The Kra Canal

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 'Rah, rah rah!' for the Isthmus of Kra.

Post by Sertorio » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:27 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:17 am
Sertorio wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:38 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:54 pm

Why does Europe (except for diehard communists/socialists like you who pine for old days) want the US to protect them from Russia? The US is risking its cities getting nuked by the Russians to protect Europe.
In my very modest opinion, no cities will be nuked in any future war with Russia. Americans and Britons may be warmongers but they aren't suicidal, and neither are the Russians. It will be a war between military machines and, outside that, only war equipment factories will be targeted. Tactical nuclear weapons will be used though. Since such war will be fought on sea and on the European continent, Europeans would be, once more, the main victims of an American started conflict. Reason why you can be sure that Europeans definitely do not want the US to "protect" them from Russia.
Europeans don't want the US to protect them???

Poland offers US up to $2B for permanent military base
Poland wants a permanent U.S. military presence — and is willing to pony up as much as $2 billion to get it, according to a defense ministry proposal obtained by Polish news portal Onet.

The Polish offer reflects a long-standing desire in Warsaw to build closer security relations with the U.S. and put American boots on the ground. The push dates back to Poland’s entry into NATO in 1999, but has taken on added urgency in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region four years ago and aggressive posture toward the alliance.
What planet are you living in?
Poland may be part of Europe but it isn't Europe. If Poles don't mind being vassals of the US, after having been the vassals of the Soviet Union, that's their business. I do not want to be the vassal of anybody...

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2214
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Kra Canal

Post by Doc » Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:42 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:20 am
Thailand’s Kra Canal: Economic and Geopolitical Implications
July 17, 2018 2920 - By: Pithaya Pookaman

https://www.asiasentinel.com/econ-busin ... lications/

For 330 years, visionaries have thought of dredging a great canal 150 km. across the Kra Isthmus in southern Thailand so that vessels sailing from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific could cut hundreds of kilometers off their voyage and avoid the Bugis pirates of Indonesia that for centuries have haunted the Strait of Malacca.

Economically it has never made sense – until now, as China’s burgeoning maritime traffic packs the 800 km Strait, a seagoing funnel that narrows to only 64 km near Singapore, with only a half dozen kilometers of that usable because of its shallow depth.

Accordingly, Beijing signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the canal project in Guangzhou in 2015 with the China-Thailand Kra Infrastructure Investment and Development Company and Asia Union Group. The Chinese envision the huge enterprise as a linchpin in its Belt and Road Initiative, a development strategy designed to link as many as 70 countries into a vast economic web with Beijing at the center, the land-based Silk Road meshing with the Maritime Silk Road, all focusing on connectivity and cooperation between the countries.

Image

The Malacca Strait is estimated to reach saturation in 2024 when more than 140,000 vessels seek to pass through the narrow waterway, which can only accommodate 122,640 vessels per year. The vessels would therefore have to opt for longer alternative routes passing through the Straits of Sunda and Lombok further south unless a more feasible route through the Kra Isthmus is developed.

Moreover, the shallowness of the Malacca Straits presents a problem for the oil supertankers, which need a draft of 21.2 meters. The strait’s shallowness reduces the sea lane to only 4 kilometres in width, making passing ships vulnerable to maritime accidents, piracy and terrorism by religious fanatics. Another serious concern is the environmental impact from oil leaks from supertankers.

Given the near saturation of the Malacca Strait as well as potential security and environmental risks, it is therefore unavoidable that a viable alternative shipping route has to be found sooner than later. The Thai Canal would offer the shortest link between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans compared to other routes. It would reduce the travel time by about 700 km and two to six days depending on the route, substantially reducing the shipping cost.

One proposal is to build a canal from the ground up to accommodate large vessels. The ground would be first leveled and walls would then be built to eliminate the need to dig deep into the ground, greatly reducing construction time and costs. Two separate waterways would run parallel to facilitate navigation. The canal would take 10 years of complete at a cost of US$28 billion. A special economic zone would parallel the canal and a deep-sea port would be built in Thailand’s southern province.

