Badmovies.org Forum

We have been hearing all kinds of talk about Iran & N. Korea for a few years now. What do you think should be done. If you would like another option added then post a comment.

All options stink and I blame everyone

I say diplomacy.
Sit down and try to talk with these people first and only use war as the last resort.
Sanctions exacerbate the problems in my opinion. 
They just p**s off Iran & N. Korea even more and helps to steel their resolve.
We've tried to talk to N. Korea but talks with them so far have gone nowhere.

The people of Iran seem to be decent...very much like us.  I've watched several documentaries about Iran.  The people have embraced some Western values and seem to want change.
It's their radical leaders that are the problem.
If they could be deposed and a democratic government instated, I believe Iran could be a good friend of the U.S.

I think N. Korea is the bigger problem right now.
North Korea to me is like a crazy man with a gun whose been cornered by police and ordered to drop his weapon and surrender but won't.
Eventually, he'll either give up or have to be shot.

And take out every officer he can before he expires.

I don't know if there's any way out of this at all...I fear a war with Iran would only go about as well as it has been with Iraq, and I don't know if we could get through to their leaders at all if we talked to them.  It seems to me like reasoning with them is like trying to rationalize with an extreme leftist or right-winger here in the states.  You're not gonna get much out of it. 

And North Korea...those guys are just too far gone for any reasoning at this point.  They have a maniac for a leader, and he has his people completely brainwashed.  And keep in mind, these guys are right next to China...if we p**s those people off somehow...it's not gonna be good for us, that's all I can say.

I don't really care for the turn our foreign policy has taken lately under those in the white house, but at the same time, I don't like how the opposition is unable to come up with any realistic alternatives.     

I am more than willing to let diplomatic efforts solve these things, but that only works when you're dealing with reasonable people or governments, unfortunately all the reasonable people are on the same side when it comes to these 2 so diplomacy is probably not going to work. The rest of the options are all bad too, history has shown that if governments like N. Korea's and Iran's are allowed to start doing what ever they want, they're going to keep on pushing until they are finally found to be a major threat to the rest of the world. I don't care what goes on in their countries, after all it's their's, but do we really need 2 more nuclear powers, no we do not, the ones we have are scary enough. So I feel that reasonable people should in a diplomatic way tell them to stop or there will be consequences of a very severe nature and make sure this message gets to the individual citizens of each country.
If they don't stop, NUKE'EM TILL THEY GLOW, THEN SHOOT'EM IN THE DARK, the reasonable people/governments would only have to do this once, after that, if the situation arose again, the other side would listen when talked to.
I know this sounds extreme but I have found that halfway measures cause more problems than they solve and more pain and suffering than is necessary.


(By the way, the Nuke'em till they glow line is from Hammerfall, a very good alien invasion novel)

No way out.Leave them alone,let 'em kill each other.If they attack us ,nuke e'm and leave.Not a nice thing to do,but it worked with Japan.

All options stink.  Period.

There is no answer for this situation.  As Dennis said, diplomacy works when dealing with reasonable governments.  N. Korea is far from being a reasonable government, and Iran is borderline in my opinion.

I don't believe that diplomacy will work for either country.  Sanctions will not work either.  But, war is not an answer either. 

Someone does need to figure it out soon, or we're all in danger.  I don't have much faith in our current administration to do so.

All options stink.
With Iran, toppling the mullahs without harming anyone else would be the only way.  The Iranian people hate the mullahs - who are corrupt & very oppressive; but if we attacked their nuke plants the people would rally around their country.

With North Korea, it is like dealing with a cult.  The people don't know anything except what the government tells them.  Attacking NK will get the people to defend their country (think Waco).  And I'm not sure a surgical strike could take out Lil' Kim.  Plus, South Korea doesn't want to inherit a totally bankrupt & impoverished country -- German unification was very expensive; a Korean one would be ten times worse.  Probably the best option would be for China to engineer a coup in NK, and put in place a leader who'd stop the nuclear and biological programs (as well as the counterfeiting of US$100 bills and the drug smuggling) and the more vicious oppressive policies.  Maybe there could even be some opening up of their economic system, on the Chinese model.

