Users who Dugg This
Ondrej Dyrka
422 Followers
Ondrej Dyrka
422 Followers
Leena Helttula
11667 Followers
Leena Helttula
11667 Followers
RidingonGhost
517 Followers
RidingonGhost
517 Followers
alanocuJul 8, 2010
For some reason when I click the link, I only see the first two paragraphs of the article. Maybe it's me, or maybe it's the WSJ's way of getting people to buy a subscription. Did a search and found the entire article here (if anyone else is having the same problem): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575353230693833718.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
jalhJul 8, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mymindgrapesJul 8, 2010
Wow. Nazi much?
iceman21Jul 8, 2010
Explain nazi...
mymindgrapesJul 8, 2010
Look at the representative Jewish figure. The Nazis used similar depictions in their propaganda.
robbobJul 8, 2010
if that's their desire, the UAE should do it themselves
formerbabbyJul 8, 2010
The UAE is more bankrupt than the US. Maybe Iraq and Afghanistan should invade. What could possibly go wrong?
jewzombiejesusJul 8, 2010
can't. they don't do wars too good. or anything else, for that matter. except for stink. they do that a lot.
jiggawattJul 8, 2010
Why? They don't have to stick their nose out and take the repercussions if they talk the US into doing their bidding for them. The muslim world needs to stop being too afraid to stand up to the radicals within their ranks.
erkokiteJul 8, 2010
Well how about the Israel/Saudi Arabia/UAE/everyone else deal with it then? Why should we get involved in ANOTHER war half way around the world?
alienufoJul 8, 2010
And the next day, people in those countries will be burning our flag. No thanks.
hetmanJul 8, 2010
That is exactly why we should not be there. I say leave and let the peices fall where they will. It is not our job to police the world.
rodex123Jul 8, 2010
We're not so much policing the world, we are maintaining an empire.
syntheticbadgerJul 8, 2010
So we need to subscribe to see the full article?
c**kteases.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
If you're referred through Google you'll get to see the whole thing. Just click on this link then click on the article link at the top of the results:
http://news.google.com/news/search?q=The+Arabs+on+Iran
syntheticbadgerJul 8, 2010
Well, that was short and mildly disappointing.
andrewmoyerJul 8, 2010
"The end of free news" - f**k Rupert Murdoch!
morginoJul 8, 2010
They hate us except for when they want us to do their dirty work. No god damn way we are going into war #3 in 10 years
dynamojoeJul 8, 2010
"UAE would much rather the US will forcefully stop Iran's nuclear weapons program"
Hey, how about doing it yourselves?
andrewmoyerJul 8, 2010
They're too busy constructing man-made resort islands in the ocean, the world's tallest building, and an indoor ski slope in the desert to worry about their own defense... but it's OK, because the USA spends enough to defend several countries.
jewzombiejesusJul 8, 2010
can't. they don't do wars too good. or anything else, for that matter. except for stink. they do that a lot.
sb66Jul 8, 2010
Why post stories here that require a paid subscription to read? WSJ can suck my ass.
solkreJul 8, 2010
I can't seem to read the rest of the article.
erkokiteJul 8, 2010
If Israel, the UAE, or Saudi Arabia feel that it is necessary to use force to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, then they are free to do so. We are not their lapdogs and the last thing we need is to spend more of our money, and soldiers defending the interests of nations like Israel and Saudi Arabia in yet another war in the middle east.
roguegeniusJul 8, 2010
Not Israel. Those are our weapons and tech they would be using. But the rest, feel free. But don't cause a mess then cry that we won't bail you out.
adinasJul 8, 2010
You may feel different after Iran develops ICBMs for their nuclear weapons. Either stop them now or suffer later.
erkokiteJul 8, 2010
Boogeyman. Iran has no nuclear weapons yet, let alone weapons capable of being miniaturized to fit on a missile. The missiles they do have are unreliable and crude. We have a strong nuclear deterrent as well as ballistic missile defense systems. The technological cat's out of the bag. If a country wants nuclear weapons, you're not going to be able to stop them.
pathouston22Jul 8, 2010
Hey, the Middle East is sounding like Europe. We don't like America, but we want America to come save the day to fix our problems (Iran/Kosovo) because we don't have the capabilities to do it.
erkokiteJul 8, 2010
Actually I think it is more insidious than that. Israel is perfectly capable of dealing with Iran, but they won't waste their resources doing so- they would rather have the US do it for them. They're the most backstabbing "ally" I have ever seen. We give them billions in aid and in return they sink our ships.
adinasJul 8, 2010
Israel is practically begging America to let it attack.
insane40kJul 8, 2010
How the paywalled story gets to the front page?!
janineeeJul 8, 2010
Iraeligirl
adinasJul 8, 2010
She's an angel
strfxJul 8, 2010
Read up some more on israeligirl. She's a Zionist propaganda drone. She posts something, lets other Zionists know about it using their "Megaphone" app, and those other Zionists then more-or-less blindly digg it.
dalhectarJul 8, 2010
@israeligirl Since you submitted this, anyway u can copy/paste the actual article?
