Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations?

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[DuncanK]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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...

[DuncanK]

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.

[Urban Ranger]

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?

[KrazyHorse]

You forgot Lithuania!

[Urban Ranger]

Sorry

[Kramerman]

. 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)

[KrazyHorse]

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

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

[KrazyHorse]

Isn't the Canal Zone still US territory?

[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.

[GePap]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, you know what?

to the US on letting the canal go.

[DuncanK]

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

[DuncanK]

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.