Posted on 08/19/2002 11:17:40 AM PDT by kattracks
I'm not sure they will either. Though "British warships" traveled it post 9-11. The article is in the eLibrary archives and a subscription is not free.
Also, there are no statements from Egypt in this Saddam propaganda piece. I wish kattracks had posted a link.
We don't have a right to take another nation's oil, but we and another sovereign nation (like Kuwait, as a completely random example) do have a right to trade oil, dollars, widgets, or whatever, without a bullying neighbor invading, taking all of the commodities, and trying to harm us by denying us something we need by eliminating free trade.
They most certainly are, because the Suez Canal is not "Egyptian territory." It is an international waterway administered by Egypt. Egypt is entitled to revenues from its use, but is absolutely not permitted to deny use of the canal to any ship of any nation in peacetime, nor is it permitted to deny the canal to belligerents in a war that does not involve Egypt. The only time Egypt may deny a ship the use of the canal is when the ship belongs to a nation actually at war with Egypt. That's why there's exactly zero chance of this story being legitimate—for this story to be true, Egypt would have to be prepared to fight a war against the United States, which is just ludicrous.
Why exclude humanitarian crisis' and mother nature. Until the rest of the world's people start to get it thru their thick skulls that they should be kissing the US' rearend for all we do for them, tell them all to pound sand. Stop payments immediately and indefinitely....
LOL...thanks for adding the qualifier...shame you needed to...
Ach, don't go to any trouble. Is is= Is it.
Still a nice one though. It's sort of a good comeback against all the maps that don't show Israel but do show a Palestinian State.
If they don't smarten up, the rest of that third world rathole will glow like an Iraqi mosque.
For most Americans: Good riddance.
“It was important to organize air operations against Japanese occupied territory and against Japan itself. It is probable that her collapse will occur as a result of economic blockade, naval pressure, and air bombardment”.
Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact, an instrument whose purpose was to “abolish aggressive war”.
- Among those present was the author of the Pact, Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg.
During the course of the recorded discussions, the following exchange took place:
“Q: Suppose a country is not attacked - suppose there is an economic blockade...?
A: There is no such thing as a blockade [unless] you are in war.
Q: It is an act of war?
A: An act of war absolutely... as I have stated before, nobody on earth, probably, could write an article defining “self defense” or “aggressor” that some country could not get around; and I made up my mind that the only safe thing for any country to do was to judge for itself within its sovereign rights whether it was unjustly attacked and had a right to defend itself and it must answer to the opinion of the world.” Japan’s War of the Pacific was a war of self-defense for the following reasons: - blockade is an act of war; (p. 43,051); - every nation is the judge of what constitutes self- defense (ibid); - no submission to any tribunal is required by the Pact (pp. 42,162; 42,240); - self-defense is not limited to defense of the national territory (p. 42,239); - the Pact does not contain any sanctions, express or implied (pp. 42,163); - breach of treaties does not constitute aggression (p. 42, 191); - American aid to the Chinese made America a belligerent in that war (see Note, below); - declarations of war are not required in self-defense (pp. 42,431-5); - no treaty requires any warning prior to attack (pp. 42,447-8); American aid to the Chinese made America a belligerent in that war
Note: almost no use was made of the argument that America was a belligerent in the China Incident. The Incident was a “conflict” rather than a “war” in the sense that belligerent and neutral rights were not invoked: diplomatic relations were undisturbed; enemy aliens in Japan were not interned, etc. Rather, it was maintained that if it was a war, then American aid to China made America a belligerent subject to attack without formality. The Americans claimed it was a war in which they could participate without becoming a belligerent
Unlike suez, the u.s. has explicit legal rights to take ANY ACTION IT DEEMS NECESSARY to protect the security and neutrality of the canal with NO requirement of consent or consultation prior with the govt. of panama. As far as the doomsday scenarios about chinese influence in canal affairs making it easier to sabotage the canal, I assume the posters have no idea how the canal operates (3 choke points/locks, disabling of any of which rendered canal unusuable), or how vulnerable the locks are to any entity with government-sized resources determined to cause havok.
I remain baffled that the best the Japanese could do to try to render the canal unusable during wwii was their swimmer torpedoes.
That's an absurdly stupid comment. If we want Egypt to do our bidding, we threaten to withhold the billions in aid we give them. The military answer would be disastrous. For one thing, from a purely tactical point of view, there's no way we could take it fast enough to prevent them from scuttling ships, preventing traffic anyway. They did just that in 1956, when the Brits and French invaded, and they could just as soon do that in 2002. For another, Egypt is the richest, most secularized and most powerful Arab nation. We want them to remain (mostly) on our side, to leverage the support of the smaller countries. Now is not the time to make new enemies.
Free trade? Free markets? Is that what we believe in... or - do we believe in sending our soldiers to defend oil monopolies
How 'humane' and noble to have advocates calling for "us" to "administer Saudi Arabia's oil fields for the common good of the people of the region"
"Administer", as in "preserving the present Aramco monopoly".
Predictably, this is not part of the dialog due to control of the media.
Without a free press democracy devolves into a Punch & Judy show.
I guess not. You see, "belligerant" = "aggressor". We were not the aggressor. Japan was.
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.