An interesting comparison--2003 -1956

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 ]

[Djinn Raffo]

I never knew that this was the case in 1956. But if it is.. then like you said: It seems it's different when the boot is on the other foot.

[Ronn_Bman]

Sounds like a bilateral action to me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Was there a UN resolution authorizing force? How many years were the Egyptians given to cooperate before the bombing started? Did the French and UK give any thought to how their actions would effect the world in general the Middle East in particular? How the actions would be seen by the Muslim countries? Didn't they care about the hate they would foster?

Maybe the US was just trying to avert the conflict and save lives. Maybe the Egyptians just needed more time?

The parallels are interesting.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Sounds like a bilateral action to me. [img]smile.gif[/img] Was there a UN resolution authorizing force? How many years were the Egyptians given to cooperate before the bombing started? Did the French and UK give any thought to how their actions would effect the world in general the Middle East in particular? How the actions would be seen by the Muslim countries? Didn't they care about the hate they would foster? Maybe the US was just trying to avert the conflict and save lives. Maybe the Egyptians just needed more time? The parallels are interesting.

Hehe nice reply ..joking aside I like some of the points you raise here even in jest..because they are equally valid then as now.

Historically jusf for the record, the UN, only became involved after the shooting started. They sought to end the conflict and enforce a cease fire. Don't think anyone asked them up front. Also re Muslim Countries responses, it was not so much an issue then, as a) Egypt has a large Christian population b) in those days it was the West against the Russians/Communists. That said Russia did threaten war over it so big consequences

and btw..You don't need inspectors to find then Canal..

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Sir_Tainly: and btw..You don't need inspectors to find the Canal..

ROTFLMAO

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Sir_Tainly: [QB]re Muslim Countries responses, it was not so much an issue then, as a) Egypt has a large Christian population b) in those days it was the West against the Russians/Communists. That said Russia did threaten war over it so big consequences QB]

Sadly, the Muslim countries' response (and memory) was much more of an issue than was ever considered. This is a key point. The US support of Israel is only a small (increasing growing) part of the overall anti-WEST sentiment. Your example is only one of many that don't involve the US. The Middle Eastern memory is long regarding transgression.... whose isn't?

a.) The Egyptian Christian population's perceived importance, at that time, is really hugely reflective regarding the ignorance of the Muslim POV (at the time).

b.) You are exactly right. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the way to go, but it doesn't always work out on the long term. Suddenly, it seems like the former Soviet's have always had a great respect for the freedom of the Middle Eastern nations.

Control of the Middle East (known by the West as influence) was important to the West during the Cold War, and it's at least that important today regardless of political correctness.

EDIT - I've reworded (a.), and it still doesn't read quite right, so just to be clear 'the ignorance of the Muslim POV' is regarding the perception in the 50's and not the use of the example.

[ 02-18-2003, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]