User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 9:17:09 AM EDT
[#1]
0bama lacks the intestinal fortitude for such a mission.
-Gator |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 9:17:52 AM EDT
[#2]
First we would have to get a new president, then it would be easy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 9:19:56 AM EDT
[#3]
depends on how it is closed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 9:22:24 AM EDT
[#4]
Post one and two.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 9:22:34 AM EDT
[#5]
Didn't it take 4 or 5 years after the Yon Kippur War to get it reopened?
ETA: 8 years after the Six Day War |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 9:24:24 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
0bama lacks the intestinal fortitude for such a mission. -Gator 1st post and all. How much longer do you think it's going to be open? How much longer before we start hearing "someone" drone on about being handed another crisis that no one could have handled? They should just start flipping a coin...at least then they'd be right 1/2 the time. Hey, look on the bright side: only two more years of these shenanigans. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 9:25:17 AM EDT
[#7]
Depends if it is worth reopening. *shrug* Europe might be more keen on reopening it than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 10:01:22 AM EDT
[#8]
Why reopen? If something could force our european "allies" off their asses, the U.S. should do nothing at all. Im personally sick and tired of these two-bit mid east countries stirring the pot all the time. Let them have consequences for their actions for a change.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 10:02:43 AM EDT
[#9]
Fucking impossible.
If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 10:07:34 AM EDT
[#10]
The Frenchies will take care of it.
They have a President with balls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 10:17:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 10:20:21 AM EDT
[#12]
It wil be massive diplomacy fail if any one country sees the need to take such action unilaterally and on their own initiative.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:11:48 AM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:18:18 AM EDT
[#14]
what would the effects be, realistically, of the canal closing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:25:45 AM EDT
[#15]
We need to build a new Suez Canal, through Israel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:28:37 AM EDT
[#16]
Depends on what is done to it and WHO did it. If they blow up a few locks, no problem. But in 67 and 56 they put tankers into the middle of the canal and scuttled them essentially blocking all traffic for YEARS.
It won't affect america as much as it affects europe, we'll still get our cheap shit from China. Oil will be more expensive but not much more after it stabilizes. it will just be a longer "chain of traffic" from saudi to the west, the extra distance adding a few extra cents per gallon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:30:07 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: what would the effects be, realistically, of the canal closing? Maybe the same as when it was closed from 1967 to 1975 Quoted: If they blow up a few locks, no problem. I'd LOVE to seem the blow up the locks of the Suez!  Goatboy, the fucking editor is borked!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:31:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Depends on what is done to it and WHO did it. If they blow up a few locks, no problem. But in 67 and 56 they put tankers into the middle of the canal and scuttled them essentially blocking all traffic for YEARS. It won't affect america as much as it affects europe, we'll still get our cheap shit from China. Oil will be more expensive but not much more after it stabilizes. it will just be a longer "chain of traffic" from saudi to the west, the extra distance adding a few extra cents per gallon. Which locks would that be? There are no locks in the Suez Canal. The obvious method of closing the canal is sinking tankers in it (which is why it's empty right now, I suspect), and it will affect us more than you give it credit for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:34:43 AM EDT
[#19]
Lets call up our pals Overlords in Shanghai, maybe they can send a few Battalions over there to keep the Suez open
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:35:11 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:37:18 AM EDT
[#21]
Obama would go to a gas station in DC, and put higher prices on the board with one hand while turning his crank with the other, and somehow manage to give an on-camera apology to the Egyptians for the crisis we caused with this whole "freedom" idea. That's a much more likely scenario than him growing a pair and re-opening a closed Suez canal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:39:27 AM EDT
[#22]
Depends on the situation in Egypt.