Out and out war is a bad option, but perhaps we should inform both Pyonyang and Tehran that if any nuclear bomb goes off anywhere in the world, we will hold them both responsible.

LilCerberus...this conversation is nothing to joke about.  

The world is not a movie.Yhere is no answer,or solution.What happens will happen.Trying to control these people will just add fuel to the fire.Sit back,watch the fireworks,and toss a bucket of water on the embers when it's burning out.If it even comes to that.Unless they go Nazi on other countries.Then zap em.You can't control rabid dogs,and caging them is a waste of time.If they start attacking people_kill them.Sad,but true. Boy,this politics stuff could get real touchy...I hope we don't start talking religion here...(though most have the hatred the mid-east has for the western world is in part a difference in religious ideoliges(I don't think I spelled that right...all this heavy thinking is hurting my head...)

When I think of world politics and what the world is coming to, I think of the:
CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_civilizations)

Actually,Ash,why NOT joke about it? Is it sacred?Should we laugh or cry? The Bush administration is the big joke.Kim is a joke.The whole world is a big joke.I'm just waiting for the punchline.

Bacause it's no joking matter...

I guess I listen to too much old school punk rock.I would not make a very good world leader,or else half of the world would be in total anarchy by now. :lookingup:

Deleted. Mia culpa.

Life is too important a subject to ever talk seriously about. - Oscar Wilde

If you can't joke or laugh at a serious situation at some point, you'll drive yourself crazy stressing about it. I've done it myself in my personal life. Granted there are times when jokes are inappropriate for any serious situation, but we aren't the folks at the negotiating table.

I vote all options stink, but we have to do something. I agree getting China to lean on N. Korea, pointing out containing or stopping Kim is in their interest long term. Any actual conflict will affect them even they aren't actively involved: nukes, a ground war, refugees after a collapse, etc. They already know this, and tightly control that border. But who does more business with them, N. Korea or the US (to our disadvantage in many ways)?

As or Iran, stickier situation. Bomb the nuke program sites and you rally the discontented youth and common folk to the mullahs and their grubby little puppet. Invade and you get a ground war even messier than Iraq, even if we had the resources to do it right now. I'd advocate engaging with and backing the secular youth who will enter politics, sow the seeds of reform and hopefully spread throughout the system, take power from the mullahs, and change the country for the better. A very Cold War-style effort that will take time, one with no guarantees, look at what happened to the youth movement in China of the 80s, especially if Iran get the bomb in the meantime, but the least bad of lots of very bad options.

Actually, the poll is missing an answer

Assassinate Kim Jon Ill (or however you spell his name.)

Not saying that's the best solution, or that it'd be easy, but it's an option.

As for the other options...

"Let The U.N. Take Care Of It"

AHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAH!!!  That's hiliarious!  I mean, after all the UN has a great track record.  Consider for example, how well they enforced all those laws they set up against Iraq.  Oh wait, they didn't!

What bugs me though is how many people blame Bush for the N Korea situation.  Maybe you could argue he's not helping things, but they fact is this: Kim is a LIAR, who's been violating agreements and contracts for DECADES now.  They even did a  little deal back in the Clinton era to give him instrucitons for a nuclear power plant in return he signed a treaty not to persue nuclear weapons.  And guess what?  He broke that treaty.  He's been doing this time and time again, so anyone who wants to lay the fault of this problem solely on the feet of Bush is seriously misguided.

So, I dunno.. maybe some covert action is needed, arming a couple of rebels within Korea (if there are any... dunno how the underground in that area.) 

Course, problem with that is in a few years you might be trading one maniac group for another, but sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils (like when the U.S. joined forced with Russia in WW2)

Due to the control Kim exerts over his nation, its meager resources, and its people, I doubt trying to foment revolution in N. Korea is a real option.

There are plenty of dissidents outside the country, but he imprisons or kills dissenters within the country quite often. The people are too busy just trying to survive each day due to ongoing famine (made intentionally worse by Kim) to try to rise up even if so many weren't brainwashed to love their tormentor.

Meanwhile Kim and his cronies horde the food for the military; and use its financial resources for lavish luxury items, parties, booze, drugs, imported hookers, horror movies and garish musicals, lavish parades, and public spectacles all for the glory of the bloated midget with the half-assed afro perched on his built-up shoes.