Pay walls aren't condusive to digg.
picerJul 8, 2010
This is a load of crap, Arab GOVERNMENTS may be 'scared' but the arab people know their governments are undemocratic stooges for america. (no that iran is any better they are undemocratic but not in away that help the US).
oh and it would help if the wsj did not have a paywall, the only reason this is being dug is because israeligirls megaphone program has issued an alert.
iamcowdrunkJul 8, 2010
Woah, an oil exporting country agrees with a major oil importer. Un-heard of.
macparrotJul 8, 2010
IMO most Arab countries don't really fear a nuclear Israel. They have had (unofficial but no one is really fooled) nukes for decades and have not used or even threatened to use them against any of their neighbors. Iran OTOH, needs external threats to keep their populace scared and in line. Even with made up threats like Israel, or Iraqi incursions (both real and made up in the past), Iran's govt is having trouble keeping the populace in line with their revolution. Why? Because the general Iranian public is sick and tired of the BS and aren't blindly following the Imans anymore and seem desperate for more freedom. The revolution since the Shah was desposed has not made them more free or given them a better life. Essentially they traded one despot for a group of despots. The players changed but the overall game remained the same. Having nukes will not make their lives better and it could be argued that their pursuit of them has made their lives worse with the various sanctions having been imposed.
strfxJul 8, 2010
Israel leaves no doubt that if it would be pushed hard enough, it will use nukes. As long as they can achieve their goals with conventional weapons, they will; but if not... why do you think they have them?
Nuclear power is very popular in Iran. It's seen as a national right. Both by the government and the opposition.
I also don't see much evidence that Iran is using external threats to keep its populace in line. But I would not blame them if they consider nukes a good assurance that the US won't invade them.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phaedrynJul 8, 2010
"Israel leaves no doubt that if it would be pushed hard enough, it will use nukes. As long as they can achieve their goals with conventional weapons, they will; but if not... why do you think they have them?"
This true for any nuclear nation, and isn't unique to Israel.
macparrotJul 8, 2010
"I also don't see much evidence that Iran is using external threats to keep its populace in line"
Then you haven't been paying much attention to anything they say. As soon as opposition parties start asking for things like honest elections and the choice to actually have candidates not sanctioned by their religious leaders, out come the OH NOES! They are after us! shtick.
I have no problem with Iran having nuclear power. So let in the inspectors to their nuke facilities. Answer why they are buying equipment pretty much just related to seperating the needed components to create nuclear bombs.
As far as the US invading...if they didn't do it after the seizing of the US Embassy in 1979, or the Iran backed bombings in Lebanon in 1984, why would they do it now? Iran without nukes is not a threat to the region in general.
zenmojoJul 8, 2010
Iran has never started a war or invaded another country. Not in the last couple thousand years at least.
Keep that in mind.
jthesaintJul 8, 2010
ZenMojo - You should add the caveat "with conventional forces". Iran has greatly supported with monetary, arms, and "trainers" many offensive campaigns outside their borders.
adinasJul 8, 2010
Iran is destroying Lebanon with Hizbolla. There is a civil war in Yemen between Iran supplied rebels and the Yemen government. Various Saudi Arabian terror attacks were carried out by rebels trained by Iran. They are supplying Iraqi insurgents who blow up Shiite mosques and markets every other week. The supply Hamas.
strfxJul 8, 2010
Boy, I'm glad the US has never meddled in other countries affairs, supported insurgents or terrorists or supplied weapons, money, training or what have you. If you read what jthesaint and adinas are writing, the US would have a totally trashy rep in that case.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
macparrotJul 8, 2010
So the attacks in Iraq by Iran's conventional forces doesn't count?
realcoolguy9022Jul 8, 2010
Non-Muslims are still target #1. Then come competing schools of Islamic thought. Israel can rest assured it is still the primary target.
roguegeniusJul 8, 2010
I don't give a crap if they offer us free oil for life. I will fight us getting involved in any more middle east adventurism. Sorry folks, you are on your own. We don't have the ability to help the middle east, and you won't thank us if we did.
Pass. Nuclear Iran is something we all have to deal with.
la7dfaJul 8, 2010
Iran is probably less likely to use nukes than e.g. Israel or USA. When did Iran last attack another country?
garhentJul 8, 2010
Buried. Pay Site, nuff written.
doomesticJul 8, 2010
Bulls**t. Only Arab leaders fear "Iranian nuclear program" because it shows them as a weak bunch of pussies to their people. The Arab people themselves don't give a f**k.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
FYI, to see the full article just find it through Google:
http://news.google.com/news/search?q=The+Arabs+on+Iran
Then click on the top link. Of course if you have a tool that lets you change your browsers UA to match Google you should be able to get the same results. And for those who don't want to bother, here's the full text of the article:
The world's most open secret is that the Arab countries of the Middle East fear a nuclear Iran as much, and perhaps more, than Israel does. The surprise is when an official dares to speak this truth in public, which is why the comments this week by United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al-Otaiba are worth noting.