The Egyptians have a very modern military (F-16s and Abrams... Little better equipped than what we've been facing in the last few years)... If we end up fighting 'all of Egypt' for the Canal, it would likely take a significant commitment... However, if there's a civil war & we have to secure the canal without opposition from the regular Egyptian military... That's less of an issue... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:42:29 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:45:11 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:45:39 AM EDT
[#25]
Didn't take us long to take back Panama.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:49:08 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. How would they get there? How would the weapons get there? We are talking wide open avenues of approach from all sides. Unless the terrorists were already in the few cities of consequence - cities that could just as easily be shut down, cordoned off, or otherwise ruled out, what would happen? Also, it would not be a US mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:50:53 AM EDT
[#27]
The Suez Canal provides a large amount of capital to Egypt. It's not likely it would be closed, and my sense is that the Egyptian armed forces would preclude this as it would lead beyond a regime change to a failed state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:50:59 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. And without a civilian population to hide among, they'd be pretty easy to identify... Resupply wouldn't have to be over long road networks, reducing the opportunities to use IEDs... So they could mortar & rocket us, like they do the Izzies... That would be about it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:55:04 AM EDT
[#29]
1956 reversed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:57:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Why does everyone assume that it's going to be the US that does it??? It's the Europeans that stand to lose the most if the Canal gets shutdown. If anything, they'll be the ones intervening.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:57:57 AM EDT
[#31]
Logistically, difficult but doable. Politically, impossible without raising a huge shitstorm and further complicating world affairs. Strategically, a last resort and be prepared for global war. IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 11:58:05 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. And without a civilian population to hide among, they'd be pretty easy to identify... Resupply wouldn't have to be over long road networks, reducing the opportunities to use IEDs... So they could mortar & rocket us, like they do the Izzies... That would be about it... Dave, I believe you've missed my point posted earlier. It's likely a non-issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:00:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. How would they get there? How would the weapons get there? We are talking wide open avenues of approach from all sides. Unless the terrorists were already in the few cities of consequence - cities that could just as easily be shut down, cordoned off, or otherwise ruled out, what would happen? Also, it would not be a US mission. The would infiltrate Suez Egypt and attack from there. They could also ally themselves with the Bedouin tribes that have already seized towns in the area and use them to help infiltrate the area. When you talk about cordoning off cities you're talking about sending troops into populated areas where terrorists could easily slip in and begin fighting those troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:07:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Why does everyone assume that it's going to be the US that does it??? It's the Europeans that stand to lose the most if the Canal gets shutdown. If anything, they'll be the ones intervening. Ironic, considering the last time France and Britain tried that Americans prevented them from carrying their plan through (Eisenhower was afraid of the Soviet response). No European country is going to get stuck in that mess again, particularly after America stabbed its European allies in the back last time around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:08:05 PM EDT
[#35]
No doubt the question being asked in Congress right now is "Where would we get the money to do that?" Add that to what we have for a Commander-in-Chief and you have your answer. If it is up to us it will stay closed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:09:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Why does everyone assume that it's going to be the US that does it??? It's the Europeans that stand to lose the most if the Canal gets shutdown. If anything, they'll be the ones intervening. Ironic, considering the last time France and Britain tried that Americans prevented them from carrying their plan through (Eisenhower was afraid of the Soviet response). No European country is going to get stuck in that mess again, particularly after America stabbed its European allies in the back last time around. Yeah, I'd have to say fuck Eisenhower, we fucking threw our best allies under the bus when he pulled that shit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:11:54 PM EDT
[#37]
If this was 50 years ago, the Brits and the French would already be down there taking care of this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:13:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
0bama lacks the intestinal fortitude for such a mission. -Gator +1 Obama will never let our troops start another war, even though he should send a signal by ramping up the 82 and 101. That alone might send the message that we aren't playing around... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:15:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does everyone assume that it's going to be the US that does it??? It's the Europeans that stand to lose the most if the Canal gets shutdown. If anything, they'll be the ones intervening. Ironic, considering the last time France and Britain tried that Americans prevented them from carrying their plan through (Eisenhower was afraid of the Soviet response). No European country is going to get stuck in that mess again, particularly after America stabbed its European allies in the back last time around. Seriously? A whole lot of history has happened since then, from the formation and evolution of NATO, to the fall of the Soviet Union, the the growth of global Islamic terrorism. You might was well argue the UK would not support the US in some issue because we fought against them for independence in the 18th century. