Posted on 08/19/2002 11:17:40 AM PDT by kattracks
AMMAN, Aug. 17, 2002 (QNA via COMTEX) -- Dr. Oasma Al Baz, political advisor to the Egyptian president, said Egypt will not allow passage through the Suez Canal of US ships headed to strike Iraq.In statements published here Saturday he added Egypt rejects any military operation against Iraq, its territorial unity, independence and safety of Iraqi people, adding any military attack on Iraq represents a vary dangerous step endangering the security of the region.
Dr. Al Baz said the question of UN weapons inspectors is an issue which concerns the UN and the Security Council and not Washington and the US has no right to take any military action against Iraq nor has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country and impose a set-up of new leadership on its people.
Copyright (C) 2002 QNA. All Rights Reserved.
And I can spot a few good spots for offshore oil drilling :^)
In Cohin India, I went swimming in a hotel pool (filled with sea water) for 4 days, and on the 5th day noticed the snakes in the water before I got in. I went to the top of the Leaning Tower of Piza (they don't let you do that anymore), and through areas of Pompeii that have since been closed for safety reasons. I even went through the catacombs of Alexandria Egypt. A great experience.......
Aramco is a monopoly. We have a dependence on *oil* not *monopoly*. It is in the interest of consumers to have a free market void of monopoly.
I am not sure if the slight-of-hand you're employing here is due to lack of knowlege or understanding, perhaps it is a blind spot caused by party mandate. Irregardless, you are misinterpreting the arguments I put forth.
One may debate the extent of the pressures eminating from such monopoly interests, but to desperately refute them as a legitimate concern and significant DRIVER of foreign policy is to assume a stance that is comical and outright fanatical.
Your "coal fired stove and candlelight" assertion affirms the validity of my depiction of your views.
Let me know when you are open to rational discussion because I have enough sense to realize that a debate in hyperbole is a shameful exercise of vendictive malice posing in the guise of intelligent politics.
I doubt I can muster the shame you wish to evoke because I'm not afraid of being wrong, on anything, so a spelling error doesn't phase me.
Criticisms couched in that technique are barely above the childhood quip "I know you are but what am I?"
But hey, who am I to judge, whatever seems to work for you. I retract my admonition and offer encouragement and praise of your strategic insight.
Would it help if I fall to the ground in a dramatic, writhing acknowlegement of the wound you so deftly inflicted on my credibility?
"Hey everyone! It turns out I really AM an idiot so feel free to ignore my mindless ramblings past, present and future for fire_eye has shown me the light!"
Hows that? Good enough?
...Egypt will not allow passage through the Suez Canal of US ships ...
So?
What would make for good progress in the diplomatic front with all of our so called allies:
1. 0800 Cairo time: Inform Cairo of our intentions to take the Suez from them by force. Give them until 1000 to evacuate the site.
2. 1000 CT: Begin capturing the Suez with our assets in the Gulf.
3. 1200 CT: Break for lunch while the IDF marches down to annex the Suez for Israel.
4. 1500 CT: Begin transits once again.
5. If at any time Cairo interferes in any way, nuke Cairo.
If we really mean war, then this is what we need to do. Otherwise, we are playing diplomacy.
Ohhhh.
This is so true. Ready the minute men...
US super carriers passed through the Suez during the Gulf War, and I cannot imagine the carriers being designed without the canals in mind. Both the Suez and Panama are 100 feet at their narrowest points. The interesting thing is how they are sitting ducks while transitting. I would imagine both Egyptian and US military provide cover and security.
Money is not the issue. Staying alive is. The Mubarak regime is teetering on collapse to pressure from the Islamic clerics filling the young peasants with Jihad. Mubarak is trying to stay out of the fight altogether - with everyone - but his peasants see a double standard. He attacked Iraq, an Arab state, to save their Arab Kuwaiti brothers, but won't attack Israel to save their Arab Palestinian brothers.
Mubarak is beside himself. He is trying to just stay alive by feeding the clerics and peasants some meat to chew on for a while. We won't go to war with Egypt unless Mubarak falls and fundamentalists rise to power. Then it will be a given, for there is no way they would allow us to use the canal. We would have to take it all from them by force in that event.
The Egyptian government is moderate but its peasants are militant (courtesy of the clerics). This is also true in Saudi Arabia. But unlike Mubarak who is trying to remain totally neutral, Crown Prince Abdullah has decided his best chances are with the militants.
President Bush also said that Islam is a peaceful religion, but I know he knows the truth. I suspect he knew he would need the help of Muslim states (Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.) and did not want to offend them nor look the hypocrit at home.
You know what is really sad is that after September 11th, Bush can go nuclear in a heart beat and no one will really give him any flak over it.
1. launch one minute man at Cairo and other targets.
2. take canal and let Israel annex it.
3. tell the world, "They decided they were not with us after all."
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.