Friday, July 08, 2005

Bullshit Wars of the Past, Supported

     Neo-fascist "John O'Sullivan" says, at the Corner, "In retrospect the Falklands war was a turning point in postwar British history. It restored national self-confidence (hammered after Suez)"  I won't play with such small minds as John O'Sullivans on a regular basis, but I get particularly offended at people hurrah-ing past murderous stupidity.

     Was British self-confidence hurt after Suez?  I have no idea, but I do know that every Franco-British-Israeli axis that tries a Suez in the future deserves destruction, not a loss of self-confidence.  Let's look at brief history

Anthony Eden, the British prime minister, feared that Nasser intended to form an Arab Alliance that would cut off oil supplies to Europe. On 21st October Guy Mollet, Anthony Eden and David Ben-Gurion met in secret to discuss the problem. During these talks it was agreed to make a joint attack on Egypt.
On 29th October 1956, the Israeli Army, led by General Moshe Dayan, invaded Egypt. Two days later British and French bombed Egyptian airfields. British and French troops landed at Port Said at the northern end of the Suez Canal on 5th November. By this time the Israelis had captured the Sinai peninsula.
President Dwight Eisenhower grew increasingly concerned about these developments. On 30th October he decided to take action and announced he was going to suspend aid to Israel in protest against its invasion of Egypt. The following day Eisenhower's secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, criticised Britain and France for trying to take the Suez Canal by force.

     Fuck Britain, France and Israel and that war of aggression (and no reader of this blog thinks I don't think Iraq is of the same mold).  And fuck John O'Sullivan for thinking the British people suffered some self-confidence for failing in their aggression.

     President DD Eisenhower wasn't perfect.  But I enjoy, greatly, reading his response to the stupid, fuckheaded plans of Britain, as relayed on Aug 1, 1956

We recognize the transcendent worth of the Canal to the free world and the possibility that eventually the use of force might become necessary in order to protect international rights. But we have been hopeful that through a Conference in which would be represented the signatories to the Convention of 1888, as well as other maritime nations, there would be brought about such pressures on the Egyptian Government that the efficient operation of the Canal could be assured for the future.
For my part, I cannot over-emphasize the strength of my conviction that some such method must be attempted before action such as you contemplate should be undertaken. If unfortunately the situation can finally be resolved only by drastic means, there should be no grounds for belief anywhere that corrective measures were undertaken merely to protect national or individual investors, or the legal rights of a sovereign nation were ruthlessly flouted. A conference, at the very least, should have a great education effort throughout the world. Public opinion here, and I am convinced, in most of the world, would be outraged should there be a failure to make such efforts. Moreover, initial military successes might be easy, but the eventual price might become far too heavy.

     President Eisenhower might not have been a saint, but he knew fucking war, and knew that the British should have been smacked down for their ignorant, militaristic stupidity, recently defended by John O'Sullivan in the blog of the National Review Oncrack.

No comments: