Comparing Greenland to Ukraine

[Dante]

The Torrijos–Carter Treaties (Spanish: Tratados Torrijos-Carter) are two treaties signed by the United States and Panama in Washington, D.C., on September 7, 1977, which superseded the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903. The treaties guaranteed that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal after 1999, ending the control of the canal that the U.S. had exercised since 1903. The treaties are named after the two signatories, U.S. President Jimmy Carter and the Commander of Panama's National Guard, General Omar Torrijos.

The Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty (Spanish: Tratado Hay-Bunau Varilla) was a treaty signed on November 18, 1903, by the United States and Panama, which established the Panama Canal Zone and the subsequent construction of the Panama Canal. It was named after its two primary negotiators, Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, the French diplomatic representative of Panama, and United States Secretary of State John Hay.

Terms​

The terms of the treaty stated that the United States was to receive rights to a canal zone which was to extend five miles on either side of the canal route in perpetuity, and Panama was to receive a payment from the U.S. up to $10 million and an annual rental payment of $250,000. Panama never legally became a colony of the United States; the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty gave the United States governance only in the Canal Zone.[9]

Aftermath​

This treaty was a source of conflict between Panama and the United States since its creation. The Canal Zone became a racially and socially segregated area, set aside from the country of Panama. The push for environmental determinism seemed to be the best framework to justify American practices in Panama. The conflict from the treaty reached its peak on January 9, 1964, with riots over sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone. The riot started after a Panamanian flag was torn during conflict between Panamanian students and Canal Zone Police officers, over the right of the Panamanian flag to be flown alongside the U.S. flag. U.S. Army units became involved in suppressing the violence after the Canal Zone Police were overwhelmed. After three days of fighting, about 22 Panamanians and four U.S. soldiers were killed. This day is known in Panama as Martyrs' Day.

The events of January 9 were considered to be a significant factor in the U.S. decision to negotiate the 1977 Torrijos–Carter Treaties, which finally abolished the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and allowed the gradual transfer of control of the Canal Zone to Panama and the handover of full control of the Panama Canal on December 31, 1999.[10]

Support​

Support for the treaties came from a variety of interests, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of Congress, such as Ernest Hollings, Hubert Humphrey,[14] and most importantly Howard Baker and Robert Byrd.[15] Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski attributed much of the political support for the treaty to his assuring attendees at a meeting including Byrd, that the United States would invoke the treaty to overthrow any Panamanian government that shut down the canal.[16] Other supporters included Admiral Elmo Zumwalt and General Maxwell Taylor;[17] John Wayne, who was friends with Omar Torrijos,[18] AFL-CIO president George Meany, statesmen Averell Harriman, Dean Rusk, George Ball, Henry Cabot Lodge, and John Sherman Cooper, and former first lady Lady Bird Johnson.[19] More moderate conservatives, including former President Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger, both made public statements in support of the treaty.[20] Organized efforts to promote the treaties came from the Committee of Americans for the Canal Treaties and New Directions.[19] Many world leaders also came out in support of the treaties, including positive statements from Barbados Prime Minister Tom Adams, Bolivian President Hugo Banzer, Dominican President Joaquín Balaguer, Guatemalan President Kjell Laugerud, Guyanese Prime Minister Forbes Burnham, Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza, Peruvian President Francisco Morales Bermúdez, Chilean President Augusto Pinochet, Costa Rican President Daniel Oduber, and Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez.[21]

 

[Dante]

But Russian or Chinese bases in Greenland might be more security risk for the USA than Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Is Greenland attempting to allow putting Russian or Chinese bases in Greenland?

Wow!

Stop the presses

 

[Votto]

The Torrijos–Carter Treaties (Spanish: Tratados Torrijos-Carter) are two treaties signed by the United States and Panama in Washington, D.C., on September 7, 1977, which superseded the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903. The treaties guaranteed that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal after 1999, ending the control of the canal that the U.S. had exercised since 1903. The treaties are named after the two signatories, U.S. President Jimmy Carter and the Commander of Panama's National Guard, General Omar Torrijos.

The Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty (Spanish: Tratado Hay-Bunau Varilla) was a treaty signed on November 18, 1903, by the United States and Panama, which established the Panama Canal Zone and the subsequent construction of the Panama Canal. It was named after its two primary negotiators, Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, the French diplomatic representative of Panama, and United States Secretary of State John Hay.

