On September 5, 2006, President Bush made the following statement in a speech in Washington, reiterating what has become known as the "Bush Doctrine:"
After September the 11th, I laid out a clear doctrine: America makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror, and those that harbor and support them, because they're equally guilty of murder.
Today, February 13, 2007, the Telegraph published a detailed report describing Iranian arms captured by the US military in Iraq:
Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.
The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.
The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.
Those rifles were not brought into Iraq just for show:Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.And they're not cheap, either:
Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported.So my question is this: why shouldn't the "Bush Doctrine" be applied to Steyr-Mannlicher, and to Austria, as well as Iran?
Mr. President: TAKE THEM ALL OUT.
And my fellow Americans: Boycott Steyr-Mannlicher, purveyors of sniper rifles to America's enemies.
Why should the Bush Doctrine be applied to Austria? It isn't applied to Saudi Arabia.
ReplyDeleteWhen he made that statement, as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong)India and Israel both came back and said, basically, "Do you mean that?"
The terrorists getting trained in Pakistan and wherever else go to fight "the infidels" -- that includes, but is not limited to, America. Some go fight India, some go fight Israel, some go fight Russia... and we all know this.
America makes a distinction between those supporters of terror who sell us oil, and those who don't: hence, Saudi Royal Family involvement in the spread of radical Islam ideology advocating terror attacks on all infidels, especially America and Israel, is overlooked.
"Don't ask, don't tell, just keep the oil flowing."
Pakistan's Mushy is playing the same game, turning a blind eye to terrorists attacking India. They can only be so blind to the situation along the Afghanistan frontier; too obvious, and Mushy's regime loses deniability. They give us the support they have to along the border, no more; and I question their enthusiasm about their job.
I guess this is a hot-button with me? Persian Gulf Policy.
Good post!
Yankee Doodle,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I don't disagree with you. On the other hand, even Churchill agreed to an alliance with Stalin, because Hitler was a bigger problem -- at the time.
There is no doubt that the financial and ideological and political push behind the worldwide resurgence of Salafis, (wahhabism) since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 has come from the House of Saud, or a significant part of the House of Saud.
That will need to be dealt with.
But at the moment, Al Qaeda and Iran are bigger problems -- even if they are connected to Saudi Arabia.
And I am not advocating an immediate nuclear strike on Vienna. But there should be consequences, and Steyr needs to be taken out of the enemy's supply chain. One way or another.
It's funny. The Eurodhimmi governments are in constant fear of offending barbarians who want nothing better than to leave a trail of rapine, pillage, and conquest from Athens to Trondheim. And yet, they have no fear when it comes to denouncing the United States. The benevolence of the "American Street" is taken for granted. Why, even that slimeball Putin criticized America for providing too much aid to countries hit by earthquakes, famines, and tsunamis! If Chimpy McBushhitlerburton was really the jackbooted terrormaster than Noam Chomsky, Zapatero, and Barack Obama think he is, they'd show more fear of offending him, wouldn't they?
There have got to be some consequences.
Thanks for your comments.