Will the people of Iran rise up and seize their own freedom?
Iran’s parliament on Wednesday night agreed to press ahead with plans to introduce fuel rationing in the face of panic and rioting across the country over the proposals.The protests presented a rare public challenge to Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the president, whose popularity has been based on his pledge to share oil revenues more fairly and cut living costs for ordinary Iranians.
After attending a closed parliamentary session addressed by the interior and oil ministers, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Iran’s parliamentary speaker, said fuel rationing, introduced at midnight on Tuesday, had to continue, to thwart US threats and the possibility of sanctions hitting petrol imports.
Though Iran is one of the world’s biggest oil producers, its lack of refineries means it must import about 40 per cent of its petrol – of which it consumes about 75m litres a day. Iran imported $4.9bn (£2.45bn) of petrol in the year to March 20. This year, however, the government is authorised by parliament to import only $2.5bn.
Sanctions appear to be working to destabilize the regime -- perhaps there will be no need for US intervention to free Iran.
 |
Trackback Information for Mullah-cracy Under Siege In Iran
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/217284Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Mullah-cracy Under Siege In Iran'.
Comments on Mullah-cracy Under Siege In Iran
"...perhaps there will be no need for US intervention to free Iran."
I certainly hope that we don't "free" Iran, as we now know that there was no real justification for military intervention to "free" Iraq.
Maybe I'm weird, but I don't think it's wise or even possible to spread freedom and democracy using bombs and bullets.
|| Posted by bob, June 28, 2007 03:39 PM ||Gee, Bob, have you ever heard of WWII -- and Germany, Japan, and Italy?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 28, 2007 04:44 PM ||Yes I have. As I recall, the Allies liberated multiple countries, pretty much flattened Germany, and the US nuked Japan twice. Ultimately the aggressors surrendered pretty much unconditionally, and in the wake of that surrender, democracy and freedom flourished (except for all that pesky USSR/cold war stuff, of course.)
So, how do we know when the militant Islamic terrorists have surrendered? It's not like they have a Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito leading them. So it really doesn't do much good to draw comparisons between WWII and the present situation, does it?
|| Posted by bob, June 28, 2007 07:42 PM ||Bob, your statement was "I don't think it's. . . even possible to spread freedom and democracy using bombs and bullets."
I was merely providing a counter-example to show the folly of your assertion.
In the case of Iran, it will be easy to know when they surrender.
In the case of the terrorists, we shouldn't allow them to -- kill every last stinking one of them.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 28, 2007 09:03 PM ||My complete statement was, "I don't think it's wise or even possible to spread freedom and democracy using bombs and bullets.
Funny how you leave out "wise" when accusing me of folly.
Speaking of folly, would you prefer to kill all of the terrorists individually, or in groups. Would you like to kill them slowly and painfully, or perhaps with a bit of mercy? Would you like to kill the women and children too? After all, they're terrorists, right?
But first, how do you know who to kill? Does it matter to you if you kill a few innocents by accident while your killing all of those terrorists?
Heck, why not just nuke all of them and everybody that looks like them, just to be sure!
|| Posted by bob, June 28, 2007 11:35 PM ||You stated that you didn't think it was possible. I pointed out that it was. My point would have been correct if I hadn't cut the words "wise or even" from the sentence -- I think that participation in WWII is so obviously a wise move that i needn't raise that issue. Is it your intent to dispute the wisdom of involvement in WWII?
Personally, i like the slow and painful option -- though I'm willing to have it done quickly following a drumhead court martial (with no appeal) before the senior officer in the unit that captures them (a system that worked well during the Civil War).
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 29, 2007 06:01 AM ||I don't dispute the wisdom of our participation in WWII. I do think that your "kill 'um all" method is about as far from wise as it gets.
Again, it's completely invalid to compare our War on Terror to WWII. It compares better with the crusades.
On December 8, 1941 we declared war. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't declare war against a tactic. We've invaded two countries (so far) and the War on Terror is just beginning.
So, should we invade Saudi Arabia before or after we nuke Iran?
|| Posted by bob, June 29, 2007 05:48 PM ||Personally, Bob, I don't support nuking Iran or invading Saudi Arabia -- I believe we should invade Iran and use the neutron bomb on Saudi Arabia so that we don't damage the oil wells.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 29, 2007 05:52 PM ||And as for the notion of the War on Terrorism, i agree with you -- we need to call it the Crusade against Jihadi Islam and finish the job that was begun by Charles Martel.
Or at least continue it until the Muslim equivalent of Martin Luther emerges to reform Islam into a truly peaceful faith.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 29, 2007 05:56 PM ||All through this thread I've suspected that you were engaging in parody, and have eagerly awaited a punch line.
"I believe we should invade Iran and use the neutron bomb on Saudi Arabia so that we don't damage the oil wells."
That's a good one Greg!
|| Posted by bob, June 29, 2007 07:12 PM ||All through this thread I've suspected that you were engaging in parody, and I've eagerly awaited a punch line.
"I believe we should invade Iran and use the neutron bomb on Saudi Arabia so that we don't damage the oil wells."
That's a good one Greg!
|| Posted by bob, June 29, 2007 08:22 PM ||Post a comment