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:19:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. How would they get there? How would the weapons get there? We are talking wide open avenues of approach from all sides. Unless the terrorists were already in the few cities of consequence - cities that could just as easily be shut down, cordoned off, or otherwise ruled out, what would happen? Also, it would not be a US mission. The would infiltrate Suez Egypt and attack from there. They could also ally themselves with the Bedouin tribes that have already seized towns in the area and use them to help infiltrate the area. When you talk about cordoning off cities you're talking about sending troops into populated areas where terrorists could easily slip in and begin fighting those troops. No, I am not. I am talking about controlling everything that enters and exits the city, from the outside. The two major canal cities are not exactly bastions of support for radical Islam, anyway. They would probably prefer to be under some international protectorate than a radicalized government in Cairo. If we had to go old school, we could just shut those cities down and channel the population west. Those cities only exist because of the canal, anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:21:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. How would they get there? How would the weapons get there? We are talking wide open avenues of approach from all sides. Unless the terrorists were already in the few cities of consequence - cities that could just as easily be shut down, cordoned off, or otherwise ruled out, what would happen? Also, it would not be a US mission. The would infiltrate Suez Egypt and attack from there. They could also ally themselves with the Bedouin tribes that have already seized towns in the area and use them to help infiltrate the area. When you talk about cordoning off cities you're talking about sending troops into populated areas where terrorists could easily slip in and begin fighting those troops. No, I am not. I am talking about controlling everything that enters and exits the city, from the outside. The two major canal cities are not exactly bastions of support for radical Islam, anyway. They would probably prefer to be under some international protectorate than a radicalized government in Cairo. Doesn't matter what they would prefer, the terrorists will show up anyway. Suez is supposed to be a major transit point for muslim pilgrims heading to Mecca. You'd never keep the terrorist out in that case. And as for shutting down the cities and moving the people west, forcible relocation of a population is a war crime now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:23:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. How would they get there? How would the weapons get there? We are talking wide open avenues of approach from all sides. Unless the terrorists were already in the few cities of consequence - cities that could just as easily be shut down, cordoned off, or otherwise ruled out, what would happen? Also, it would not be a US mission. The would infiltrate Suez Egypt and attack from there. They could also ally themselves with the Bedouin tribes that have already seized towns in the area and use them to help infiltrate the area. When you talk about cordoning off cities you're talking about sending troops into populated areas where terrorists could easily slip in and begin fighting those troops. No, I am not. I am talking about controlling everything that enters and exits the city, from the outside. The two major canal cities are not exactly bastions of support for radical Islam, anyway. They would probably prefer to be under some international protectorate than a radicalized government in Cairo. Doesn't matter what they would prefer, the terrorists will show up anyway. Suez is supposed to be a major transit point for muslim pilgrims heading to Mecca. You'd never keep the terrorist out in that case. So, you envision a suicidal loon hatching a plan to scuttle a ship full of pilgrims in the canal in order to block it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:26:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. How would they get there? How would the weapons get there? We are talking wide open avenues of approach from all sides. Unless the terrorists were already in the few cities of consequence - cities that could just as easily be shut down, cordoned off, or otherwise ruled out, what would happen? Also, it would not be a US mission. The would infiltrate Suez Egypt and attack from there. They could also ally themselves with the Bedouin tribes that have already seized towns in the area and use them to help infiltrate the area. When you talk about cordoning off cities you're talking about sending troops into populated areas where terrorists could easily slip in and begin fighting those troops. No, I am not. I am talking about controlling everything that enters and exits the city, from the outside. The two major canal cities are not exactly bastions of support for radical Islam, anyway. They would probably prefer to be under some international protectorate than a radicalized government in Cairo. Doesn't matter what they would prefer, the terrorists will show up anyway. Suez is supposed to be a major transit point for muslim pilgrims heading to Mecca. You'd never keep the terrorist out in that case. So, you envision a suicidal loon hatching a plan to scuttle a ship full of pilgrims in the canal in order to block it? What? Where did that even come up? No, I envision boats docking in the Port of Suez and terrorists getting off. Although, Islamic terrorists blowing up a boat full of people in the canal wouldn't be beyond them. "Suicidal loon" and "Islamic Terrorist" are kinda the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:30:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Serious question, I don't know much about what it would entail for us to step in and get things moving again. I really don't think it would be that hard for us to do it...who would try to stop us and could they really pose a serious threat? You know it's not our canal, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:30:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. How would they get there? How would the weapons get there? We are talking wide open avenues of approach from all sides. Unless the terrorists were already in the few cities of consequence - cities that could just as easily be shut down, cordoned off, or otherwise ruled out, what would happen? Also, it would not be a US mission. The would infiltrate Suez Egypt and attack from there. They could also ally themselves with the Bedouin tribes that have already seized towns in the area and use them to help infiltrate the area. When you talk about cordoning off cities you're talking about sending troops into populated areas where terrorists could easily slip in and begin fighting those troops. No, I am not. I am talking about controlling everything that enters and exits the city, from the outside. The two major canal cities are not exactly bastions of support for radical Islam, anyway. They would probably prefer to be under some international protectorate than a radicalized government in