IRAQ: EGYPT WILL NOT LET US WARSHIPS PASS THROUGH SUEZ CANAL

Qatar News Agency | 8/19/02

[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.

[weikel]

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.

[ASA Vet]

Is is available in hi res?

Oh great another "project."

[AmericanInTokyo]

Wow! Surf's up.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Classic!

[mindprism.com]

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.

[EternalHope]

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.

[HardStarboard]

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.

[Gumlegs]

It is if we decide to have the Navy make it so.

[Fabozz]

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.

[OPS4]

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

[Nachum]

See. I told you it was a mistake for Israel to give it back.:)

[Leisler]

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.

[jae471]

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.

[cake_crumb]

"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.

[Leisler]

" 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.

[Leisler]

Exibit A. "Why do you have to be such an ass? "
Exibit B. "WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST"
Case closed.

[nravoter]

Operation Soaked Sahara. Hooah!

[phasma proeliator]

Let the bodies hit the floor