Panama Canal interesting fact

Who Owns the Panama Canal Today?

AnswerThe Panama Canal is owned today by China. We know the Panama Canal's ownership caused many problems in the past and a treaty was signed in 1977 between the U.S. and Panama. At the end of 1999 however, it was handed over to China. You can find more information here:

http://www.orwelltoday.com/chinapanamacan.shtml

China does not have sovereignty over the canal as it is a part of Panama and it is only a commercial investment....something that was different when the US was involved, as the Canal Zone was part of the US territories. In other words, the US didn't "own" the canal, it was part of the US. China can not and does not have any military stationed in Panama or political governance.

There are many commercial enterprises in the US that are foreign owned, including automobile factories by various Japanese companies and many commerical enterprises owned by US companies in foreign countries.
So what is your point....

Sundown:

Are you planning to move to Panama and thus your concern over a false assumption?

Sundown's source: Orwell Today is the er..."brainchild" of a 53 year old woman whose "facts" may, just may, be subject to question.
Interesting website which covers just about everything on planet Earth.
  

Orwelltoday.com,typical conspiracy nutjob stuff,it doesn't surprise me at all that sundown would post a link to it.

There are Military analysis, etc, BUT the fact remains as originally stated that China controls the Panama Canal.  Nicaragua gas approved a rival canal to be built
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/13/nicaragua-approving-rival-to-panama-canal/

I see no reason for you to post malicious statements, except the
understanding that that is a good example of your thinking processes.
And how you relate to other people.

sundown:

It must be a great life to live in a world defined by false statements and misleading information? And why is this in the general discussion area when you obviously have a political agenda in mind?

I think it must be a great life when you have time and energy to spend on worrying about who is running the Panama Canal! Seriously, I do.
BTW, I thought Panama owned the canal and leased it to China for 25 years. Has that changed or was I wrong?

It is a good life to recognize trivia, but not to worry about it to the extent of being socially disrespectful if it does not fit into a predetermined idea of how other people should act....

grantrd, the word"owned" was used in the news article to define
China's ability to control in the lease.

If I "own" a house and you're leasing it, you don't own the house. Period.  To say that you do is.........a lie.  End of story.

"granted, the word "owned" was used in the news article to define China's ability to control in the lease."

"Own" and "lease" are not synonyms. It is not possible for anyone other than a liar or a fool to use them as though they were. I also wonder how any reader could defend and give any further credence to such a "news" source.

bollocks, this is another urban myth.all revenues of the canal go to panama. no chinese influence at all. in fact the chinese are wanting to invest in the new canal in nicaragua.
Because of its unique nature, the ACP has financial autonomy, as well as ownership of the canal's assets.

The ACP is headed by an administrator and deputy administrator, and supervised by a board of directors. The administrator is the legal representative of the authority and is responsible for implementing policies decided upon by the board. The administrator is appointed for a seven-year term and can serve a maximum of terms. The current administrator is Jorge Luis Quijano.

The board of directors is made up as follows:

Nine members are appointed by the president of Panama; these appointments require the approval of the Cabinet Council and a majority of the legislative branch.
One director is appointed by the legislative branch, at its sole discretion.
The chair of the board, who is also the Minister of State for Canal Affairs, is appointed directly by the president; the Minister is also a full member of the Cabinet Council.
The Panama Canal is defined by law to be an inalienable patrimony of the Republic of Panama. Therefore, it may not be sold, assigned, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered or transferred.

Lady Otter Latté wrote:I think it must be a great life when you have time and energy to spend on worrying about who is running the Panama Canal! Seriously, I do.

Martyrdom springs eternal....That's my predetermined idea of how other people act.
Like the proverbial political groundhog that sticks his head out ever so often to see if it still "political winter", and gets a little attention.  
sundown grew up in Punxsutawney.

Yeah, it is not as though he does not know who is going to comment and the kind of stuff we are going to say. He finds something he knows is chum in the water for this board and tosses it out there. He gets his reaction and all is still right with the world.

hickton...
don't confuse, confound, and obfuscate sundown with the facts as that would be socially disrespectful, because of your predetermined idea of how he should/would act....or react. 

Lady Otter Latté wrote:Yeah, it is not as though he does not know who is going to comment and the kind of stuff we are going to say. He finds something he knows is chum in the water for this board and tosses it out there. He gets his reaction and all is still right with the world.

Like the clumsy person who spills his beer on you, crawling over you to get to his seat at a football game.
Now back to the game.    

 

Good to know, that the "Nature of this board" continues, with a group of people that have anointed themselves, because of the result of self analysis, as perfect, and determined that anyone less
than their judgement, is to be castigated.
I see that I am the only one that receives the "shoot the messenger" treatment, a common practice that is used by Liberals when one does not appear to be as perfect in their idealism as the Judge.

I should write more, as this is getting to be pleasurable!

Note- I do respect those that come forth with corrections/facts.

Sundown, you know the nature of this board, having dipped your feet into it before.  We are not all "liberals", if that is the definition of skeptics in your mind.  Whatever your definition of the majority on here, you already know what kind of reaction your are going to get to conspiracy theories, extreme right views based on dubious blogsters and others of the same stripe.  There are plenty of web boards that cater to people who hold your views.  

Therefore, you are either a masochist or a TROLL in the truest sense.  
Now, please go play in the right sandbox.
 

sundown wrote: "shoot the messenger"

I was wondering how long it would take you to work that one in.

viajero wrote:

sundown wrote: "shoot the messenger"

I was  wondering how long it would take you to work that one in.

If the messenger keeps bringing you a burrito filled with burro turds and a proclamation soaked in ricin, maybe he should be shot on general principles.
  

Does anyone use the words "own" and "lease" interchangeably and think that leasing is the same as owning? If you do, please explain why.

Is it socially disrespectful to point out that information in a post is not true? If so, why?

Is expecting people to be honest in their dealings being judgmental and the same as having "a predetermined idea of how other people should act." If yes, please describe how you reached this conclusion.

Finally, is the ability to always (no matter the topic) eventually work in "shoot the messenger" and "liberal" --often in the same sentence--evidence of a developed skill or a complete lack of imagination?

Gringal, your last two posts are brilliant. I salute you!   

Do people that own property in the restricted areas in Mexico (on a bank trust) actually own it? All the people I know talk like they do. Is one of those bank trusts much different than a lease other than having equity in the property?

CanuckBob wrote:Do people that own property in the restricted areas in Mexico (on a bank trust) actually own it? All the people I know talk like they do. Is one of those bank trusts much different than a lease other than having equity in the property?

It's my understanding that they have a very long term lease on those properties. I don't think they can "sell" it as one would in a usual real estate sale, but can, with the bank's permission, transfer the balance remaining on the lease.
Please enlighten me if I have that wrong.