Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The dominos begin to fall

Iran Demonstrations Bush Doctrine

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 16 June 2003 - 03:44 PM

As far as I know the USSR sold them nothing, from the 1950s until the Revolution, Iran's primary arms suppliers were the United States with among other things included 82 F-14 Tomcats( the only export order) and 424 AIM-54A Pheonix AAMs( only 270 were delivered before the revolution), as well as F-4s and F-5s, UH-1 and CH-47 helicopters, M60 and M48 and American artillery pieces. British weapons included Chiefton tanks and some earier British APCs, the Saam class frigates that the US Navy would tangle with in 1988, and Hovercraft. The French also sold them thier La Combatte series of missile patrol boats.
After the Revolution thier primary supplier shifted to China and North Korea. The Chinese provided Type 59 and Type 69 tanks, Silkworm antiship missiles, thier copy of the SA-2 SAM, F-7 and F-6 copies of the Mig-21 and Mig-19 respectively as well as ammunition and other supplies. The North Koreans supplied Scud missiles and missile technology. Then things shifted again after the fall of the Soviet Union and the 1991 Gulf War. Iran now had 138 ex-Iraqi, mostly Russian build aircraft in its hands and it started shifting to a combined Chinese-Russian arms supply, with more favor to the Russians. They now have Mig-29s, Su-24s, Su-22s, 2 Kilo class submarines, improved surface to air and air to air missiles, a massive four reactor nuclear power facility and more all from the Russians and thier have been rumors of the sale of Tu-26 Backfire medium bombers and missiles as well as other technology transfers. I actually had a chance to talk to a Russian political scientist when she gave a talk at my university last year about this very subject and it all came down to the need for hard currency overiding any longerterm security considerations.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#22 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 16 June 2003 - 04:23 PM

I think the Bush doctrine does have a lot to do with it. I don't think using the term is that divisive; what would you prefer to call it?

I also agree that it's not time to march into Iran. It's time to consolidate Iraq and Afghanistan, and try to persuade your average Arab that they *want* more US influence. If anything comes up, we now have the ability to project military force anywhere in the reason relatively quickly; with that insurance, I think we can now afford to be more patient.

All IMO.

Morr-- Other dominos? If the middle east peace plan works out, than the BD may have some credit. I'm not overly convinced by that though.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#23 Christopher

Christopher
  • Demigod
  • 33,229 posts

Posted 17 June 2003 - 12:07 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 16 2003, 01:24 AM, said:

I think the Bush doctrine does have a lot to do with it. I don't think using the term is that divisive; what would you prefer to call it?
Divisive or not, it's a political catchphrase, and I think such things bring too much baggage to be useful for an objective discussion.  Maybe in a strictly literal use of the word, whose definitions include "A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy," the term is legitimate, but I think it's used more as a rhetorical or propagandistic device.
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." -- xkcd

"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." -- "H. G. Wells," Time After Time


Written Worlds -- My homepage and blog
Patreon Page -- Featuring reviews and original fiction
Facebook Author Page

#24 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 17 June 2003 - 01:39 AM

Christopher wrote:

Divisive or not, it's a political catchphrase, and I think such things bring too much baggage to be useful for an objective discussion. Maybe in a strictly literal use of the word, whose definitions include "A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy," the term is legitimate, but I think it's used more as a rhetorical or propagandistic device.

Okay, how about "the Born-Again Christian Doctrine?"
Or maybe "the Perle-Wolfiwitz-Cheney Doctrine"?
Or the "Pro Democracy, Freedom, and Capitalism Doctrine?"
Or how about the "I don't want to be fed into Saddam's plastic shredder Doctrine?"

No, I think the "Bush Doctrine" is just fine. The term is directly tied to President Bush because it represents a shift in the last 25 years of action. No longer will we simply withdraw troops if we get bombed (Reagan in Lebanon). No longer will we ignore terrorist attacks on this soil (the First World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole under Clinton). The Bush doctrine indicates a shift in our dealing with terrorism, we will fight back, with all of the resources our military and intelligence can bring to bear.

Initial result of the Bush Doctrine, two years running? No more 9/11s, Al Queda on the run, terrorist sympathizers and allies nowhere to be found. That's what I call a smashing success. (With an emphasis on the smashing.)

-Ogami

#25 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 June 2003 - 02:42 AM

Christopher, on Jun 15 2003, 06:04 AM, said:

But I resist the use of propagandistic labels like "Bush Doctrine" which serve to polarize and oversimplify the discourse.
Yet you don't resist saying things like "before Dubya even knew where Iran was on the map," which similarly serve to polarize. Physician, heal thyself of thine own propaganda.

