. When it’s way more complicated than that and we both have reasons to hold grudges against each other.
Mexico is already building interoceanic corridor…which suppose to be completed around 2030 or so.
1 Like
That’s a land project. Railways. But I see the point of it, certainly.
1 Like