(...)
Will Singapore be the main loser? Maybe it explains Singapore's consistent following of US policies in Asia...
Building walls above ground is an interesting idea But since the water would have to be pumped into the canal what happens if there is a collapse of the walls? I would think the canal would take many years to fill.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: 'Rah, rah rah!' for the Isthmus of Kra.

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:29 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:59 am
Indeed. Neither Russia nor China treat their "friends" and "allies" worse than the US does.
Last year: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/worl ... -port.html

This year: https://www.africanstand.com/news/afric ... repayment/

Next year... who knows?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 'Rah, rah rah!' for the Isthmus of Kra.

Post by Sertorio » Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:33 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:29 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:59 am
Indeed. Neither Russia nor China treat their "friends" and "allies" worse than the US does.
Last year: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/worl ... -port.html

This year: https://www.africanstand.com/news/afric ... repayment/

Next year... who knows?
I suggest you do some research in respect of the way General Electric has taken control of the French firm Altsom... It is described in a documentary called "Ghost war: the sale of Alstom to General Electric (2017)"...
US Playing Dirty on Behalf of Native Companies?
By Rachel Marsden

A new documentary premiering this week on French television suggests that the United States is using its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to strong-arm foreign companies into unfavorable transactions benefiting U.S. companies.

"Guerre Fantome" (or "Ghost War") highlights state-backed French multinational Alstom's sale of its power and grid business to American giant General Electric after Alstom was fined $772 million for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act's anti-bribery provisions.

Under the FCPA, foreign companies with a presence on Wall Street (or even foreign companies whose emails pass through a U.S. server, or who conduct transactions through a U.S. bank) have been ruled to fall under American jurisdiction. If an employee of a foreign company is caught bribing non-U.S. officials in some other country — even through a third party — then that employee, as well as his company's leadership, can be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

It's no secret that large multinationals operating overseas occasionally grease the wheels to get things done. It's a ubiquitous practice. But of the 10 largest fines ever leveled under the FCPA, only three involved American companies. This raises the question of selective prosecution, and whether the FCPA is being used by the U.S. government as an instrument of economic warfare against global competitors.

"Guerre Fantome" examines the possibility of a connection between Alstom's $772 million fine in 2014 and General Electric's acquisition of a business that has been described as a key element of French economic sovereignty. With the sale of this critical component of France's nuclear energy supply chain to American interests, France no longer has full control over its own power generation or its ability to export this know-how.

While the amounts of the FCPA fines may not seem like a great deal of money for a large multinational company, lurking behind these settlements is the threat of criminal prosecution and possible prison time for corporate officers — up to 15 years. The last thing that any CEO or board member wants to see is an Interpol notice prohibiting him from leaving his country for fear of arrest and extradition to the U.S. So when an American multinational makes a business offer to the leaders of a company under the threat of FCPA prosecution, those company leaders might be more receptive than they would be under normal circumstances.

"Guerre Fantome" also notes a correlation between General Electric corporate acquisitions and FCPA prosecution. For example, the British company Amersham and the U.S.-based Ionics were acquired by GE as they wrestled with charges that they paid kickbacks to Iraq in order to obtain contracts under the U.N. Oil for Food Program. American companies such as oil and gas business Vetco Gray and airport security company InVision Technologies also faced FCPA prosecution as they were being acquired by GE.

By using the FCPA as a tool of selective prosecution, the U.S. government can choose winners and losers in the so-called free market. On the international playing field, such tactics can weaken companies of strategic national importance to the point where they're vulnerable to ambulance-chasing from interested buyers. And when the buyer has close relationships to the U.S. government in critical sectors such as defense and technology (as is the case with GE), it calls into question the extent to which free-market and limited-government values are truly practiced.

"Guerre Fantome" conveys the message to other countries that Uncle Sam's long arm and invisible hand are mucking around in the marketplace to the detriment of the international community.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who was serving as France's minister of economy, industry and digital affairs during the Alstom deal, has shown great respect for the principles of limited government and free-market enterprise. If the U.S. government is perceived to be doing the bidding of American companies, the citizens of other countries will call upon leaders such as Macron to ensure that their economic interests are protected. The U.S., once seen as a bastion of free-market capitalism, will face backlash abroad if it does serious damage to foreign economies through state interventionism. It's a bad look for America.