A smart, evil sneaky bastard without even a sense of style. Amin had those ludicrous cartoonish uniforms with the medals and ribbons and such, Mobutu had those leopard print hats, Marcos had Imelda and her shoe farms and skivvies (from what I've read), Qaddafi looks like an aging drag queen or a lost cast member from The Golden Girls, Saddam had those palaces filled with bad Boris Vallejo-style art and his buddies in matching mustaches on his grenade fishing trips, etc. Blood soaked monsters and killers all, yet part of the dictator persona makes so many of them indulge in weird crap like this.

Dammit to hell, I really need to REREAD my freaking posts before I hit the send button.

Got this problem where sometimes when I type, other words appear than what I'm actually meaning to say.  (Guessing it's probably some form of dyslexia/aphasia they haven't IDed yet, and will probably come out with effective treatments for it long after I'm dead...)

Need to hire  proofreader.. hehe!

From some intelligence websites I've read, there have been some coup attempts against Lil Kim, plus there was that massive "accidental" explosion that happened at a train station -- regrettably a bit after Kim's RR car had passed by.  If he can't keep the army fed, it will turn on him.

But would a successful coup put in a leader or group of them wiling to change North Korea's ways, or just put in another tyrant wanting to "be" Kim rather than knuckle under to him? Even if a leader friendly to the South and the US were to take over, China would not like losing their leverage in the region. Maybe raise their sabre-rattling concerning Taiwan to a new level.

Iran may have downed one of our U.S. drones a couple days ago over Iran.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/17/content_5615540.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/17/content_5615540.htm)

I think we should use a similar strategy to the one we used during the cold war.  If you make a nuke, test a nuke,  launch a nuke, or attack American soil,  you will face total annihilation.  End of story.  I would tell all of the countries where terrorists fluorish like Saudi Arabia that they need to clean their own houses ASAP because they will be held accountable for any terrorist attacks that can be traced to their countries.  Hopefully it wouldn't have to happen even once, but if it did, I don't think anyone would mess with us again for a very long time.

I would also bring our troops home from the ridiculous war in Iraq.

I voted for all options stink because there is no pretty way out of this situation.

China just knocked out old satillite with missle.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/18/070118175313.jezg0oda.html (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/18/070118175313.jezg0oda.html)

Iranian President today assured "that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying..

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356154,00.html (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356154,00.html)

North Korea is going to help Iran with Nuclear Testing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml)

Iran is supposedly sending up satillite which could be a hidden way for them to test their long range missle systems.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/IRAN01257.xml (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/IRAN01257.xml)

Very good.  You get some "saw it coming" points for this.

I actually heard on the radio today a very interesting theory.  Now granted, this was just a small group's theory and MAY be full of bunk.  I'll pass it along as I heard it, and I have to admit it makes a bit of sense.

Have you wondered why, with all the postering going on with Iran, why oh why is the price of gasoline going DOWN?  I've been paying under $2.00 a gallon for about two weeks, and saw one station today that had $1.86 per gallon.  Apparently, there's already been a drop on gas price of roughly 20%.  That's significant.  But the speculation on the oil price should be driving the price UP, due to the instabilities of the region.

Well, apparently OPEC petitioned Saudia Arabia to hold a meeting to discuss stopping the drop in prices; the Saudi's refused.  That's odd since they stand to make higher profits if the price goes up, but lower if it continues to drop.  Further, the Saudi's have announced an INCREASE in production - an increase in production while US prices are DROPPING.  Can you say WTF?

Further, all of this came after Cheney went to Saudi and had a nice little chat with the King of Saud.  That's what I heard.

So, here's the theory as it was presented (assuming all these 'facts' are correct; I have not vetted them myself).  The US ultimately defeated the USSR in the cold war economically; we outspent them and we bankrupted them.  And, it seems that that is the strategy here as well.

