Archive

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and revolution in MENA

  • I Wear Pants
    O-Trap;660489 wrote:Given the guerrilla style of combat we were using ... compared to their old-order form.
    Is guerrilla style code for "killing a bunch of people in their sleep on Christmas"?

    I'm not trying to poo-poo on the US or anything because our founders and those who fought for us were definitely fighting the good fight. I just think it's odd that one of our more celebrated military maneuvers would be seen as a horrible atrocity and proof that our enemy is evil today.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;660650 wrote:This is of critical international importance.
    Who owns the Suez Canal?
    I Wear Pants;660653 wrote:Is guerrilla style code for "killing a bunch of people in their sleep on Christmas"?

    I'm not trying to poo-poo on the US or anything because our founders and those who fought for us were definitely fighting the good fight. I just think it's odd that one of our more celebrated military maneuvers would be seen as a horrible atrocity and proof that our enemy is evil today.
    I've thought about that before.

  • majorspark
    O-Trap;660661 wrote:Who owns the Suez Canal?
    Egyptian government.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;660661 wrote:Who owns the Suez Canal?



    ...
    To be honest I don't know nor have I thought about ownership definition. It's usage is very important, however...which was the emphasis of my comment.
  • O-Trap
    majorspark;660665 wrote:Egyptian government.
    If this is true, ultimately, it is up to them to use it as they wish.

    Make no mistake, we should position ourselves in such a way that they would never have reason to be jerks with it, but when push comes to shove, ownership has the say.
    Con_Alma;660666 wrote:To be honest I don't know nor have I thought about ownership definition. It's usage is very important, however...which was the emphasis of my comment.

    To be certain. It should be taken into account, and weighted heavily, when we engage Egypt holistically. I was just getting some clarity to be certain that we shouldn't treat it as though we own it if we indeed do not.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;660685 wrote:...
    To be certain. It should be taken into account, and weighted heavily, when we engage Egypt holistically. I was just getting some clarity to be certain that we shouldn't treat it as though we own it if we indeed do not.


    Has anyone given any indication that someone owns it other than the owners themselves?

    It's usage and impact is very important internationally. I couldn't imagine a government, especially a U.S. government not taking into consideration who owns it when making any decisions in the region.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;660693 wrote:Has anyone given any indication that someone owns it other than the owners themselves?
    Not to my knowledge. My prying was merely for clarity's sake.
    Con_Alma;660693 wrote:It's usage and impact is very important internationally. I couldn't imagine a government, especially a U.S. government not taking into consideration who owns it when making any decisions in the region.
    Agreed, whole-heartedly.
  • majorspark
    Then Canal is run by the Suez Canal Authority. Which is owned by the government of Egypt. Egypt under Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 which sparked a war in which Great Britain, France, and Israel attacked Egypt. The war had the danger to spiral out of control quickly as it would soon draw in the US and Soviets of not ended.

    Egypt signed an international treaty that basically allows all internatinal shipping, both military and commercial. Egypt cannot use the Suez Canal against any nation even if they disagree with that nations policies.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;660695 wrote:Not to my knowledge. My prying was merely for clarity's sake.



    ...
    Gottcha.
  • I Wear Pants
    But they can get out of the treaty since if I remember most treaties can be invalidated if you decide it is against your nations security interests.
  • I Wear Pants
    Con_Alma;660693 wrote:Has anyone given any indication that someone owns it other than the owners themselves?