Cairo. Doesn't matter what they would prefer, the terrorists will show up anyway. Suez is supposed to be a major transit point for muslim pilgrims heading to Mecca. You'd never keep the terrorist out in that case. So, you envision a suicidal loon hatching a plan to scuttle a ship full of pilgrims in the canal in order to block it? What? Where did that even come up? No, I envision boats docking in the Port of Suez and terrorists getting off. Although, Islamic terrorists blowing up a boat full of people in the canal wouldn't be beyond them. "Suicidal loon" and "Islamic Terrorist" are kinda the same thing. It came from me trying to understand what you were implying. I still don't see any correlation between this and Iraq, assuming you are referring to the whole counterinsurgency / nation building effort that most of us associate with the while thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:32:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? Wha? How is securing a piece of terrain where nobody really lives anything akin to occupying a country? US military presence there would draw terrorist like bees to honey. How would they get there? How would the weapons get there? We are talking wide open avenues of approach from all sides. Unless the terrorists were already in the few cities of consequence - cities that could just as easily be shut down, cordoned off, or otherwise ruled out, what would happen? Also, it would not be a US mission. The would infiltrate Suez Egypt and attack from there. They could also ally themselves with the Bedouin tribes that have already seized towns in the area and use them to help infiltrate the area. When you talk about cordoning off cities you're talking about sending troops into populated areas where terrorists could easily slip in and begin fighting those troops. No, I am not. I am talking about controlling everything that enters and exits the city, from the outside. The two major canal cities are not exactly bastions of support for radical Islam, anyway. They would probably prefer to be under some international protectorate than a radicalized government in Cairo. Doesn't matter what they would prefer, the terrorists will show up anyway. Suez is supposed to be a major transit point for muslim pilgrims heading to Mecca. You'd never keep the terrorist out in that case. So, you envision a suicidal loon hatching a plan to scuttle a ship full of pilgrims in the canal in order to block it? What? Where did that even come up? No, I envision boats docking in the Port of Suez and terrorists getting off. Although, Islamic terrorists blowing up a boat full of people in the canal wouldn't be beyond them. "Suicidal loon" and "Islamic Terrorist" are kinda the same thing. It came from me trying to understand what you were implying. I still don't see any correlation between this and Iraq, assuming you are referring to the whole counterinsurgency / nation building effort that most of us associate with the while thing. The connection I see is US troops having to occupy and secure muslim territory and attracting terrorists from all over the muslim world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:39:54 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does everyone assume that it's going to be the US that does it??? It's the Europeans that stand to lose the most if the Canal gets shutdown. If anything, they'll be the ones intervening. Ironic, considering the last time France and Britain tried that Americans prevented them from carrying their plan through (Eisenhower was afraid of the Soviet response). No European country is going to get stuck in that mess again, particularly after America stabbed its European allies in the back last time around. Seriously? A whole lot of history has happened since then, from the formation and evolution of NATO, to the fall of the Soviet Union, the the growth of global Islamic terrorism. You might was well argue the UK would not support the US in some issue because we fought against them for independence in the 18th century. The Suez crisis did not take place in the 18th century, but in 1956. You would be surprised how fresh that memory still is in White Hall and Quay d'Orsay. It was only very recently widely debated in the UK media, after certain documents relating to the crisis were made public. Just because you don't know history doesn't mean everybody else doesn't either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:46:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking impossible. If there is one thing that we do NOT want to do, it is try and invade Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal. We're MUCH better off going around. I ain't sure if your serious or not. So you want to drag the US into another Iraq? I don't know anything about the Egypt situation either way, I just wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:48:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does everyone assume that it's going to be the US that does it??? It's the Europeans that stand to lose the most if the Canal gets shutdown. If anything, they'll be the ones intervening. Ironic, considering the last time France and Britain tried that Americans prevented them from carrying their plan through (Eisenhower was afraid of the Soviet response). No European country is going to get stuck in that mess again, particularly after America stabbed its European allies in the back last time around. Seriously? A whole lot of history has happened since then, from the formation and evolution of NATO, to the fall of the Soviet Union, the the growth of global Islamic terrorism. You might was well argue the UK would not support the US in some issue because we fought against them for independence in the 18th century. The Suez crisis did not take place in the 18th century, but in 1956. You would be surprised how fresh that memory still is in White Hall and Quay d'Orsay. It was only very recently widely debated in the UK media, after certain documents relating to the crisis were made public. Just because you don't know history doesn't mean everybody else doesn't either. Early cold war politics will have very little influence on any national decisions made my any government today. Period. There is just so much more at stake and that has happened in so many other areas. It might make good TV, but that's it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 12:58:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Serious question, I don't know much about what it would entail for us to step in and get things moving again. I really don't think it would be that hard for us to do it...who would try to stop us and could they really pose a serious threat? You know it's not our canal, right? Maybe we should change that. If it really came down to it and Egypt went into the shitter I'd be fine with annexing the canal zone and letting the Israelis get whatever parts of the Sinai we don't want. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