Due to technological problems and poor refining capacity, Iran cannot profit on their oil if the world price is less than $60.00 per barrel.  Last year, Venezeula (and others?) were seeking contracts that would guarantee prices above $50.00 per barrel, iirc.  Anyway, if the world price continues to drop, Iran will LOSE ITS BUTT.  It could bankdrupt the country, much as was done in the USSR.  As it is now, Iran exports crude, but must inport gasoline - they are the second largest importer of refined gasoline (to us), but if the market drops on the crude (as it is right now), they will not be able to afford to buy the refined product.

So, it seems like the ghoul may be on to something.  Maybe, at least one national radio talker things, we are beating Iran in the same manner we won the Cold War - using our economic might.

It'll be fun to watch. 

Listened to Glenn Beck Friday, I guess?

LOL; yep, for about 20 minutes, and that's part I caught.

You can crush them economically like with Russia. The only problem with these types keep building their weapons while their own people starve. North Korea is the perfect example and Russia has been moving forward with their programs for years even after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Mix
1 big block velveeta cheese
1 can rotell tomato sauce
2lb hamburger meat
Then microwave
(http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:QXwkRVixFZErGM:www.batguano.com/nuclear/92.jpg)

Isn't strange how the Iranian goverment is flaunting their operations. Article about them revealing something soon during a celebration.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/31/070131133205.c6tgedmv.html (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/31/070131133205.c6tgedmv.html)

Strange that petroleum prices (and gas prices) are rising again and the Saudis are following through on production cuts they had already announced for February if they are trying to bankrupt the Iranians by low balling the price of oil.

I heard on the radio some British think tank claims the Iranians are closer to being able to make a bomb than the general consensus, 2-3 years.

But didn't they have dancers dancing around with glass vials of "uranium" during a past celebration. "A nuclear symphony", so their adopting the thing we did in the US during the Atomic Age of attaching the key word to anything, "nuclear" rather than "atomic" now. Guess it's good PR on the home turf.

You know...the one thing that Iran and the U.S. both need are new leaders.
Bush isn't helping any and Ahmadinejad is certainly trying his best to be a dick.

I would much rather be friends with the people of Iran.
They don't want a war...and neither do we.

I pray to God that Bush doesn't start one last war before his presidency is over and I have this nagging feeling that he's secretly working up to it.

I have no problem with Iran obtaining nuclear capability.
They have a right to defend themselves and to be able to have nuclear power to generate electricity.
What worries me is the threats from their leader to "wipe Israel off the map", Holocaust denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial) and Anti-Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism)
When they express genuine anti-semitism, it reminds me of the Nazis.

It's pretty much unanimous that the U.S. and Israel won't use nuclear weapons.
But it's unclear if Iran wouldn't.
With Ahmadinejad at the helm, Iran seems like a loose cannon.

Either way you look at it, both leaders have to go.

Are you SURE about that?  There seems to be a LOT of rhetoric from Iran, and not JUST the one person 'in charge' right now that says essentially 'destroy the US.'

Does the 'average' Iranian believe this?  I am sure I don't know.  A couple of years ago, I believed not.  Now, I'm not so sure.


The sad truth is that due to the nature of the beast, nuclear weapons are not about DEFENDING anything.   The sole purpose of having them is to DESTROY. 

Personally, I am VERY worried about any enemy of the US that has been involved in state-sponsored terrorism (Iran and Syria to name just two) having nukes.


What in the world makes you think that?

First of all, the US is the only country TO-DATE that has actually USED nuclear weapons.  Twice.  It's a whole different ballgame once you've done it. 

Second, Israel has said she WOULD use them, and I believe her.  Others obviously believe her, too.  Why on earth do you think Israel even continues to exist?  She's a tiny country completely surrounded by other nations that continuously vow to destroy her and her people.  It is because they have like the second or third strongest military in the world and have shown that when push comes to shove, they don't give a rats behind what the UN or anybody else says, they will fight back.

For all the tough talk of the jihadists, they are basically cowards.  They hide bombs in cars, buses and backbacks to kill innocent people just trying to live their lives.  Someone can correct my if I am wrong, but I don't think human history supports one single case of this being a successful miltary strategy to effect rebellion or conquest of an enemy.  It leaves the military of your enemy in-tact to strike back - which is precisely what the Israelis do.

And make no mistake, if they are seriously threatened, they WILL use nukes.  In a heartbeat.


