The Suez Crisis, also known as the Suez War or 1956 War (and more rarely as the Suez-Sinai war, 1956 Arab-Israeli War, Suez Campaign, Kadesh Operation, Operation Musketeer, or Tripartite aggression) was a war fought on Egyptian territory in 1956. The conflict pitted Egypt against an alliance between the French Fourth Republic, the United Kingdom and Israel. The alliance between the two European nations and Israel was largely one of convenience; the European nations had economic and trading interests in the Suez Canal, while Israel wanted to open the canal for Israeli shipping. When the USSR threatened to intervene on behalf of Egypt, the United States feared a larger war, and forced the British and French to withdraw. The Crisis resulted in the resignation of the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, and marked the completion of the shift in the global balance of power from European powers to the US and Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Suez_War

International blunder, opportunism or Machiavelan scheming to shift the balance of power?

Sherman, you asked for the post.

On a topic about tank ID mark...
Mohmar Deathstrike wrote:

Israel has never been in any coalition as far as I know, except for that time where they allied with France and the UK in an attempt to conquer the Suez canal

To which I responded:

Quote:

Free?

And recieved the reply :

Let's not get biased here...Maybe it should be "attempt to take control of theSuez canal"?

Well, the reeason I used the word free is very simple. Nasser, the Egyptian president at that time, nationalized the Canal, which was partly owned by the French and English. The Canal was to be given to the Egyptians soon anyway, as was agreed with the Egyptian gov when it was dug. Nasser made a provocaation and nationalised it for no good reason. He also blocked Israeli trade from what was considred an international shipping lane. Israel said before that as far as we are considred, any blockade or blocking against Israeli shipping is an act of war, and we refuce to be starved to death. I really to this day don't see any moral problem with that war, it was completely justified.

i agree, it was justified, and they (Eqypt) had it coming.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

Well, the reeason I used the word free is very simple. Nasser, the Egyptian president at that time, nationalized the Canal, which was partly owned by the French and English. The Canal was to be given to the Egyptians soon anyway, as was agreed with the Egyptian gov when it was dug. Nasser made a provocaation and nationalised it for no good reason. He also blocked Israeli trade from what was considred an international shipping lane. Israel said before that as far as we are considred, any blockade or blocking against Israeli shipping is an act of war, and we refuce to be starved to death. I really to this day don't see any moral problem with that war, it was completely justified.

If a blockade is an act of war wouldn't the Cuban missile crisis have been an act of war by the United States? What did the Israeli government intend to do with the canal?

The Israeli govronment meant to force the Egyptians into allowing Israeli shipping to pass through the canal and tiran straights. It also meant to destroy the huge ammoit of weapons the Egyptians got from the soviets.

He stated it was an Israeli policy that a blockade is an act of war.

That doesn't make it a United States policy.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

The Israeli govronment meant to force the Egyptians into allowing Israeli shipping to pass through the canal and tiran straights. It also meant to destroy the huge ammoit of weapons the Egyptians got from the soviets.

How is forcing them to allow Israeli vessels to pass equivalent to freeing as you said on the other thread? It was a canal built by Egyptian people (under British rule) and in control of the Egyptian government. Shouldn't the Egyptians therefore decide what to do with it?

Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU

He stated it was an Israeli policy that a blockade is an act of war.

That doesn't make it a United States policy.

So if a country adopts a policy that states that any citizen of another country who is poking their nose constitutes an act of war, that makes it alright?

Blockades are an act of war, embargoes are not. This is owing to the fact that a blockade is a violation of the International Law of the sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh34.htm

http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_46150...ional_Law.html

http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=275

How is forcing them to allow Israeli vessels to pass equivalent to freeing as you said on the other thread? It was a canal built by Egyptian people (under British rule) and in control of the Egyptian government. Shouldn't the Egyptians therefore decide what to do with it?

The Suez canal was dug as an international shipping lane. It is illieagal to close it down to another country. Nasser new full well what Israel would do, since Israel had no choice. He also threatend and prevented Israeli shipping in the Red Sea. Nasser was the Saddam Hussain of his time, and I really dont know why you are so quick to rush to his defense. He provoked Israel in to war twice, and lost twice. His own arrogance was his worst enemy.

Sherman, that is a big blanket statement, arrogance is the usual downfall of all world leaders. It seems to be inherent to the job. A body could easily argue that the current quagmire, as presented in the media, is due to arrogance on the part of US leadership. Not understanding the full picture of what they were getting involved in. The same with Saddam, Nasser, Kennedy, DeGaulle...