Iran's Nuke Program has all Arab States in fear of it - LINK
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Firstly, LOL @ the OP claiming Iran will sell nukes to Al-Qaeda, Iran is a Shia country and one of Al-Qaedas doctrines is to murder all Shia, so yeah sounds legit. And at the end of the day the US/Israel don't want Iran getting a nuke because they fear they'll use it unprovoked (they're not stupid enough to), but they fear that the balance of power in the region will shift meaning that the US and Israel won't maintain their absolute regional hegemony, and hence will no longer be able to do as they wish in the region without consequences. When Faux News mentions 'Arab' fears, it refers to the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain which harbour anti-Shia sentiments and also happen to have a worse human rights record than Iran..yet we let them off the hook because they're obedient puppets. You want the truth? The PEOPLE of the Arab states actually see the US as the biggest threat to peace in the region, and only 10% oppose the Iranian nuclear program. hama666
Well said.
The goal of NATO and Israel is to install another pliant "Shah" as the leader of Iran, and Iran's acquisition of missiles with nuclear warheads is perhaps the only effective obstacle to realization of that goal.
Israel is the holy land, it is where Jesus Christ was born, it is where the good book originated, how can you condemn them??Senor-Dweedle....He was born in current day Palestine. Israel =/= Kingdom of Israel. So you're kinda wrong on both fronts. Even EJ is Part of Palestine under international law and recognition. So no it isn't the Holy land. Unless you want to count Acre. but Most of the Holy sites are in Palestine. even most Jewish holy sites. So no Israel isn't a holy land.
The United States shouldn't be dragged into this. I mean, come on. The Iranian people do not even support their president or even their current government. In fact, the current president doesn't even have that much power to begin with. Iran is as dangerous as a mouse to an elephant.
[QUOTE="ionusX"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] what do you mean the Jewish-Shia scapegoat conflict? you mean the Arab leaders would rather their people were focused on Israel and Iran as opposed to focusing on them?Darkman2007
indeed.. these countries were on the verge of revolution and itd make sense to common purpose everyone at a few mutually hated enemies rather than themselves in order to grip power.
regretably i doubt they wouldnt side with the guy with the bigger gun if it came down to armed conflict..
and i bet you anything if israel strikes iran syria and iran gonna gang beat them so bad itd hurt for the next 9 months..
and more importantly if that happens and the US gets INVOLVED then its a clear signal flag for the middle east to mvoe as 1 unit.. then you got problems.. ww3 grade problems. aggressor USA is all we need..
don't underestimate Israel or what it can do, the Iranians can't attack it directly, other than through Hezbollah , and Assad will think 100 times before lifting a finger against Israel , especially given his current situation. the only type of any meaningful attack Iran can have are missiles , but then Israel isn't exactly going to retaliate with sticks and stones either. You are underestimating the military power of Iran and Syria. they have a million troops at immediate disposal, and Syria has a unti called the Air defence league which is more or less 30,000 AA armor and modern anti air tech. If foreign intervention was out of the picture then Iran + Syria could take on Israel and win, not to mention the chance of Turkey and Egypt getting involved,meaning the addition of another million or so troops. It'll get to a point where Israel would need a nuke or two to save itself.[QUOTE="ionusX"]
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]don't underestimate Israel or what it can do, the Iranians can't attack it directly, other than through Hezbollah , and Assad will think 100 times before lifting a finger against Israel , especially given his current situation. the only type of any meaningful attack Iran can have are missiles , but then Israel isn't exactly going to retaliate with sitcks and stones either.Wasdie
you see thoguh no matter how you slice it if israel opens up especially AFTER their nuclear power facility is up and runningand they strike that more importantly then we have israel responsible for a humanitarian disaster on the same level as fukashima or chyrnoble or WORSE. its a real dilema.. and you will see alot of backlash form the rest of the middle east.. israel wouldnt stand a chance; support after the UN nuclear assessment for 2011 or not..
you blow up that reactor when its up next week.. and israel might as well start shading itself off the map. israel may have some of the ebst toys in the middle east to play with but against the rest of the M-E sub-continent.. no chance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvXajExtKao&feature=fvwrel
Israel's army is only second to the USA's army in terms of strength. They crushed Egypt's armies in a mere 6 days and could crush Syria in a few weeks tops. Iraq poses no threat to them anymore, nor does Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Pakistan will stay out of any conflict that arises due to their boarder with India.