Nice campus-esque slogan, but the real world is not that simple.  Do you REALLY think EITHER the US or Iran will suddenly change course, that our nations will suddenly be friends if either (or both) nations change leadership?  Again, if we look to history as a guide, such a prediction does not seem to be supported. For example, Nixon took office in 1968 vowing to get us out of Vietnam, and it took him SEVEN YEARS.  It took him longer to get us out than we have even been IN Iraq.

Nations and their bureaucratic governments are like huge machines with a great deal of momentum.  They don't change course very easily.  Just because a politician SAYS 'elect me, and we'll be friends, not enemies, with Iran' does not mean it will happen.  For one thing, there is probably intelligence info that person will not be privvy to until AFTER the elections.  For another, political pressures will come to bear (the old Potomac two-step).  Finally, politicians really don't tend toward SOLVING problems - problems are their raison d-etre.  If the problem goes away, they lose power.  All this is true of both parties, and at all levels of government.

(You know, it struck me just now that in a way Monarchies have an advantage over us....the king of a nation has his power no matter what problems exist or not, so he may actuallly have a better motivation to actuall FIX things).

I'd like to be wrong about this - that new elections and new leaders will magically fix this issue.  Hopefully, in 20 years, you can come back and say "you were wrong."  Maybe that would mean the world was more peaceful for 20 years.

For world crude, we've had at least 5 weeks of steady decline and one week of slight rise.  We'll see if this rise is a blip or a trend.  Source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm

The point made earlier was that Iran loses her behind if the price is less than $60 per barrel.  It's been under that for over a month.  Even the slight rise last week gets it back up to only $50 per barrel.

As for refined gasoline (all grades), that rise has not shown up yet.  See http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm for a steady decline over at least six weeks.

My pay-at-the-pump price has been steadily decreasing too.  I don't know about other areas, but we are now under $1.90 per gallon (87 octane) at MOST stations I've seen.  That's down about a dime from last week.  (Not that one microscopic area's local prices mean much on the world poltical stage, but folks use their own local price all the time, so I thought I'd throw it out there).

The bankruption of Iran theory a good one?  We'll have to wait and see.

I swear ulthar...you live to contradict me.  :wink:

----------------------------------------------------

When I said that the U.S. and Isreal would not use nuclear weapons, I meant that they wouldn't be used to strike first.
You knew that too.  (you just neglected to mention it)

I reiterate my point that we should be friends with the Iranian people.
The people aren't the problem...it's both of our leaders.

I'm sure that if you went to Iran, interacted with the locals and took a similar poll, their people would say the same.
They want to live useful and productive lives and they want their country to prosper. 
Just like us.

You're so intent on picking apart my post and shooting this and that down, you've lost the ability to realize that our two nations could be good friends if we can just find a way to work together.

So what if they've sponsered terrorism...everyone can change.

To tell you the truth...you sound like Bush.

That's right, Ash.  I sit here hitting refresh all day waiting for you to post so I can reply a contradiction.   :twirl: :twirl:


No, I did not KNOW that.  It's not what you wrote, and I try not to read into what people write.  I can only take your words at face value.  But as to your point, yes, I do agree with that.  I don't think US would strike first.  I'm not so sure about Israel, though.  They have SAID they would preemptively strike if a major attack looked eminent.  This was a few years ago (perhaps during the Gulf War).


I agree that we SHOULD BE.  But it takes both sides to be 'friends.'  I'm not as convinced as you are that the people of Iran want to be friends with us.  Like I said, three or four years ago, I thought they did.  Now, I'm not so sure.  Time will tell, and I'll be happy to be wrong on this point.


I'm not intent on shooting anything down.  I look at facts and the historical record.  The world does not operate on wishes and wants.  We have a saying around here: "Wish in one hand, poop in the other and see which fills up faster."  I have no emotional stake in being right or wrong.  As I've said, I'll be happy to tell you 20 years from now that I was wrong if that's how things pan out.  But I stand by my conviction that us WANTING to be friends with the Iranians (with at least one entire generation raised in a culture of absolute, unmitigated hatred for the US) will not make it so.  Neither will them having a leader who says "hey, let's be friends with the US for while and see how that goes."