Edited by Drew, 17 June 2003 - 02:44 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#26 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 17 June 2003 - 10:52 PM

Okay... is it just me, or does "The Bush Doctrine" sound like a political porno-movie? :lol:
Posted Image

#27 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 07:11 AM

The Blood of Iranians: Fighting our way to regime change.

By Koorosh Afshar

Excerpt:

Quote

TEHRAN, IRAN During the past few nights, we Iranian youth have been agitating at great risk to our lives to remove the 24-year-old plague that has stricken our homeland. Our goal is to topple the theocratic regime of the mullahs. Our opponents are barbarian vigilantes members of Ansaar-e-Hezbollah who are backed by heavily armed Iranian riot police.

Westerners may have difficulty imagining what these people are like. In fact, it's quite easy: Simply remember the Taliban. The only difference is that they don't wear Afghani clothes.

In the past few nights, my peers and our mothers and sisters have poured into the streets of our city. Some of us have been arrested and many have been injured by the ruthless attacks of Ansaar-e-Hezbollah. These people attack whomever they see in the streets with tear gas, sticks, iron chains, swords, daggers, and, for the last two nights, guns.

It has become almost routine for us to go out at night, chant slogans, get beaten, lose some of our friends, see our sisters beaten, and then return home.

Each night we set to the streets only to be swept away the next dawn by agents of the regime. Two nights ago, on Amirabad Street, we wrote "Down with Khomeini" on the ground. Before long, the mullah's vigilantes attacked us on their motorcycles. They struck a female student before my eyes so harshly that she was no longer able to walk. As she fell to the ground, four members of Ansaar-e-Hezbollah surrounded her, kicking her. When I and two other students threw stones at them so that they would leave her alone, they threatened us. We escaped into a lane and hid in a house whose owner, an old lady, had left the door open for us. A few minutes later, we saw the young lady being carried away by riot police, her feet dragging on the ground, her shattered teeth hanging out of her still-bleeding mouth.

At least three of my best friends have been detained; nobody knows anything about their fate.

Yesterday I heard that the prosecutor of Tehran has announced that most of the detainees are hooligans with criminal records. What sort of criminal record does he mean? Perhaps the crime of walking with a person of the opposite sex? Of wearing Western clothes or playing a cassette in the car?

The article ends with:

Quote

. . . we will continue to shed our blood, if that is what it takes to obtain the freedom we seek.

A lot of bloggers are wondering why this story isn't getting more play in the major media. Don Watkins has this theory:

Quote

I mean, shouldn't this be the story for anti-war liberals? Here are a bunch of brave souls fighting a tyrannical regime through the old liberal favorite of massive protests. Here's the chance for them to get behind the cause of freedom without having to support war. Here's the chance for liberals to support the potentially most important win in the war against terrorism and they are hesitant to do it. Why? Because the "right wingers" (of which I am not one, by the way) were there first.

Which raises a number of questions: Why were they there first? And what does it say about liberals when differentiating and distancing themselves from conservatives becomes more important than the cause of human freedom? And why the hell is it that conservatives are having to explain to liberals that there are times when we must put our differences aside in the name of higher values? I mean, Jesus, since when did this become Bizzaro World?

Edited by Drew, 18 June 2003 - 07:18 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#28 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 01:17 PM

Suddenly, in the last week or two, this bizarre pseudo-word "blog" pops up EVERYWHERE, in suddenly casual use as if everyone of course already knew it like they know the word "bread", and it didn't seem to even exist before! What memo did I miss?

#29 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 01:40 PM

Delvo, on Jun 17 2003, 09:18 PM, said:

Suddenly, in the last week or two, this bizarre pseudo-word "blog" pops up EVERYWHERE, in suddenly casual use as if everyone of course already knew it like they know the word "bread", and it didn't seem to even exist before! What memo did I miss?
"Blog" a shorthand for "Web-log" is sort of like an online journal. However, many bloggers have become, for lack of a better word, media filters. If the New York Times makes a mistake, bloggers are there. If the Washington Post misses some major story, bloggers are there. During the war, bloggers separated fact from fiction. A blogger from Iraq filled us in on the front lines.

Bloggers have their own sort of community. They link to each other as often as they link to major media sources. They've been around for awhile, but the major media has recently discovered them. (Bill O'Reilly went on a big rant about them recently, which the bloggers found quite amusing.) What we have at our disposal are an army of "hobby journalists" who are, for some reason, making the major media outlets a bit nervous. Supposedly if a person gets paid to editorialize, they're more trustworthy. If they do it for fun, they're suspect.

I recommend starting at "Instapundit.com" (because I like it) and clicking from link to link. You'll get the idea soon enough. I find that checking out a bunch of blogs is much more interesting (and often more revealing) than clicking through Yahoo News or Google News.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iran, Demonstrations, Bush Doctrine

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users