....refering to a 40 year old war? really man? I live in the Area, and yes Israels military dwarfs any single military here except maybe Saudi Arabia but Syria Isn't a push over in any snes. 300 thousand troops train for 6 months under conditions that 1 out of 10 don't survive, a large precentage of GPD inveseted in Military, and modern technology ( not cutting edge but lets face it, the middle east isn't in the stone ages) If Syria and Iran (as a single unit) can protect themselves from the sky (The Isreali airforce) then Nuclear warfare is the only edge Isreal has.[QUOTE="Senor-Dweedle"]Israel is the holy land, it is where Jesus Christ was born, it is where the good book originated, how can you condemn them??mayceV....He was born in current day Palestine. Israel =/= Kingdom of Israel. So you're kinda wrong on both fronts. Even EJ is Part of Palestine under international law and recognition. So no it isn't the Holy land. Unless you want to count Acre. but Most of the Holy sites are in Palestine. even most Jewish holy sites. So no Israel isn't a holy land. depends what you mean , he was bor in in Judea. which was a Roman province by that time, but since Judea was inhabited by my ancestors (since the land was still majority Jewish at that time), in that way Israel is the holy land (and Israel does have the most holy sites for Jews) if youre talking about the exact town in the context of today, I can understand where youre coming from. and no , I seriously doubt Turkey and Egypt would get involved, we bet Syria before, and we can beat them again, Israel has the advantage of quality, and the numbers aren't exactly tiny. when people refer to the 67 war, its not quite right because frankly Israel is alot more capable today than in 67 (even if taking into account the advance in technology, Israel was behined in some ways back then less so now, not to mention Israel makes many of its weapons now, as opposed to buying them back then) the other thing you have to remember, is that Iran can't actually directly attack Israel , we have no border , it would be a matter of launching missles at each other at best.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"] Well, if you look closely, you'll see that the GCC is really neutral on almost everything (hell, even Oman is somewhat pro-Iran), they really, really, just want to remain in power, sapping and holding as much capital as they can before their time runs out, some are benevolent during, others aren't at all. The general attitude towards Turkey is positive diplomatically, King Abdullah's wife made a visit (any visit made by the incumbent is extremely serious, since they can barely move, but this one is made by his wife, so it's not that definite), and the labor force here is of high quality, polite, and generally bring the best of Turkey to the public. A smart Arab would look to Turkey in extreme commemoration, as it should. Hell, I'll welcome them to rule us again any day. It's obvious that Erdogan's recent activities have been motivated by the constant rejection from Europe and generally the Western world, so they're heading towards the messy Middle East, maybe it has something to do with the prestigious heritage of the Ottoman Empire, who knows. What one feels and what one thinks will not necessarily translate to action, especially if the reality is vastly different. Beside, I should reiterate that Abdullah is passive and liberal ("I believe the people decide when it's time" or something like that on social issues). He's not interested in any of regional meddling in the least.mayceVwell Id have to assume thats simply because the Gulf states don't want to get too involved in wars that are beyond their part of the region , aside from occasional Saudi involvement in certain affairs it seems (some in Lebanon it seems, which I took as an attempt to balance the Shia Hezbollah factor), along with economic ties. The Turks are motivated to become a regional power, which of course ties in with the failure to get into the EU , hence I was wondering what public opinion in the Arab world was ,Im surprised by the "Ill welcome them to rulle us again anyday" comment, you would honestly prefer to have the orders come from Ankara as opposed to Riyadh? Im surprised. obviously in Israel Turkey is currently seen as somewhat of a challenge and a minor threat (given the rhetoric and the downgradeing of relations), to the point where the government signed an oil/gas exploration deal with Turkey, and has some military excercises with Greece, basically to spite the Turks (they also agreed to recognise the Armenian genocide , which wasn't