View Single Post
Old 2012-11-26, 15:36   Link #98
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 38
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth
Originally Posted by NightbatŪ View Post
Hold it
Let's be factual: It isn't proven that Israel or Iran already have Nukes
Accepted proof by everyone, you aare right there isn't... but most accept all the evidence that point to the direction that they have already built a small arsenal with the help of the apartheid South Africa, 2-3 decades ago.

Originally Posted by NightbatŪ View Post
Bu I think it's a damned good idea for a sovereign state to invest in such weapons
the best example to do so IS Iraq, where if you have natural resources but no nukes, you're gonna be invaded and your country sold by the square mile by foreign entrepeneurs
Something not likely to happen to -for instance- North Korea
I agree that nuclear weapons are not the best defensive option, politics and economic cooperation is and have the added effect of improving the living standard of the population.

But that is not an option for states that pursue expansionist policies, like Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, China, Russia, USA, etc.

Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
I see. That was the issue mostly.

My take was larger based on current maps that include Iran, Turkey, and Egypt to your region (though no farther).

However I still contend that those areas should be counted within the context of todays material. Especially Egypt and Iran due to their direct influences in the region. The Greek significance would have been less without the Persian influence, and the Persians did control most, if not all the Fertile Cresent somewhere around 600BC, prior to the Greek invasion under Alexander. The Persians again held the region as the Romans decined, prior to the introduction of Islam during the 7th century CE. Add to this the Egyptians movements through the region prior to the Persians taking of the region (~1500 - 600 BC). Both Persian and Egyptians having heavy impact in the region around the Jordan River. Both friendly and hostile during these periods of control, and likely the military campaigns that would have to go through that area to engage their opponents. Modern Israel was a crossroad between major powers for much of the time before Rome, and again after Rome. Though after Rome, it took on the heavy religious significance for the major powers involved due to event that took place under Roman rule.

Also the old definition would probably have been Near East, with the Middle East being Iran and India, and Far East being the Orient.

In this context, the "Near East" was the Ottoman Empire for European purposes....usually in context with the conflict between the Christian European powers and the Islamic Ottoman Empire around the Eastern Mediterranian Sea. It has since been dropped in favor of "Middle East" sometime in the early 20th century (after the fall of the Ottoman Empire). The Near East sometimes included Iran and Egypt, but always included Turkey. However the Near East also excluded the Arabian Pennisula, so that term is moot in any context with the present Middle East.
I hope it is clear now how I defined the area historically... of course it is not the same politically now, but the question (and definition) was referring to the region historically.

Nonetheless, I understand and personally agree with your view that Islam, Mongols, and Ottomans brought a unity to what most people today know as Middle East.

It is this unity though that after the break-down of those "bonds", gave rise to national-socialism and religious fundamentalism in the wider region.
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote