Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2014, 08:14:12 AM
536529 Posts in 40600 Topics by 5105 Members
Latest Member: MRIF
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Best Way To Deal With Iran & N. Korea? « previous next »
Poll
Question: Best Way To Deal With Iran & N. Korea?
Flower Power - 0 (0%)
They Have The Right To Nuclear Arms - 3 (17.6%)
Economic Sanctions - 0 (0%)
Diplomacy - 1 (5.9%)
Let The U.N. Take Care Of It - 0 (0%)
Bomb Iran - 0 (0%)
Bomb N. Korea - 0 (0%)
Bomb Both Iran & N. Korea - 2 (11.8%)
Let Isreal Take Care Of Iran - 0 (0%)
Russia Is A Greater Threat - 0 (0%)
China Is A Greater Threat - 0 (0%)
One World Goverment - 2 (11.8%)
Total War: Let God Sort Out The Dead - 1 (5.9%)
All Options Stink - 8 (47.1%)
Assassinate Kim Jong Il - 0 (0%)
Assassinate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & Mullahs - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 17

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Best Way To Deal With Iran & N. Korea?  (Read 11415 times)
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 185
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2007, 09:00:28 PM »

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.
Logged

Acidburn
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 4
Posts: 201


When I was your age, television was called Books!


« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2007, 02:09:17 PM »

Mix
1 big block velveeta cheese
1 can rotell tomato sauce
2lb hamburger meat
Then microwave
Logged

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The flowers are still standing...
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 185
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2007, 02:55:19 PM »

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
Logged

Yaddo 42
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 152
Posts: 1630


Where's that brick.......


« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2007, 06:11:40 AM »

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.
Logged

blah blah stuff blah blah obscure pop culture reference blah blah clever turn of phrase blah blah bad pun blah blah bad link blah blah zzzz.....
Ash
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 6612


14 Year Badmovies.org Veteran


« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2007, 08:10:17 AM »

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 and 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.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 08:20:32 AM by Ashthecat » Logged
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2007, 08:35:33 AM »


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


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.

Quote

I have no problem with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
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" and so on...


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.

Quote

It's pretty much unanimous that the U.S. and Israel won't use nuclear weapons.


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.

Quote

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


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.
Logged

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

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2007, 08:44:46 AM »


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.



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.
Logged

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

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Ash
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 6612


14 Year Badmovies.org Veteran


« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2007, 09:11:25 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 09:20:22 AM by Ashthecat » Logged
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2007, 09:40:11 AM »

I swear ulthar...you live to contradict me.  Wink

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


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

Quote

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)


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).

Quote

I reiterate my point that we should be friends with the Iranian people.


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.

Quote

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.


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.

Quote

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


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"?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 02:03:37 PM by ulthar » Logged

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

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 185
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2007, 09:12:05 PM »

More news about the announcement and 10 day celebration.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070202/D8N18AL80.html
Logged

Yaddo 42
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 152
Posts: 1630


Where's that brick.......


« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2007, 08:18:33 AM »

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.
Logged

blah blah stuff blah blah obscure pop culture reference blah blah clever turn of phrase blah blah bad pun blah blah bad link blah blah zzzz.....
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 03, 2007, 08:39:54 AM »


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.


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."
Logged

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

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Yaddo 42
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 152
Posts: 1630


Where's that brick.......


« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2007, 07:36:00 AM »

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.
Logged

blah blah stuff blah blah obscure pop culture reference blah blah clever turn of phrase blah blah bad pun blah blah bad link blah blah zzzz.....
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2007, 08:10:31 AM »

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.

You are talking about what I wrote here:

Quote from: ulthar
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.

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.

Quote from: Yaddo 42
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.

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?
Logged

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

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Yaddo 42
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 152
Posts: 1630


Where's that brick.......


« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2007, 08:54:55 AM »

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.
Logged

blah blah stuff blah blah obscure pop culture reference blah blah clever turn of phrase blah blah bad pun blah blah bad link blah blah zzzz.....
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Best Way To Deal With Iran & N. Korea? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.