Actually, there is some history to back up my theory.  Clinton tried such an approach with the Palestinians.  He convinced Israel to 'back down,' and got the Palestinian leadership to soften up on their rhetoric.  Many thought he was on the right track for dealing with that particular problem.  Later, in several interviews, he basically said he was wrong to be so naive about the whole thing. This "moderation" approach did not work.  Clinton was right to try it, I suppose.


That's a mighty big gamble with other people's lives.  True, everyone can change.  I'll believe that until I die.  But, that change has to come from within AND there will be a period of distrust.  Pretty much the only BIG point I am trying to get across is that you/we cannot simply snap our fingers and expect the "Iranian problem" to go away.  This is not a 1-hr TV show or a 2-hr movie.  It will take a generation, perhaps more, for a real friendship to develop from the time it starts.  That's 20 years, minimum.

And now, just as an exercise, can you cite ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of diplomacy settling an international dispute for the long term?  In all of human history, is there ONE TIME that enemy nations have just "become friends"?

More news about the announcement and 10 day celebration.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070202/D8N18AL80.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070202/D8N18AL80.html)

Ulthar, I heard the same Glenn Beck program last Friday, I don't know if that where your info came from but it did ring bells. The numbers I remember him using were that Iran's profitability depended on crude prices staying above $48 dollars a barrel.

He also said the contract prices Chavez was trying to lock in was based on $60 a barrel. Maybe I have my numbers reversed of what he said (but I doubt it), or maybe Beck did if your numbers come from a different source. He came off as very Pollyannaish when I was listening to him that day. Just my opinion though.

I agree it's soon to make the blip or trend call, I was probably jumping the gun. But after the enthusiasm of the radio goofball, I thought it was funny that then there was a rise in crude oil prices since he seemed to be talking about the Saudis refusing hold a special meeting to cut production as requested, yet he made no mention of those previously announced Feb. production cuts which I had read and heard about from several news sources.

Gas prices had been falling very quickly here also (the price was $1.92 at most places I saw at the lowest point), about two or three cents every other day until late last week. They jumped a dime over the weekend, and have begun to inch up a few cents at some places since ($2.03 most places, $2.06 last night at some others). Maybe it's localized, but gas price changes here tend to lag behind other parts of the country in my experience. 

Serves me right for listening to talk radio (of any stripe) in the first place.

I'm not sure if I quoted the number right; I did not write them down as I was driving.  It was something like Iran needed $50+ per barrel to be solvent, and Chavez was seeking contracts at $60+ per barrel.  If that's not what I wrote above, I may have MEANT to type that and mistyped.

Anyway, you point out the fundamental flaw in theories of this kind (and it is not unlike the whole Global Warming idea in a way).  That is, a short term trend is observed and then extrapolated into a long term trend WITH CAUSATION.   It's a house of cards; the whole theory hinges on a "what if."  If we enter into a two month period of rising gas prices, this particular theory is obviously bunk.  That's okay, though.  In science (not that this is science), we formulate theories based on the data we have; when new, presumably better, data arrives, incorrect theories get thrown out.

For the moment, though, it seemed like an interesting idea to ponder.  In answer to the question "what do we do about Iran?" that started this thread, I think "crush them economically" is not a bad approach; I don't, however, think that can be done effectively with "sanctions."

Your earlier post had the numbers different from what I thought I had Herod but I didn't want to accuse anyone on here of anything, to keep things civil, unless I could prove it with transcripts of Beck's show or other credible info since I knew it was a possibility I was the one who had his numbers backward. I didn't think I did since $50 a barrel seemed low for Chavez to set a contract price. Kind of shooting robbing himself unless he knew prices were going to drop waaaay below that sometime soon.

