12-02-2003 09:55									#151
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK I personally wasn't alive then. I don't know that much about it. It's in the past. If we were at fault two wrongs don't make a right.

It wasn't you at fault; it was one of your (and our) better moments.

	12-02-2003 10:13									#152
	Inflate your Upload Space

Was denying access to the canal considered and act of war? I'm out of my element here so don't flame me too bad.

	12-02-2003 10:16									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

On whose part? Nasser's?

Yup. The canal was Anglo-French property. But you really have to consider the situation; that was a legacy of colonial times. Nasser was a ****, but the reaction went overboard. Now if you want to get into why the Panama canal is still US-owned...

	12-02-2003 10:18									#154
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It seems to me then that the US was not right to get in the way them, but I'm sure there's something I don't know.

I don't think canals and waterways should be used like that.

	12-02-2003 10:24									#155
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse This new grouping could meet in a phone booth.

Which one, the "like minded nation" organisation that's consisted of the US and the UK?

	12-02-2003 10:24									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You forgot Lithuania!

	12-02-2003 10:29									#157
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sorry

	12-02-2003 10:54									#158
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: . Now if you want to get into why the Panama canal is still US-owned...

but it isnt. we gave it to Panama some time ago (like 2 years, IIRC)

	12-02-2003 10:55									#159
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I thought you recently renegotiated it (a few years ago).

Gave the Panamanians more money, but kept control...

	12-02-2003 10:55									#160
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Isn't the Canal Zone still US territory?

	12-02-2003 11:01									#161
	Got spare money?

Frogger, you have a good point though. Eisenhower thought the Brits and the French should have gone through the UN.

This looks like the French have long memories.

	12-02-2003 11:18									#162
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Isn't the Canal Zone still US territory?

No, the 1977 Torrijos-Carter treaty was never renegotiated. The Panama Canal went under full Panamanian control on Jan 1, 2000. It had been phazing in Panamanian control over the whole decade of the 90's. One of my uncles just moved into a house of one of the old Army bases which he renovated (the US army left the place pretty bare and dirty when they left, but oh well). The government has yet to decide what they will do with the big runways and so forth.

BUt good point about bringing in the Suez 1956 as en exmaple of the US calling for its allies to act within the UN even when they didn't have to anyway.

	12-02-2003 11:26									#163
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well, you know what?

to the US on letting the canal go.

	12-02-2003 11:26									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I think the Canal was suppose to be transfered at the end of 1999. I thought there was some delay though.

	12-02-2003 11:28									#165
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned Frogger, you have a good point though. Eisenhower thought the Brits and the French should have gone through the UN. This looks like the French have long memories.

Well, that was then and this is now. It does nothing to justify their actions. I suppose the the Franco-American relations didn't go to hell then and they will probably survive this.

	12-02-2003 11:30									#166
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

No, no delays. That was a very good new years day in Panama, lots of fireworks. My mom went to the very immotional cerimony. Carter was there as well, though sadly the Clintonites caved in to forces in the US and sent nothing more than some low level State Dep. Stooge to be the US representative.

	12-02-2003 12:08									#167
	Got spare money?

didnt that suez thing in '56 end disastrously for the French and English? i do not remember... just curious

	12-02-2003 12:11									#168
	Support Apolyton

Well they were winning the war, but they had to give up their territory gains. But then everyone was able to use the canal.

	12-02-2003 12:11									#169
	Remove this text

Not disastrously, IIRC. They were getting a bit bogged down, though. And Israel advanced to the east side of the canal, IIRC.

	12-02-2003 12:18									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

1956 and 2003 are two different time periods. In 1956 the UN held a lot more resepect, it was alot closer to the time of it's original formation, when the ideals of strong international law and the UN being sole authorizer of force were stronger. It was also just after the UN played a useful role in authorizing the Korean War. Since then the UN hasn't been as useful and there have been plenty non-UN authorized attacks, resulting in a decrease in the UNs legitimacy.

	12-02-2003 12:20									#171
	Remove this text

No, what was different was that the US of 1956 was having its behaviour watched by the USSR. Now that that's been removed, it feels like it can and should use military force whenever the opportunity presents itself.

	12-02-2003 20:00									#172
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Since then the UN hasn't been as useful and there have been plenty non-UN authorized attacks, resulting in a decrease in the UNs legitimacy.

Could the US be the major cause of this?

	12-02-2003 20:02									#173
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Could the US be the major cause of this?

I blame Russia.

	12-02-2003 20:17									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi 1956 and 2003 are two different time periods. In 1956 the UN held a lot more resepect, it was alot closer to the time of it's original formation, when the ideals of strong international law and the UN being sole authorizer of force were stronger. It was also just after the UN played a useful role in authorizing the Korean War. Since then the UN hasn't been as useful and there have been plenty non-UN authorized attacks, resulting in a decrease in the UNs legitimacy.

Wow. Put another way, the UN is losing legitimacy because of unilateral actions by member states. Therefore, we must ignore the UN and act unilaterally.

How do some people not see the problem with this logic?

	13-02-2003 00:53									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

In respect to the action of the US in 1956 with the Suez Canal Crisis and this crisis of NATO, the canal crisis was a Cold War crisis. That is plenty of justification for the US to intervene since not doing so would seriously strain relations with the USSR. The same situation does not exist today. The best that I can see is that France is afraid of terrorism so they are getting as far away from the US as possible.

	13-02-2003 06:39									#176
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

In other words:

quote: No, what was different was that the US of 1956 was having its behaviour watched by the USSR. Now that that's been removed, it feels like it can and should use military force whenever the opportunity presents itself.

	13-02-2003 06:45									#177
	Got spare money?

I don't disagree with that, but that's not really what I meant.