    It's usage and impact is very important internationally. I couldn't imagine a government, especially a U.S. government not taking into consideration who owns it when making any decisions in the region.
    No one indicated that anyone owned it other than the owners but the attitude has been "this can be a good thing as long as they don't mess with the canal". My question is whether the attitude would be the same way for an important canal or something in the US (if it existed). Would we be so quick to say "we better not mess with the canal because it's important for other people" or would we all think "it's our canal we'll do as we damn please"?
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;660716 wrote:But they can get out of the treaty since if I remember most treaties can be invalidated if you decide it is against your nations security interests.
    Yes they could. But unless some radical nuts take over they will not invalidate it.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;660719 wrote:Would we be so quick to say "we better not mess with the canal because it's important for other people" or would we all think "it's our canal we'll do as we damn please"?
    We could tell the to go to hell because we can. We would do whatever is in our nations best interest The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Egypt cannot do that with their canal because there are greater powers than them in this would that would come over there ane promptly kick their ass and take control from them if they wanted to use it against one of these greater powers.
  • Con_Alma
    I Wear Pants;660719 wrote:No one indicated that anyone owned it other than the owners but the attitude has been "this can be a good thing as long as they don't mess with the canal". My question is whether the attitude would be the same way for an important canal or something in the US (if it existed). Would we be so quick to say "we better not mess with the canal because it's important for other people" or would we all think "it's our canal we'll do as we damn please"?

    I haven't seen such an attitude displayed but maybe I have just missed it.

    I don't know if such an attitude would exist as you stated in the US if such a canal were here. I would hope that unless there was a national security threat we would be open to such commerce travel. Wish we took such an approach on on southern border...open to commerce travel but protective from national security threats.
  • O-Trap
    majorspark;660726 wrote:We could tell the to go to hell because we can. We would do whatever is in our nations best interest The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Egypt cannot do that with their canal because there are greater powers than them in this would that would come over there ane promptly kick their ass and take control from them if they wanted to use it against one of these greater powers.

    As I recall, most men who tried to conquer the world by use of force held a mentality very similar.
  • majorspark
    O-Trap;660730 wrote:As I recall, most men who tried to conquer the world by use of force held a mentality very similar.
    Yep. History is full of them. There is the way we would like things to be and there is the way things are.
  • O-Trap
    majorspark;660738 wrote:Yep. History is full of them. There is the way we would like things to be and there is the way things are.

    I just find it funny that many seem reserved to engaging the world in the very same way as people we vilify in history books. Hitler, for example, had this same "might-makes-right" aire. If he could conquer you, then what was right or wrong didn't matter. If you didn't give it to him, but he could take it, then he would take it.
  • majorspark
    O-Trap;660745 wrote:I just find it funny that many seem reserved to engaging the world in the very same way as people we vilify in history books. Hitler, for example, had this same "might-makes-right" aire. If he could conquer you, then what was right or wrong didn't matter. If you didn't give it to him, but he could take it, then he would take it.
    I don't find it funny. People have though this way throughout history. Also don't forget the victors write the history books. I am not giving my personal opinion. I am giving my opinion of the world.
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;660738 wrote:Yep. History is full of them. There is the way we would like things to be and there is the way things are.
    We don't have to settle for the way things are.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;660794 wrote:We don't have to settle for the way things are.

    Bingo.

    In the words of Tony Robbins: "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten."
  • FatHobbit
    majorspark;660726 wrote:We could tell the to go to hell because we can. We would do whatever is in our nations best interest The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Egypt cannot do that with their canal because there are greater powers than them in this would that would come over there ane promptly kick their ass and take control from them if they wanted to use it against one of these greater powers.

    This is what I am talking about when I ask would we support a democracy if they did not do what was in the US's best interest.
  • I Wear Pants
    This is not being run by radicals for people who are worried about that. That's not to say that radicals couldn't use it to their advantage but at present this is not run by radicals and is more of a secular/youthful movement than any religious movement.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;660794 wrote:We don't have to settle for the way things are.
    We can try, but depraved immoral leaders will always be able to at times to get the reigns of power. The world has many depraved and greedy men. Things will remain pretty much as they are and nothing men do will stop it. Its like thinking you can get rid of greed and murder.
  • O-Trap
    majorspark;660852 wrote:We can try, but depraved immoral leaders will always be able to at times to get the reigns of power. The world has many depraved and greedy men. Things will remain pretty much as they are and nothing men do will stop it. Its like thinking you can get rid of greed and murder.

    Oh certainly not. I wouldn't suggest we'll ever rid the world of it.

    However, just because you can't get rid of it doesn't mean you have to engage in it yourself, or even justify when others do, you know? Not saying that's what you're doing. Just stating that it seems as though a lot of people do.
  • I Wear Pants
    Mubarak is speaking right now.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/