Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IRAQ: EGYPT WILL NOT LET US WARSHIPS PASS THROUGH SUEZ CANAL
Qatar News Agency | 8/19/02

Posted on 08/19/2002 11:17:40 AM PDT by kattracks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-213 next last
To: kattracks
Time to get together with Israel and seize the canal again as well as burn Cairo to the ground( excluding any pre Arab Egyptian stuff) for good measure.
81 posted on 08/19/2002 12:56:38 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Is is available in hi res?

Oh great another "project."

82 posted on 08/19/2002 12:56:42 PM PDT by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
Wow! Surf's up.
83 posted on 08/19/2002 1:02:06 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Classic!
84 posted on 08/19/2002 1:02:37 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
Is this a simular situation that Japan was in in WW2? Japan was afraid we, the US, would cut off raw materials to Japan? So Japan attacked us to protect their dependence on raw materials. So would't we be doing something simular to this,ie, taking over the oil fields if need be due to our societaly dependence on oil? Just a question for all.

A few points:

A) We DID and WERE enforcing a blockade on Japan before the Pearl Harbor attack.

B) A blockade IS an act of war.

C) Egypt would be enforcing a blockade on military ships I assume, ships that are aggressors in war.

D) This war is not 'protecting' our interests/dependence on oil, it is endangering it.

E) Please explain the legal theory behind our 'rights to' the oil of a foreign country.

85 posted on 08/19/2002 1:04:27 PM PDT by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This looks like political posturing for domestic consumption in Egypt to me.

Only those ships on their way to attack Iraq may not use the canal. Right now, that means no problem...

If shooting starts, ships in transit in the Suez Canal would be very difficult to defend, whether the Eqyptians gave us official permission or not. However, at that point our ships will already be where they need to be.
86 posted on 08/19/2002 1:08:41 PM PDT by EternalHope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texbob
All we have to do to get Egypt to back down on the use of Suez issue is to threaten to cut off their supply of reverse gears for their tanks.
87 posted on 08/19/2002 1:10:04 PM PDT by HardStarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: cmsgop
It is if we decide to have the Navy make it so.
88 posted on 08/19/2002 1:15:28 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
If this story is true, then it's very serious. Egypt is required by the Constantinople Convention of 1888 to keep the canal open at all times to ships of all countries, including ships of war. Closing the canal is a casus belli, a legitimate cause of war—in effect, it is a crime under international law. Under these circumstances, we have an absolute right, long recognized under international law, to seize and reopen the canal by force.

Given that, I cannot believe Egypt has actually closed the canal to US warships. There's no way Egypt would do that just to "send a message"—it's like sending McCain the message that you're upset about CFR by mailing him a letter bomb. The only "message" this would send is the message that Egypt is openly declaring for Iraq and willing to go to war to defend Saddam, which I find utterly inconceivable.

89 posted on 08/19/2002 1:16:16 PM PDT by Fabozz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fabozz
We allready have ships in the Suez Canal, and beyond, what kind of tripe id this. Lets get a real source on this B.S.
Ops4 God Bless America
90 posted on 08/19/2002 1:18:51 PM PDT by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

Comment #91 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
See. I told you it was a mistake for Israel to give it back.:)
92 posted on 08/19/2002 1:20:32 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
As usually, a dumb liberal. Imperial Japan had war making plans as early as the 1920's. For Japan, WWII started in 1928 with the invasion of Korea. As to the attack on Pearl, what about the attack on the same few days on the Dutch, French Indochina, and the British. Ignorant dolt.
93 posted on 08/19/2002 1:25:03 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Thud
First, I don't think any of our carriers can fit in the Suez Canal,

They can fit through the deep, flat, and wide Suez Canal. It's the Panama Canal -- narrow and shallow with lots of locks -- that the carriers cannot fit through.

94 posted on 08/19/2002 1:28:51 PM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
"If this isn't one of those two faced statements that all these petty countries engage in (one for international consumption/one for domestic consumption), then withdraw all aid to Egypt and add them to the Axis of Evil."

Right on. I'm leaning toward the petty, "two faced statement" personally. From what I hear, the water level is too low for supertankers and a plan was announced to deepen it...that was 1997 and I don't know if they have done it yet. Besides, we don't HAVE to have Egypt's support.

95 posted on 08/19/2002 1:30:27 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #96 Removed by Moderator

To: mindprism.com
" A) We DID and WERE enforcing a blockade on Japan before the Pearl Harbor attack."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

There was no, none, zero blockade of Japan. There wasn't even a embargo. In July 1941, the U.S. threatened Japan with an oil embargo unless Japan withdrew from China. Rather than withdraw from China and abandon its imperialist aspirations, Japan chose to attack the U.S. while it still had the oil reserves needed to wage war.

97 posted on 08/19/2002 1:34:33 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
Exibit A. "Why do you have to be such an ass? "
Exibit B. "WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST"
Case closed.
98 posted on 08/19/2002 1:38:18 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
Operation Soaked Sahara. Hooah!
99 posted on 08/19/2002 1:38:30 PM PDT by nravoter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: da_toolman
Let the bodies hit the floor
100 posted on 08/19/2002 1:39:23 PM PDT by phasma proeliator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-213 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson