Just brilliant...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun....

Quote:

Shafiq has been the muckraker, egged on by those who harbour deep-rooted fears of potential Islamic rule. He has stated that a Brotherhood presidency will aim to transfer Egypt's capital to Jerusalem, comments that are parroted verbatim by his supporters in the state media.

Yeah Egypt... be stupid enough to attack Israel and you will probably get nuked. There's no way you gonna win, even if Hezbollah, Syria and Iran helps you. Just no way. Israel has nukes. If they suffer too many losses or are about to get overrun, nukes are gonna rain down on you.

So please, don't do anything stupid?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-de....

Quote:

Officials: Hamas ordered Grad attack on Israel at request of Muslim Brotherhood

Well this is off to a good start...


Me thinks the military will do everything they can to stop the MB from gaining power... they know they would be utterly destroyed if they were ordered to attack Israel.

As for the election first results...
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.....

Quote:

'Brotherhood claims Mursi in lead with 69% of Egypt votes'

Official result on June 21.

Transition of power (or so they say) on July 1.

Unless the Egyptian population goes for a real revolution (i.e., bloody, violently destructive, even pitched battles in the streets, which they may well lose anyway) I see no way the military gives up ultimate de facto control of the country, including any elected politicians.

Consider the type of system that existed in Turkey for many decades up until just a couple of years ago. There was an "understanding" between the military and the civilian government that the civilian gov't could do anything they wanted so long as some "bright lines" were never crossed: the gov't was to remain secular, there would be no territorial or other concessions that might advance the cause of creating a Kurdish state, Turkey would retain, even strengthen its relationships with the West, the civilian gov't had to maintain a semblance of a free, democratic state, and, above all, the gov't could take no action to weaken any of the military institutions or leadership, among probably a few others. If any of these lines were crossed, it was understood that the military would remove the civilian gov't and install a new civilian gov't in its place.

Although the specifics of the bright lines are likely to be different in Egypt, I expect that this type of system will be the result for quite some time. Thus, the military will likely quickly disabuse any elected gov't of any military adventurism unless it's against someone who would be a quick slam dunk to defeat.

Egypt isn't strategically much more secure than Israel. The entire population is right there on the Nile.

So the MB didn't actually say that. It was Shafiq saying the MB would do that if they win. Big difference OP. He's just trying to stir chauvinist Egyptian pride with these comments, and it might work for some segments of the population but I doubt it will be effective with the majority of Egyptians. Egypt's history with Palestine dates prior to former president Sadat's rule (the guy who signed the Camp David peace accords).

On a side note, I don't think the Samson complex is all that valid. Sure, Israel can nuke many Arab capitals to smithereens if it faces the threat of imminent demise, but then what? I don't think it will stop the Arabs from rolling into Jerusalem. All it will do is make them more angry, and these nukes will make their anger justified to the rest of the world.

This is nonsense - just election rhetoric by Shafiq, who was Mubarak's last prime minister and is a former air force general. As his friends in the military junta have just invalidated the parliamentary election results, it hardly matters who wins anyway.

So much for the Egyptian "revolution" (as I predicted on here more than a year ago).

I dont know Money, Nukes have been pretty good at taking the***** out of someone's willingness to fight.
Historically.

Japs where way tougher than the arabs.
The arabs have folded with a lot less force applied.

Besides, Israel has plenty. Rinse repeat.

as for Shafiq, this is wait the people want to hear.
Sorry about the revolution, you pro-freedom folks where just useful idiots.

bob

This is worth your time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun....

Quote:

Japs where way tougher than the arabs.

I don't see where there is any comparison here. The Japanese had already lost the war (and they knew it since they were already formulating their surrender) BEFORE the bombs were dropped.

Quote:

The arabs have folded with a lot less force applied.

Really? I don't see where that's the case...do you have any examples? FWIW, I don't consider the military "surrendering" and the people fighting on as "folding"...

'I don't see where there is any comparison here. The Japanese had already lost the war (and they knew it since they were already formulating their surrender) BEFORE the bombs were dropped.'

Losing war and the military laying down their arms are different things. There was a Jap mil faction that wanted to fight after the bombs dropped. And started a coup to prevent a surrender.

'Really? I don't see where that's the case...do you have any examples?'
You mean like 48, 56,67,73. The arabs folded each time, even with most of their military intact.
No nukes needed. Israel decide not to finish off their mil. But, the arab armies where running like girls.

' FWIW, I don't consider the military "surrendering" and the people fighting on as "folding"...'
Can't help you there. Maybe some reading about power and who has it, will help you.

bob

'Japs where way tougher than the arabs.'

There are plenty of cases where the japs almost died to the man, defending an Island. And few cases where they did die, to the last man.

There is no case of an Arab army dying to the man or even close, in the Arab/Israeli wars. Zero. The arabs have folded like cheap suits.

Japs where way tougher than the arabs.

The left uses the 'we can never defeat the arabs, so why try", case.
But the fact is:the US and the west have fought and defeated much tougher forces. In the modern era.
And likely will again.

bob

Bobby...agreed whole-heartedly. NE Asians are fricken tough. Not something to debate, it's just the way it is. Arabs are pussies.