I read a Tom Friedman column the other day where he mentioned the economic collapse of Iran as a possibility due to falling oil prices and internal strife due to political unrest (Ahmadinejad's recent political setbacks in elections), high inflation and unemployment, and economic embargoes of goods. No mention of Saudi manipulation of oil prices or Iran's lack of gasoline refining capacity. He was drawing parallels to the Soviet collapse, laying it at the feet of cheap oil in the 80s, the Soviets' inability to cut spending when revenue dried up, and rising fuel efficiency standards in the US, rather than the diplomatic and strategic efforts of Ronald Reagan. To me, it all seemed a strange stance to take considering Friedman (among others on all sides of the political spectrum in the US) has been advocating a gas tax for some time to keep the price high to spur our development of alternative fuel sources and curbing oil use. Maybe he was just kicking around the idea publicly also, or maybe he's having second thoughts.

It is an interesting idea, but I'm mostly a cynic concerning world affairs. And since Beck stopped just short of blurting out "The Saudis are finally growing a spine!!!" when he was so excited over the idea that morning, I'm taking the whole thing with lots of salt.

You are talking about what I wrote here:


Yep.  I commuted those numbers.  Iran needs the $50, Chavez was seeking the $60.  That's the kinda thing I rarely catch on proofreading.

Sorry.


Well, for my part, I can easily buy the economic collapse of Iran also, but *do* have a hard time with the complicit Saudi part.  Is there ANY history of them being really all that helpful to us, in anything?  Didn't they give us a hard time about bases during the Gulf War?

Yeah, the House of Saud is really good at playing off all sides to protect themselves, Yojimbo and the Man with No Name have nothing on them.

Giving money to Islamic fundamentalists to fund madrasas, while claiming to be an ally in the War on Terror. And most of the 9/11 hijackers being Saudi citizens.

Claiming to have total religious freedom for its citizens, while also arguing there just "happen" to be no non-Muslim citizens within its borders.

Building those base facilities you mentioned then arguing up and down that they absolutely opposed any long-term US troop presence.

Depending on the US to defend it against Iraq after the Kuwait invasion, yet not allowing alcohol on US bases. This despite being hypocrites concerning their own behavior in private and when away from their home turf. 

I used to love those expensive multi-page image bolstering PR campaigns/advertisements in the various newsweeklies singing their own praises and their long "partnership" with the US.

I've often wondered about Syria and the role that country plays in Middle East affairs.

I don't know much about Syria...but the young people in the video included with the article below can maybe help shed some light.
READ THIS (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2849803&page=1)
(be sure to watch the video)

Iran test fires new Russian missle system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070207/wl_mideast_afp/iranmilitarydefence_070207142907 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070207/wl_mideast_afp/iranmilitarydefence_070207142907)

Isreal and Lebenon exchange fire today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_lebanon (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_lebanon)

Iran and N. Korea seem to just want something and they think they will get it if they go nuclear. Today more news promised.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070211/wl_afp/irannuclearpolitics_070211100619 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070211/wl_afp/irannuclearpolitics_070211100619)

North Korea dis-armament?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear)

I'll believe it when there are actual inspectors on the ground, with the freedom to go where they want.  When Lybia disarmed, Qaddaffi led the US & Britian to all of his WMD programs, whereas Saddam just kept playing games.  I want verification, but I hope L'il Kim is sincere and there is no violence (it really sucks for the North Korean people, but a war would be real disasterous.)

Yep, we'll wait and see. They may just be buying time as they know Iran is about to go down and they don't want to join them yet.

I think that we don't have to worry about neither of them. So they are building nuclear weapons, big deal. India and Pakistan already have them, England has them, Russia and U.S.A have them, China has nuclear weapons too, and I'm pretty sure that we Finnish are hiding ours, but we have one. All the craziest nations on earth have nuclear bombs, what difference does it make if a few more lunatics join the crowd. The more, the merrier, eh?

U.S. building up forces on border?

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html)

Large military excercises in the Gulf.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454188.0319444444.html (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454188.0319444444.html)

Hmmm, I just noticed this post.


Because of all those countries mentioned, exactly none of them have an official policy of anilating "non-believers" of their state sponsored religion.  Each of those countries listed has their own problems and can be criticized for various things, but they are not actively engaged in imperialism.  I'm not sure the same is true of Iran and North Korea.

There are lunatics that make interesting conversation and then there are lunatics that are dangerous to others.

In other words, of all the countries mentioned, none are USING nukes; Iran and N. Korea seem to want them for other purposes than to just say they have them.

Food for thought, as they say.