Rachel Marsden is a Paris-based conservative commentator, political strategist and professor. A former Fox News co-host and contributor, she has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Fox Business, and Sirius Radio. She has written for the The Wall Street Journal, Human Events, and Spectator Magazine, and others.

https://www.newsmax.com/rachelmarsden/f ... id/815949/

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The Kra Canal

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:58 pm

If that's really how things happened, then why didn't the French noisily refuse? I actually agree with you that the U.S. acts as thought the entire world is its jurisdiction, what I don't understand is why the Europeans in particular would go along with it. It's not like the U.S. has the materiel or political will to invade France in support of such a dubious policy. Really, Washington should be told, "Stay in your lane."
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Kra Canal

Post by Sertorio » Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:08 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:58 pm
If that's really how things happened, then why didn't the French noisily refuse? I actually agree with you that the U.S. acts as thought the entire world is its jurisdiction, what I don't understand is why the Europeans in particular would go along with it. It's not like the U.S. has the materiel or political will to invade France in support of such a dubious policy. Really, Washington should be told, "Stay in your lane."
Too many people and firms in Europe would lose a lot of money if relations soured between Europe and the US. And those people have a lot of influence in government. So they keep bowing to US interests, hoping their losses will not exceed their gains... But I don't think that such a submissive posture can last much longer.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The Kra Canal

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:43 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:08 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:58 pm
If that's really how things happened, then why didn't the French noisily refuse? I actually agree with you that the U.S. acts as thought the entire world is its jurisdiction, what I don't understand is why the Europeans in particular would go along with it. It's not like the U.S. has the materiel or political will to invade France in support of such a dubious policy. Really, Washington should be told, "Stay in your lane."
Too many people and firms in Europe would lose a lot of money if relations soured between Europe and the US. And those people have a lot of influence in government. So they keep bowing to US interests, hoping their losses will not exceed their gains... But I don't think that such a submissive posture can last much longer.
Well, in the particular case you describe, I would share your hope that it doesn't.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2214
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: 'Rah, rah rah!' for the Isthmus of Kra.

Post by Doc » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:05 am

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:33 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:29 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:59 am
Indeed. Neither Russia nor China treat their "friends" and "allies" worse than the US does.
Last year: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/worl ... -port.html

This year: https://www.africanstand.com/news/afric ... repayment/

Next year... who knows?
I suggest you do some research in respect of the way General Electric has taken control of the French firm Altsom... It is described in a documentary called "Ghost war: the sale of Alstom to General Electric (2017)"...
US Playing Dirty on Behalf of Native Companies?
By Rachel Marsden

A new documentary premiering this week on French television suggests that the United States is using its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to strong-arm foreign companies into unfavorable transactions benefiting U.S. companies.

"Guerre Fantome" (or "Ghost War") highlights state-backed French multinational Alstom's sale of its power and grid business to American giant General Electric after Alstom was fined $772 million for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act's anti-bribery provisions.

Under the FCPA, foreign companies with a presence on Wall Street (or even foreign companies whose emails pass through a U.S. server, or who conduct transactions through a U.S. bank) have been ruled to fall under American jurisdiction. If an employee of a foreign company is caught bribing non-U.S. officials in some other country — even through a third party — then that employee, as well as his company's leadership, can be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

It's no secret that large multinationals operating overseas occasionally grease the wheels to get things done. It's a ubiquitous practice. But of the 10 largest fines ever leveled under the FCPA, only three involved American companies. This raises the question of selective prosecution, and whether the FCPA is being used by the U.S. government as an instrument of economic warfare against global competitors.

"Guerre Fantome" examines the possibility of a connection between Alstom's $772 million fine in 2014 and General Electric's acquisition of a business that has been described as a key element of French economic sovereignty. With the sale of this critical component of France's nuclear energy supply chain to American interests, France no longer has full control over its own power generation or its ability to export this know-how.

