Comments on: Iran may be a once and future threat, but al-Qaeda is a clear and present danger http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/ Think. It ain't illegal yet... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:58:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Russ Wellen http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4666 Russ Wellen Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:21:24 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4666 On Tuesday, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released this statement: "The agency has been able to verify the <em><strong>non-diversion </strong></em>of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use." On Tuesday, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released this statement:

“The agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.”

]]> By: Sarge http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4668 Sarge Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:54:30 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4668 What about the Israeli nuclear program. Why does everyone ignore the fact that Israel has the bomb? Have you ever heard of a man named Mordicai Vanatu or a place called "Dimora"? How in the world can we attack a country to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons in order to protect another country who we know for certain has nukes - because we gave them the technology.... What about the Israeli nuclear program. Why does everyone ignore
the fact that Israel has the bomb? Have you ever heard of a man
named Mordicai Vanatu or a place called “Dimora”?

How in the world can we attack a country to prevent it from getting
nuclear weapons in order to protect another country who we know
for certain has nukes – because we gave them the technology….

]]> By: Sarge http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4669 Sarge Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:49:15 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4669 Ok, Iran is a pain in the ass and I would have no problem with GW ordering a air strike on those Revolutianary Guards Quds Force camps that are suppying the Iraqi insurgency with the highly sophisticated IEDs that are killing and maiming our troops. But, my fear is that Bush would not stop with that and go after the Iranian nuclear reactors too. GW is determined to not leave office with a Iran posing a nuclear threat to Israel. Well, the fact is - just like that North Koreans, the Iranians have never tested a nuclear weapon. Israel has. Iran and the NKs don't have any nuclear weapons. Israel has an estimated three hundred nuclear weapons. Have you ever heard of Modicai Vanutu or a place named Dimora? Google the Israeli nuclear weapons program. The bottom line - is we are getting into another war over WMDs that don't exist. Ron Ok, Iran is a pain in the ass and I would have no problem with GW
ordering a air strike on those Revolutianary Guards Quds Force camps that are suppying the Iraqi insurgency with the highly sophisticated IEDs that are killing and maiming our troops. But, my
fear is that Bush would not stop with that and go after the Iranian
nuclear reactors too. GW is determined to not leave office with a
Iran posing a nuclear threat to Israel.
Well, the fact is – just like that North Koreans, the Iranians have never
tested a nuclear weapon. Israel has. Iran and the NKs don’t have any
nuclear weapons. Israel has an estimated three hundred nuclear weapons.
Have you ever heard of Modicai Vanutu or a place named Dimora?
Google the Israeli nuclear weapons program.

The bottom line – is we are getting into another war over WMDs that
don’t exist.

Ron

]]> By: Sam Smith http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4660 Sam Smith Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:41:37 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4660 Dom: I suppose WW2 would have been very different under Bush. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we'd have invaded Brazil. Dom: I suppose WW2 would have been very different under Bush. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we’d have invaded Brazil.

]]> By: DomPierre http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4667 DomPierre Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:41:05 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4667 If Bush does attack Iran, Iran could move troops into Iraq and plan full out assault on US troops along with all the resistance fighters. It wouldn't be good news for the US. Not good news at all considering how things are going for them today. If Bush does attack Iran, Iran could move troops into Iraq and plan full out assault on US troops along with all the resistance fighters.

It wouldn’t be good news for the US. Not good news at all considering how things are going for them today.

]]> By: DomPierre http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4665 DomPierre Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:37:20 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4665 I guess we can be grateful that George & Co wasn't in charge of WWII. Until something is done about Israel and it's warlike ways, there won't be any peace in the Middle East. Between them and the US-presence in the Middle East, that's the reason Osama & Al Qaeda exist. In other words, whoever thought back in 1948 it was a good idea for the US to have a Middle East outpost in form of Israel, was about 99% dumb. George had a plan to get out of Viet Nam by enlisting in the TX Air National Guard. Unfortunately, he doesn't any such plans for Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Iran. I guess we can be grateful that George & Co wasn’t in charge of WWII.