Terms​

The terms of the treaty stated that the United States was to receive rights to a canal zone which was to extend five miles on either side of the canal route in perpetuity, and Panama was to receive a payment from the U.S. up to $10 million and an annual rental payment of $250,000. Panama never legally became a colony of the United States; the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty gave the United States governance only in the Canal Zone.[9]

Aftermath​

This treaty was a source of conflict between Panama and the United States since its creation. The Canal Zone became a racially and socially segregated area, set aside from the country of Panama. The push for environmental determinism seemed to be the best framework to justify American practices in Panama. The conflict from the treaty reached its peak on January 9, 1964, with riots over sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone. The riot started after a Panamanian flag was torn during conflict between Panamanian students and Canal Zone Police officers, over the right of the Panamanian flag to be flown alongside the U.S. flag. U.S. Army units became involved in suppressing the violence after the Canal Zone Police were overwhelmed. After three days of fighting, about 22 Panamanians and four U.S. soldiers were killed. This day is known in Panama as Martyrs' Day.

The events of January 9 were considered to be a significant factor in the U.S. decision to negotiate the 1977 Torrijos–Carter Treaties, which finally abolished the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and allowed the gradual transfer of control of the Canal Zone to Panama and the handover of full control of the Panama Canal on December 31, 1999.[10]

Terrible negotiation, just terrible.

 

[Dante]

What if Greenland wanted to enter into a mutual defense pact with Russia?

what if Jesus had climbed down off of the cross?

 

[Zavulon]

Huh? Isn't Denmark a member of NATO?

But if Greenland became independent - its not a member of NATO either. And even some NATO members enjoying good relationships with Russia.

 

[Dante]

Terrible negotiation, just terrible.

Experts did a great job.

Most all criticism was partisan political talk

It was about control of the canal, not any ownership - Reagan's bloviating aside..

 

[Votto]

The hysteria over China in the canal zone is laughable

look under your bed -- probably Made in China like many MAGA wear was

And you have zero respect for a country that has the second greatest economy in the world with a military to boot, that is actively engaged in mass genocide with it's own people.

You probably think they are no real threat at all, but then, they are your comrades.

In fact, I bet you would rather have Xi as your President than Trump

 

[Dante]

But if Greenland became independent - its not a member of NATO either. And even some NATO members enjoying good relationships with Russia.

cuckoo talk

 

[Dante]

And you have zero respect for a country that has the second greatest economy in the world with a military to boot, that is actively engaged in mass genocide with it's own people.

You probably think they are no real threat at all, but then, they are your comrades.

you support a convicted felon who doesn't like American troops who get captured

okay

 

[Zavulon]

Is Greenland attempting to allow putting Russian or Chinese bases in Greenland?

Wow!

Yes, exactly. We both know, that in such circumstances the USA would simply invade Greenland and overthrone local government.

 

[Dante]

That is the primary reason Trump and his team are even looking at Greenland, i.e. the very real risk there could be a hostile takeover of it...

There is no real risk - very real, or only real.

 

[Votto]

Experts did a great job.

Most all criticism was partisan political talk

It was about control of the canal, not any ownership - Reagan's bloviating aside..

Jimmy did a good job with Iran as well

Top notch!

And the economy. Yep, stagflation was awesome.

Keep running out these kinds of loser politicians why don't ya!

 

[Dante]

Yes, exactly. We both know, that in such circumstances the USA would simply invade Greenland and overthrone local government.

Fake News Alert!

 

[Dante]

Jimmy did a good job with Iran as well

Top notch!

And the economy. Yep, stagflation was awesome.

Keep running out these kinds of loser politicians why don't ya!

He did. And Reagan's team went rogue

Carter kept his eye on the ball - kept the hostage alive

 

[Votto]

He did. And Reagan's team went rogue

Carter kept his eye on the ball - kept the hostage alive

Loon alert!!!

 

[Dante]

1. Denmark does not agree that Greenland is an independent country, got a link?

I believe the people of Greenland view the situation a bit differently.

The people of Greenland are Danish citizens

 

[Dante]

Loon alert!!!

The hostages -- number one goal. You support Israel exchange one Israeli hostage for 20, 30, 40 hostiles

 

[Dante]

Trump's cuckoo talk gets the blowhards all excited

 

[Dante]

Comparing Greenland to Ukraine:
1. Both were territories which gained independence from outside countries.
2. Both represent serious security concerns of other countries.
3. Both have military bases of other countries who wish to protect those concerns.

In terms of geopolitcal issues, what is the difference between the US wanting to control Greenland and Russia wanting to control Ukraine?

Uh oh!

Reality rears it's head...

France & Denmark discuss French military to protect Greenland from America​

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Uh oh!

Reality rears it's head...

France & Denmark discuss French military to protect Greenland from America​

Ooooh scary. Trump's playing you, toad