Some one has just sent me an e-mail reminding me that 52 years ago we were storming the beaches in Egypt. My where has all these years gone.

Well for the most part they seem to have gone into apologising for storming beaches around the world, the Suez crisis has largely been over looked by history and it would be interesting to hear more about it..

Still look at the bright side 400 odd years ago today Guy Fawkes was busily trying to blow parliament and was hanged for it, these days he would have been a national hero.

The nationalization of the Suez canal was the right thing to do, a nation deserves to benefit from its own land, Suez belonged to Egypt and majority of the revenues were instead of going to lift the Egyptian people out of poverty and was going to Britain and France. Suez canal is just another example of Western exploitation of foreign assets and the lengths they would go to defend it. The incident has receded to the back pages of history, but it served to immortalize Gamal Abdul Nasser and show his charisma and strength of character he lead Egypt out of those dark days.

Let me see if I understand this...

- America and Britain refuse to fund the Aswan High Dam.
- Nasser throws a fit and nationalises the Suez Canal which was paid for by Britain and France (Britain purchased Egypt's shares in the canal)
- Nasser rejects about 20 proposals put forward to resolve the issue.
- Britain and France retake control of the canal via military action.
- Egypt turns over control of the canal zone to the UN.

Seems to me that Nasser was being a bit petulant and got bitten.

Hey don't you know?
The Middle East was in perfect peace and harmony when only Arabs were around. Then the rest of the world suddenly popped out of nowhere and suddenly they became poor and couldn't stop fighting each other.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Hey don't you know?
The Middle East was in perfect peace and harmony when only Arabs were around. Then the rest of the world suddenly popped out of nowhere and suddenly they became poor and couldn't stop fighting each other.

To be far the middle east and a sizable chunk of Africa probably would have been better off without all the colonialism and interference that went with it.

That being said they need to suck it up and move or they will be still in the same position 1000 years from now.

"To be far the middle east probably would have been better off without all the colonialism and interference that went with it.

That being said they need to suck it up and move or they will be still in the same position 1000 years from now."-Monty

You are right I agree with you Monty, the Middle East would have been a lot better without all the colonialism and interference and now that it is in the past people of that region need to move on. But I need to point out another thing also which is that its hard for people to move on when the West is still interfering and occupying parts of the Middle East while threatening other parts with invasions and bombings, such things only serve to bring back the memories of the colonialism of the past in which the wounds still simmer under the skin.

"Hey don't you know?
The Middle East was in perfect peace and harmony when only Arabs were around. Then the rest of the world suddenly popped out of nowhere and suddenly they became poor and couldn't stop fighting each other."-Redneck

You continuously amaze me in your line of thinking. The Arabs were living in peace amongst themselves, they were prosperous, Muslims had an empire which stretch continents from Turkey/Balkans to Middle East to North Africa. Colonialism laid the seeds of many of today's hatred in the Middle East whether you deny it or not its a historical fact. The British and the French asked the Arabs for their help in WW1 in defeating the Germans and Turks in return they would be left alone and be able to establish Arab nation. The Europeans turned around as soon as the war was over and stabbed the Arabs in the back, occupied from Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia. They turned around and instead of letting the Arabs build their own Arab nation they cobbled together different ethnicity within the same border thus denying them their aspirations and subjugated them to European colonialism.

What do you think the Europeans did? That they offered the Arabs free reign in their natural resources? That they let them establish their boundaries and nation after WW1? That they did not subjugate the Arab populace to the tactics of divide and conquer? Or do you believe that the Europeans and the Americans today are benevolent? Save me your self righteous beliefs and your lopsided views.

Of course the Muslims never tried to set up an Empire outside their boundaries did they???. Under the Ottoman Empire they allowed for dissent protest and nationalism didn't they. When a country makes an agreement that another country can build and run some thing like a canal which cost billions of pounds to build, does that mean that they can tear up this agreement and seize all the assets when ever they like.
Now was not Nasser a tin pot dictator that had used his position in the army to depose the legal government of Egypt and impose his thoughts on the country. Did he not then try expand his influence across Africa by exporting terrorism. Just how many countries in the Middle East are free and democratic, and full range of law and order.

Having sailed through the Suez canal a few times, I could tell you some horror stories of the way it is managed (I use the term loosely) and run.

Just quickly, companies are forced at huge expense, to employ about ten "hangers on" who do absolutely nothing, and must be locked out of the accommodation as they will steal anything that is not welded to the ship's structure. All brass fire fighting nozzles and any other attractive equipment must be taken off deck and locked away. These thieves are usually the Pilots kids or brothers in law, or relatives of some other petty port official. They serve no purpose and know nothing of ships or shipping other than where they can find things of value to steal. They will do this blatantly in plain sight and if you complain, the ship will incur serious penalties, delays and problems with officialdom. With the average "bare bottom charter costing $50,000+ per diem, it's easier just to let them have whatever they can get.

This is the way the Egyptians "run" the canal.

Originally Posted by UnitedSomalia

"To be far the middle east probably would have been better off without all the colonialism and interference that went with it.

I guess we see the kindliness that exists between the factions of the middle east today, without any encouragement whatsoever from the tiny slip of land that is now Israel. Only subjugation has ever maintained peace amongst them, and they impose this far more severely than anything from Europe. Look around the middle east at each regime. Peace- Hah!

Furthermore, we have the wonderful example of Africa, especially, where their expertise is in the devastating slaughter of their neighbours, men , women and children. Israel is being blamed for that I suppose?

Great job they are doing in Africa of looking after themselves; aid and more aid demanded from the west they curse so profusely from their UN mouthpieces. More money to fund more killing.

Let me say that the west would dearly love to be free of the yoke and the disaster of 'free Africa'. Congo - should the west walk away and leave it?

The reality? you have it, Africa and Arabia. Left to their own devices, and with a large lump of the world's financial muscle at their resource.

Just my opinion, of course.