Quote:

Egypt isn't strategically much more secure than Israel. The entire population is right there on the Nile.

Take out the aswan dam and you've ****ed the entire country. Wiped out.

I don't think the comparisons between Japan and the Arabs are apt. Japan is a small country: a few more nukes and their islands would have sank in the sea. Not so much with Arab countries, which are much larger. And this is without mentioning the wider Islamic world either (i.e. Iran). I also think it's a strategic mistake to assume Arabs would stop if enough force is used. If that was the case the Palestinians and the Lebanese would have stopped long ago. The armed forces of corrupt (and mostly pro-western) dictatorships cannot be considered an accurate representation of the Arab or Muslim people either.

Truth be told, Israel is in a much more precarious situation than it or many people seem to be willing to acknowledge. The fact that it has not yet bombed Iran is proof enough of that, given that Israel never waited or sought anyone's permission in the past to bomb away any alleged nuclear threat (like they did with Saddam's nuclear reactors, or the alleged nukes stored in Syria in 2007). But for some reason, it acts like it has to get the US's permission first before bombing Iran. It just seems like they are too scared to act.

I don't believe it's that they're too scared to act (due to their extensive nuke arsenal, they are without question the strongest power in the region, stronger that all the rest put together), I think it's more along the lines of wanting the US to do their heavy lifting and letting the US take the PR hits. After all, it is the US that was forced to bear the costs (lives, money, condemnation) for achieving a long-time Israeli objective, changing Iraq from a credible threat into a military non-entity from Israel's POV.

Given that AIPAC et al. own the US gov't just as much as the banksters do, they have no reason to doubt that, when push comes to shove, the US will support them no matter what. Any US politician who seriously opposes Israeli interests will not be a politician for long, and all current office-holders (and office-seekers) are fully aware of that.

'I also think it's a strategic mistake to assume Arabs would stop if enough force is used.'

Humm.
Everyone stops when enough force is used. That is why it is called enough force.

bob

Really,

Think about this, Israel decides it has enough of its troublesome neighbors.
And turns them and their countries to glass.

What is the rest of they muslim world going to do about it?
Walk to Jerusalem, over 300 or 400 miles of glass parking lots?

There is no muslim country in the world that would last an hour against Israel.
If the gloves came off.

"Oh look at that, another muslim million man march to Jerusalem."
Boom.
"And their gone."

Israel has enough goodies to play that game a long time.

And besides, if Israel was that easy to get rid of.
It would have happened a long time ago.

bob

@Peterm99: You're right about AIPAC and its control, but truth be told in the past Israel bombed other countries so easily without a prior thought. As such, either Israel is scared of Iran, or the US is pressing it not to attack (perhaps due to fear of oil shortages?).

@Bobby: "'I also think it's a strategic mistake to assume Arabs would stop if enough force is used.'

Humm.
Everyone stops when enough force is used. That is why it is called enough force.
"

yep you're right since by definition it must be true. While I wrote "enough force", I actually mean "ample force".

As for nuking Arabs, there are 300 million of them, and there are over 22 capitals and many more major cities. Without even delving into how politically infeasible it is to nuke so many cities and people, it seems like it will take a while for Israel before it can turn everyone into ash. And if just 30 million survive that would still be enough to enter Israel (remember, we're assuming Israel won't nuke Arabs unless its existence is truly threatened, which means conventional weapons aren't useful).

And of course Muslims can still come. If it were true what you were saying, then why would Israel be threatened by Iran? It's not difficult in this day and age to travel over long distances. Israel will be unable to use nukes against Muslims, because at least one Muslim nation (Pakistan) has them, and another is about to get them (Iran).

Pakistan by itself can at least face Israel, but it has India to contend with (which IMO is stronger than Israel, if you discount the West's support for the latter).

It may have been easy to just say that Israel could nuke everyone in the Arab and Muslim world to death, but it more difficult to make that case now, and will certainly be more difficult in the future, especially if Iran gets nukes. Israel is aware of this, and that is why it is making so much noise about Iran.

Of course, I believe cooler heads will prevail before such a scenario ever prevails, especially since using 40+ nukes is bound to cause ecological damage to other nations besides Arab countries.

'Pakistan by itself can at least face Israel'
Anyone can face Israel, the question is how long they last after Israel takes off the gloves.

'it seems like it will take a while for Israel before it can turn everyone into ash.'
About an hour.

'remember, we're assuming Israel won't nuke Arabs unless its existence is truly threatened, which means conventional weapons aren't useful).'
Really. Convention weapons have been pretty handy in the past at keeping the arabs out.

'And if just 30 million survive that would still be enough to enter Israel'
Muslim million man march to Jerusalem, Boom.
Rinse, Repeat.

'Of course, I believe cooler heads will prevail before such a scenario ever prevails,'
I just said, if the gloves come off.

'especially since using 40+ nukes is bound to cause ecological damage to other nations besides Arab countries.'
We had close to 2000 nuclear tests,since the 40s.
Planet earth is still here. People are still here.

And those 40 nukes would still leave Israel with about 90% of its current nuclear arsenal.

bob