I just remembered from my reading, the Joint UK-French operation in 1956 to reclaim the Suez canal from Egypt.
Some Background:
The canal which had been historically owned by the two countries, was nationalized by Nasser the Egyptian president. In order to "protect interests in the area" (i.e. the economic lifeline of Britain and France to their empires (they still had some in 1956), and to prevent Nasser from obtaining arms they went to war. Nasser had obtained modern jets from the soviet union and hence would have been a threat to European shipping if they didn't pay the Egyptians for use of the canal. Given that France and Britain payed for the building of the canal, this was really tantamant to wholesale theft.
US Involvement:
During the operation the USA protested verciferously, and even dispatched a battle group to the Med. in order to interfer with the operations. The US ships would position themselves to prevent British aircraft carriers from turning to receive aircraft. Also American aircraft would perform dummy attack runs on the carriers to hinder aircraft operations. The USA did have an ulterior motive for a favourable outcome fro Egypt, as it was wishing to court the Egyptians away from Soviet influence.
Now my comparison
Almost 50 years on it is the USA that wants war to protect its vital interests -oil, and it is France and the people of Britain that don't want war. Also France has a vested interest to protect its oil supplies.
My Opinion :
I don't think some French politician, saying he doesn't support war, is in any war comparable to him dispatching his fleet to be a nuisance around the American battle groups. I guess what I'm trying to say is it's different whent he boot is on the other foot [img]smile.gif[/img]
your opinions please :
Edited to restructure to make the post less rambly
[ 02-17-2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Sir_Tainly ]