Until something is done about Israel and it’s warlike ways, there won’t be any peace in the Middle East. Between them and the US-presence in the Middle East, that’s the reason Osama & Al Qaeda exist.

In other words, whoever thought back in 1948 it was a good idea for the US to have a Middle East outpost in form of Israel, was about 99% dumb.

George had a plan to get out of Viet Nam by enlisting in the TX Air National Guard. Unfortunately, he doesn’t any such plans for Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Iran.

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4659 Brian Angliss Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:00:14 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4659 The only way I can see that attacking Iran is even feasible is if we use nuclear weapons. Iran isn't exactly a third-rate power militarily, after all - they were as tough or tougher than Iraq in 1991 and have had 16 years since in which to boost their military. Air attacks might work over the course of several months, but air power alone is never enough to guarantee that you've destroyed everything you want to destroy. Verification requires soldiers inspecting damage, busting into buried installations that conventional bombs can't reach, etc. Since we're overstretched already on the soldier/marine readiness issue, we simply don't have enough soldiers to pull off an attack on Iran. And the only way to shut down Iran without using infantry and marines is by using such overwhelming force that even if you miss, you still destroy your target, and that means nukes. The only way I can see that attacking Iran is even feasible is if we use nuclear weapons. Iran isn’t exactly a third-rate power militarily, after all – they were as tough or tougher than Iraq in 1991 and have had 16 years since in which to boost their military. Air attacks might work over the course of several months, but air power alone is never enough to guarantee that you’ve destroyed everything you want to destroy. Verification requires soldiers inspecting damage, busting into buried installations that conventional bombs can’t reach, etc. Since we’re overstretched already on the soldier/marine readiness issue, we simply don’t have enough soldiers to pull off an attack on Iran.

And the only way to shut down Iran without using infantry and marines is by using such overwhelming force that even if you miss, you still destroy your target, and that means nukes.

]]> By: buzzflash.net http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4662 buzzflash.net Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:43:46 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4662 <strong>Iran may be a once and future threat, but Al Qaeda is a clear and present danger</strong> Americans can't imagine that the administration, bogged down in one war gone bad, would be crazy enough to start another one. But, as we ought to know by now, Bush and Cheney are tilting at windmills in their own minds. Iran may be a once and future threat, but Al Qaeda is a clear and present danger

Americans can’t imagine that the administration, bogged down in one war gone bad, would be crazy enough to start another one. But, as we ought to know by now, Bush and Cheney are tilting at windmills in their own minds.

]]> By: elaine http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4661 elaine Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:17:26 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4661 Good article. Good article.

]]> By: whythawk http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4664 whythawk Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:26:20 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4664 The other concern of an attack on Iran is that they <i>are</i> a sponsor of terrorism. A weakened Iran - still with oil reserves to bolster it - could choose to export Hezbollah and Hamas from fooling about in Lebanon and Israel to join general terrorist attacks on the US. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas have ideological reasons not to like each other but, under the doctrine of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", you could get some terrible alliances building. The other concern of an attack on Iran is that they are a sponsor of terrorism. A weakened Iran – still with oil reserves to bolster it – could choose to export Hezbollah and Hamas from fooling about in Lebanon and Israel to join general terrorist attacks on the US.

Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas have ideological reasons not to like each other but, under the doctrine of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, you could get some terrible alliances building.

]]> By: Ryan Landy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/08/28/iran-may-be-a-once-and-future-threat-but-al-qaeda-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-4663 Ryan Landy Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:24:25 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=595#comment-4663 I agree that Al Qaeda is are present threat and that Iran is a future one, but we need to stay focused on the future and the present. If we only focus on Al Qaeda then we will be giving Iran an oppurtunity to become a more serious threat so therefore we need not only focus on Al Qaeda, but keep our attention on Al Qaeda and Iran. I agree that Al Qaeda is are present threat and that Iran is a future one, but we need to stay focused on the future and the present. If we only focus on Al Qaeda then we will be giving Iran an oppurtunity to become a more serious threat so therefore we need not only focus on Al Qaeda, but keep our attention on Al Qaeda and Iran.

]]>