While the amounts of the FCPA fines may not seem like a great deal of money for a large multinational company, lurking behind these settlements is the threat of criminal prosecution and possible prison time for corporate officers — up to 15 years. The last thing that any CEO or board member wants to see is an Interpol notice prohibiting him from leaving his country for fear of arrest and extradition to the U.S. So when an American multinational makes a business offer to the leaders of a company under the threat of FCPA prosecution, those company leaders might be more receptive than they would be under normal circumstances.

"Guerre Fantome" also notes a correlation between General Electric corporate acquisitions and FCPA prosecution. For example, the British company Amersham and the U.S.-based Ionics were acquired by GE as they wrestled with charges that they paid kickbacks to Iraq in order to obtain contracts under the U.N. Oil for Food Program. American companies such as oil and gas business Vetco Gray and airport security company InVision Technologies also faced FCPA prosecution as they were being acquired by GE.

By using the FCPA as a tool of selective prosecution, the U.S. government can choose winners and losers in the so-called free market. On the international playing field, such tactics can weaken companies of strategic national importance to the point where they're vulnerable to ambulance-chasing from interested buyers. And when the buyer has close relationships to the U.S. government in critical sectors such as defense and technology (as is the case with GE), it calls into question the extent to which free-market and limited-government values are truly practiced.

"Guerre Fantome" conveys the message to other countries that Uncle Sam's long arm and invisible hand are mucking around in the marketplace to the detriment of the international community.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who was serving as France's minister of economy, industry and digital affairs during the Alstom deal, has shown great respect for the principles of limited government and free-market enterprise. If the U.S. government is perceived to be doing the bidding of American companies, the citizens of other countries will call upon leaders such as Macron to ensure that their economic interests are protected. The U.S., once seen as a bastion of free-market capitalism, will face backlash abroad if it does serious damage to foreign economies through state interventionism. It's a bad look for America.


Rachel Marsden is a Paris-based conservative commentator, political strategist and professor. A former Fox News co-host and contributor, she has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Fox Business, and Sirius Radio. She has written for the The Wall Street Journal, Human Events, and Spectator Magazine, and others.

https://www.newsmax.com/rachelmarsden/f ... id/815949/
The US had laws from the 1970's making it illegal among other things of bribing foreign officials In the 2000's the EU passed similar laws and many Europeans bragged about how honest European governments were without realizing the US laws had been on the books for 35 years. Once they found out about it they stopped talking about it.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: American Achilles heel?

Post by neverfail » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:21 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:51 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:01 pm

Succinctly, the USA today lacks the strength that gave it the clear advantage over the USSR back in the 1980's.
You forget that the US economy is nearly $16 trillion while the Russian economy is only $2 trillion. No way can Putin compete in an arms race with the US.
No, I have not overlooked that fact cassowary. But statistics on size of GNP never tell the entire story.

I am also aware of the fact that the Russian Federation has its national debt under control:
Russia recorded a government debt equivalent to 12.60 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2017.


https://tradingeconomics.com › Russia

But the USA does not:
The United States recorded a government debt equivalent to 105.40 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2017


ttps://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

The cost of an arms race like that would likely push the indebtedness of the USA up to the Greek level before their crisis erupted.
Last edited by neverfail on Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 'Rah, rah rah!' for the Isthmus of Kra.

Post by Sertorio » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:32 pm

Doc wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:05 am

The US had laws from the 1970's making it illegal among other things of bribing foreign officials In the 2000's the EU passed similar laws and many Europeans bragged about how honest European governments were without realizing the US laws had been on the books for 35 years. Once they found out about it they stopped talking about it.
The problem is not the US making it illegal the bribery of foreign officials BY AMERICAN CITIZENS OR FIRMS, it's the US assuming the right to bring to court the bribing of foreign officials by people or governments not subject or connected to the US. Like jailing a French CEO of a French firm who was accused of bribing Indonesian officials in Indonesia...

Post Reply