done before due to pressure from Turkey). its funny , there used to be huge amounts of Israeli tourists in Turkey ( "its like Eilat , but half the price" ) , but now they found out they have hotels at home lol , though the social protests have been holding most people from going on any holiday. and why does it seem like there is a hell of alot of migrant labourers in the Gulf? Im assuming thats the case? I wouldn't be surprised if it is, in Israel there are alot from East Asia (and despite earning 1/4 of what most people would doing the same job, they still make alot more than in thier countries) ,I can imagine it being similar. I was surprised at him being willing to let Turkey rule him. I would refuse that as well as every other Arab here or in the region. Its the entire reason there was the great Arab revolt in 1916...which sent the Arab world into a downward spiral after the British double crossed Shareef bin Al Hussein and took power and then enacted the Balfour agreement. So no way an Arab population would allow itself to be ruled by turkey. Just plain impossible ( I refuse it and I'm more open minded then most Arabs here. How does any of that criminalize Turkey or the Ottomans? Also, telling an Arab to be ruled by another ethnicity would probably not end in a very positive feedback, but telling an Arab to be united with his Muslim brothers and sisters and he will tell you that it is music to his ears.
Like I said, I don't mind an Ottoman rule, I do mind TYT-oriented policies, or modernly, Kemalism, as I am not very keen on neither Westernization nor secularization. But that is slowly eroding as none of it helps sufficently for Turkey to be welcomed to the Western world. While I really enjoy when an Arabic person speaks for his entire brethren, as that usually displays strong brotherly ties anda sense of collectivism, for this time however, I'll beg to differ. You will see many people wallowing over their loss, look up feedback on YouTube, Ejabat, and forums, while volatile, my stand will shine the most.
Also on another note: Israel's creation is also another fine result of the monarchists' betrayal. ;)
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"] How does any of that criminalize Turkey or the Ottomans? Also, telling an Arab to be ruled by another ethnicity would probably not end in a very positive feedback, but telling an Arab to be united with his Muslim brothers and sisters and he will tell you that it is music to his ears.
Like I said, I don't mind an Ottoman rule, I do mind TYT-oriented policies, or modernly, Kemalism, as I am not very keen on neither Westernization nor secularization. But that is slowly eroding as none of it helps sufficently for Turkey to be welcomed to the Western world. While I really enjoy when an Arabic person speaks for his entire brethren, as that usually displays strong brotherly ties anda sense of collectivism, for this time however, I'll beg to differ. You will see many people wallowing over their loss, look up feedback on YouTube, Ejabat, and forums, while volatile, my stand will shine the most.
Also on another note: Israel's creation is also another fine result of the monarchists' betrayal. ;)
Victorious_Fize
Nasser would get a heart attack reading this :P
and Im sorry to inform you, that Israel would have been created with or without a Gulf monarch , Israel is a product of both history and Jewish nationalism (ie, Zionism)
The only countries that are in fear are the western countries and Isreal, they are paranoid and think Iran is going to attack them. If they attack Iran I hope all those countries that like to bully the middle east finally get whats coming to them.
[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"] How does any of that criminalize Turkey or the Ottomans? Also, telling an Arab to be ruled by another ethnicity would probably not end in a very positive feedback, but telling an Arab to be united with his Muslim brothers and sisters and he will tell you that it is music to his ears.
Like I said, I don't mind an Ottoman rule, I do mind TYT-oriented policies, or modernly, Kemalism, as I am not very keen on neither Westernization nor secularization. But that is slowly eroding as none of it helps sufficently for Turkey to be welcomed to the Western world. While I really enjoy when an Arabic person speaks for his entire brethren, as that usually displays strong brotherly ties anda sense of collectivism, for this time however, I'll beg to differ. You will see many people wallowing over their loss, look up feedback on YouTube, Ejabat, and forums, while volatile, my stand will shine the most.
