Panama Canal: Prized Possession | Full Documentary

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 30. 03. 2015
  • Explore the history of the transfer of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama, and the long political and moral battles behind it. The documentary highlights the controversial Panama Canal Treaties of 1978, the two-decade long transition period, and the official transfer of the Canal to Panama in 1999.

Komentáře • 17

  • @gailmcnally9920
    @gailmcnally9920 Před 9 lety

    Great to review all this and yes, to have been a part of it was a super experience! Viva Panama...

  • @franciscoserrano9498
    @franciscoserrano9498 Před 4 měsíci

    To avoid ships being blown up in each of its 3 locks and to be never for years used again

  • @ddunn3489
    @ddunn3489 Před 6 měsíci

    Well...America helped Panama a lot. And Jimmy gave out home away. 😢😢

  • @vzwodb17
    @vzwodb17 Před 4 měsíci +1

    🇵🇦🇺🇸❤

  • @vvolfbelorven7084
    @vvolfbelorven7084 Před 8 lety +2

    Viva Panama!

  • @tommyboy7233
    @tommyboy7233 Před 8 lety +3

    I have to say that Reagan said it at 1:35. Also, Rep. Robert Bauman at 19:48.

    • @Kimdino1
      @Kimdino1 Před 8 lety +2

      +Rey Gold Evans Sounds like Suez.. "We (Britain & France) bought it, we paid for it, it's ours and we're going to keep it." Except the USA ruled 'No, that doesn't count. It's in Egypt so the Egyptians should have it".
      Do you want to have your cake, or do you want to eat it? Except that the USA found a third option, that of behaving like dickheads.

    • @Dr_Do-Little
      @Dr_Do-Little Před 5 lety

      😅😅😅 Bauman sure said it! then 12 seconds later (@ 20:00) admit he was wrong! 👍

  • @jdb47games
    @jdb47games Před 6 lety +1

    A problem Jimmy Carter was no doubt aware of was that the US government had been running the canal on a break-even basis. Therefore if the Panamanian government had done a Nasser and nationalised the canal, there would be
    little compensation paid, as the Panamanians would say there were no profits to compensate losing. Whereas Eqypt paid the shareholders of the Suez Canal Company the market value of their shares, there was no market value of the Panama canal, as the shares carried no profits and were not traded. Carter therefore knew that if he did not give the canal away, it would just be taken for nothing, and that would make the USA look weaker than if they took the lead in matters.

  • @Kimdino1
    @Kimdino1 Před 8 lety +2

    In light of their 1956 support of Nasser the USA had no grounds to make any objections to handing over the canal.
    I almost wish that the UK and France had the balls to say "So it's okay for us to take back Suez then" while the USA was being difficult. I wonder how Reagan et.al. would have responded then.

  • @Dr_Do-Little
    @Dr_Do-Little Před 5 lety

    This confirm what I already thought. Reagan was an even worst person than actor. No small feat.

  • @donasusy3747
    @donasusy3747 Před 8 lety

    They want the canal , but when back the dollar $$$$ why doesn't have the own money ??? Don't know , but tell me some about this !!! where is the OWN MONEY !!!

  • @n.v.4544
    @n.v.4544 Před 6 lety

    The narrator has a VERY strong US accent. PanaMAW... cUlUMbia... *rolls eyes, very annoying. Otherwise I found this series interesting. I have new respect for President Carter. Reagan did get rid of Cara de Pina but was an asshole in not wanting to give back the canal. Carter was the heart of Gold. You don't do good deeds in order to get a prize, you do it because good people need you and if you have the power to help, do it! USA tends to want to own everything.