Speaking at a gabfest sponsored by The Atlantic, Mr. Otaiba was asked if he wanted the U.S. to stop the Iranian bomb program by force? He answered: "Absolutely, absolutely. I think we are at risk of an Iranian nuclear program far more than you are at risk. At 7,000 miles away, and with two oceans bordering you, an Iranian nuclear threat does not threaten the continental United States. It may threaten your assets in the region, it will threaten the peace process, it will threaten balance of power, it will threaten everything else, but it will not threaten you."
How a threat to multiple U.S. security interests somehow doesn't threaten America is a distinction we'll leave to the Jesuits. But his point that the U.A.E. is directly threatened is surely right. Mr. Otaiba added that "There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran." He also tossed some skepticism at the idea, fashionable in Washington, that Iran can be deterred or contained if it gets a bomb. That's hardly credible if the West fails to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power after so many declarations that such an outcome was unacceptable.
Yesterday, the U.A.E. foreign ministry dismissed as "inaccurate" a report by the Washington Times that Mr. Otaiba had gone further on the sidelines of the same gabfest and said he preferred a resort to military action to "living with a nuclear Iran." That comment may have been too blunt for the U.A.E. to admit to, and besides it was deniable as a private remark reported by one newspaper.
But Mr. Otaiba's other comments leave no doubt what he and most Arab officials think about the prospect of a nuclear revolutionary Shiite state. They desperately want someone, and that means the U.S. or Israel, to stop it, using force if need be.
prettygreenJul 8, 2010
So the Arabs denied it, and it was either a private comment not on behalf of the actual government, or bulls**t made up by a single newspaper.
And because it's in the opinion section, I'd like to point out that the last paragraph is completely unsupported. A personal comment from one official that may or may not have been conjured up does not logically lend truth to:
"Mr. Otaiba's other comments leave no doubt what he and most Arab officials think about the prospect of a nuclear revolutionary Shiite state. They desperately want someone, and that means the U.S. or Israel, to stop it, using force if need be."
gguillornJul 8, 2010
There's way too much opinion in this article.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
I wonder if that's why it's called an opinion piece and in part of the WSJ called "Opinion Journal"?
gguillornJul 8, 2010
I know what an opinion piece is, I'm saying the author is blowing things out of proportion based on the quotes in the article.
prettygreenJul 8, 2010
Leave Iran alone. Yes, you, "News" agencies. You too, USA and Israel.
The IAEA and the CIA have repeatedly said that Iran is years away from any kind of nuke. That, and there is no actual evidence they are actually working on one. There are serious burden of proof issues.
The analogy I've used before is that they're importing parts to make a combustion engine. Say it could be used to build a car, or a generator--with a lot more research--and the rest of the world already wants to give them a speeding ticket.
See also: http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m4d3-Obama-lies-to-CBS-on-Iran-nuclear-evidence-CBS-publishes-lies-in-conspiracy-for-unlawful-war
And for those who think that Ahmadinejad wants to kill all the Jews: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm
That said, I don't have a concrete idea of what this article is really about, because you need to pay to see the rest. Buried.
jcsocJul 8, 2010
And Iran... Iran so far away
mymindgrapesJul 8, 2010
Sure they fear Iran, but they would never actually help to eradicate her.
sb66Jul 8, 2010
From now on I'm just going to bury pay-to-read stories; regardless of the content.
jjason1985Jul 8, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mymindgrapesJul 8, 2010
What isn't propaganda?
hetmanJul 8, 2010
2+2=4
mymindgrapesJul 8, 2010
Obviously a pro-even number comment.
zenmojoJul 8, 2010
UAE. Richest government in the Middle East and also a dictatorship wants the United States, currently a recession-grounded democracy, to fight their wars for them. Something about this strikes me as incredibly disturbing.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
But why should the UAE spend their piles of money on actually building up a military capable of dealing with Iran on their own when they can just convince the US that they should do it instead?
boprocksteadyJul 8, 2010
Why the hell would some one post a pay wall story??????????????? Shouldn't we be boycotting these sites
mthjJul 8, 2010
STOP THIS f**kING MADNESS!! A strike on Iran's nuclear facilities will kill hundreds of Russians who are building them! China will lose hundreds of billions worth of resources (already paid for) and 8% of their oil! You want to make World War Three a certainty to counter potential Iranian nuclear bombs years down the road? ARE YOU ALL f**kING MAD?!?!?!?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.