Also on another note: Israel's creation is also another fine result of the monarchists' betrayal. ;)
Darkman2007
Nasser would get a heart attack reading this :P
and Im sorry to inform you, that Israel would have been created with or without a Gulf monarch , Israel is a product of both history and Jewish nationalism (ie, Zionism)
I was referring to the Ottomans fall. It paved the way for Israel's formation. I'm quite sure Jews would have been satisfied by Ottoman rule, as even in the medieval ages, where anti-semitism was rampant in Europe, the Dawlah was quite the welcoming. If Nasser knows best, he'll know that Turks were never the problem. But I can't blame him, for it is contrary to Western belief, the Gulf is not the most "Arabic" of regions, but it is, infact, the Levant.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"] How does any of that criminalize Turkey or the Ottomans? Also, telling an Arab to be ruled by another ethnicity would probably not end in a very positive feedback, but telling an Arab to be united with his Muslim brothers and sisters and he will tell you that it is music to his ears.
Like I said, I don't mind an Ottoman rule, I do mind TYT-oriented policies, or modernly, Kemalism, as I am not very keen on neither Westernization nor secularization. But that is slowly eroding as none of it helps sufficently for Turkey to be welcomed to the Western world. While I really enjoy when an Arabic person speaks for his entire brethren, as that usually displays strong brotherly ties anda sense of collectivism, for this time however, I'll beg to differ. You will see many people wallowing over their loss, look up feedback on YouTube, Ejabat, and forums, while volatile, my stand will shine the most.
Also on another note: Israel's creation is also another fine result of the monarchists' betrayal. ;)
Victorious_Fize
Nasser would get a heart attack reading this :P
and Im sorry to inform you, that Israel would have been created with or without a Gulf monarch , Israel is a product of both history and Jewish nationalism (ie, Zionism)
I was referring to the Ottomans fall. It paved the way for Israel's formation. I'm quite sure Jews would have been satisfied by Ottoman rule, as even in the medieval ages, where anti-semitism was rampant in Europe, the Dawlah was quite the welcoming. If Nasser knows best, he'll know that Turks were never the problem. But I can't blame him, for it is contrary to Western belief, the Gulf is not the most "Arabic" of regions, but it is, infact, the Levant. well I wouldn't say the Muslim world was "good" to the Jews in the Middle Ages per se, it depends on the place, the time, etc. if you take Al Andalus as an example, the first 300 years of Muslim rule were generally good for the Jews (with the exception of the Granda massacre) , followed by some pretty bad persecution by the Almohads. now compared to most of Europe , yes , Jews fared better , though it wasn't heaven either (Jews were still Dhimmi , with all that this status brings) as for Jews living under Ottoman rule , it depends which Jews at which time, generally speaking, Jews prefered to live under Ottoman rule , rather than say, Persian or living in the Russian Empire (where there were still medieval laws and pogroms), but again , things are never perfect, and Zionism was becoming quite popular.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/06/gulf-arab-states-share-israels-fears-over-irans-nuclear-program/
I think we all need to worry about this, once Iran has nuclear weapons they may sell them to Al Qaeda, times like these make me glad to be living in New Zealand..
Senor-Dweedle
... Iran has shown just like North Korea that they will rattle sabres but when it comes down to it they are not going to go about a action that would mean their immediate destruction of their regime.. No matter how crazy a dictator is, the long ones have to develope a healthy sense of self preservation to survive.. Furthermore the fear of nuclear arms is overblown when a biologist with a small labatory can make extremely dangerous virus and illnesses..
[QUOTE="Senor-Dweedle"]
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/06/gulf-arab-states-share-israels-fears-over-irans-nuclear-program/
I think we all need to worry about this, once Iran has nuclear weapons they may sell them to Al Qaeda, times like these make me glad to be living in New Zealand..
sSubZerOo
... Iran has shown just like North Korea that they will rattle sabres but when it comes down to it they are not going to go about a action that would mean their immediate destruction of their regime.. No matter how crazy a dictator is, the long ones have to develope a healthy sense of self preservation to survive.. Furthermore the fear of nuclear arms is overblown when a biologist with a small labatory can make extremely dangerous virus and illnesses..
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you cannot state as fact what an individual will do ....Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment