WP: Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'

[Bang]

There are two guys in the picture. One of them is a despot who controls a majority percentage of the world's oil. The other aspires to that. You asked if I was prepared to allow despots to control the world's oil supply. The answer is that they already do.

Well, it seems at least one of us thinks you're clever.

It is difficult at best to take you seriously.

~Bang

[TradeTheBeal!]

Well, it seems at least one of us thinks you're clever.

It is difficult at best to take you seriously.

~Bang

Would you take me more seriously if I responded in cartoon form?

[Mad Mike]

Would you take me more seriously if I responded in cartoon form?

I cant speak for Bang, but I would take you seriously if you started making intelligent posts and stopped sharing views that sound like they come from a comic book.

[Bang]

Would you take me more seriously if I responded in cartoon form?

I would take you seriously if your posts consisted of more than smarmy single line messages that really don't mean anything.

If you have the ability to make a cartoon, go for it. Maybe it will give a little more insight into your opinions and thoughts than the usual attempts you try here.

My money is you don't have the ability to make said cartoon, so once again the last post falls into the smarmy meaningless one-liner category.

But by all means. Give it a try. Let's see what you can do.

~Bang

[Koolblue13]

There are two guys in the picture. One of them is a despot who controls a majority percentage of the world's oil. The other aspires to that. You asked if I was prepared to allow despots to control the world's oil supply. The answer is that they already do.

I got it, usually do and find your one liners to be whitty, although we are usually in agrement.

[Bang]

I got it, too. I didn't think it was a very good answer to the questions posed.

Unless, by putting this photo up there I am to assume Boyd believes that if hard line fundamentalist Taliban-like regimes proliferate across the Middle East like the extremists want, that the oil market would not change. That Bush and Bandar in this photo represent two despots currently in control of the oil, and that should the extremists come to power across the region and impose their 12th century ways, that it would be business as usual, no different than it is now.

Frankly, if that is the case I would find that to be laughably naive, and once again that brings me back to how difficult it is to take seriously.

~Bang

[TradeTheBeal!]

I would take you seriously if your posts consisted of more than smarmy single line messages that really don't mean anything.

If you have the ability to make a cartoon, go for it. Maybe it will give a little more insight into your opinions and thoughts than the usual attempts you try here.

My money is you don't have the ability to make said cartoon, so once again the last post falls into the smarmy meaningless one-liner category.

But by all means. Give it a try. Let's see what you can do.

~Bang

Only if I get paid for it!

[Koolblue13]

I got it, too. I didn't think it was a very good answer to the questions posed.

Unless, by putting this photo up there I am to assume Boyd believes that if hard line fundamentalist Taliban-like regimes proliferate across the Middle East like the extremists want, that the oil market would not change. That Bush and Bandar in this photo represent two despots currently in control of the oil, and that should the extremists come to power across the region and impose their 12th century ways, that it would be business as usual, no different than it is now.

Frankly, if that is the case I would find that to be laughably naive, and once again that brings me back to how difficult it is to take seriously.

~Bang

Bang, I don't think you ever answered my question. If we we're able to get off the oil or at least used so little another, non ME country, and had no ties to the ME in any way, nor did any of our european allies, would they get strong and be dangerous to our homeland or do you think they would struggle financially and when the people got tired of it, they would ask us for help?

And at the same time, if we we're able to cut financial ties with China, who has said they will continue to fund Iran and such, as they see fit, and have some other countries, maybe South American or African make all of our things, we could hold enough of those cards, to make sure we have some say in what China does and cut them off as well as our allies doing the same, that we would still have war and fear at home?

[Bang]

Bang, I don't think you ever answered my question. If we we're able to get off the oil or at least used so little another, non ME country, and had no ties to the ME in any way, nor did any of our european allies, would they get strong and be dangerous to our homeland or do you think they would struggle financially and when the people got tired of it, they would ask us for help?

And at the same time, if we we're able to cut financial ties with China, who has said they will continue to fund Iran and such, as they see fit, and have some other countries, maybe South American or African make all of our things, we could hold enough of those cards, to make sure we have some say in what China does and cut them off as well as our allies doing the same, that we would still have war and fear at home?

If we were able to get off the oil, I believe we would affect the entire world economy. They would still have customers, but not us. How much that would affect their overall economy, I have no idea. It seems in a lot of those places that so long as the ruling class is rich, they feel the rest of the people can go **** in a hat.

If somehow oil were made much less critical worldwide by whatever we develop, the ME would be in danger of economic collapse, unless they could export something else that they have in such abundance and can command a price.

At that point, I'd say we'd help many of the ME nations, cause that is what we do, and we have pretty good ties with most ME nations. And if their economy collapsed, of course there would be a very vocal segment of the populace that violently will blame us for not needing their product anymore. It's the way it is with the extremists. EVERYTHING is our fault, and that would be no different.

(I'll say right out,, economics is REALLY not my area.)

I'd love to find a way to get off the oil, but since we haven't yet, it's still just a dream. Thankfully we've finally decided that we'd better do it, after a few decades of warning signs.

As far as extricating ourselves from China financiallyto prevent them from funding Iran, if the Iranian people use their system and vote the bums out, so to speak I don't see China funding them as a problem. If they're willing to be more moderate, I've no problem with anyone (even us) being their ally.

as far as fear at home,, that one is a bit tougher. there is no doubt that the Bush admin uses fear as a tool. And unfortunately, that opens Pandora's box. However, if the ME were more stable and there weren't daily "Death to America" parades and bombings like there have been for the last 40 years, then folks would probably be less afraid of them.

I'm not for isolationism, i think the world should take steps to moving closer together. We're increasingly a smaller community, and should begin to view ourselves as one.

I'm not yet for a New World Order or anything, because I really don't think we're ready for it, but the fact that all of us affect each other so much more now should begin to lead us down a path of trying to become cooperative.

~Bang

[Koolblue13]

I agree with what your saying. I hope none of my views are looked about as isolationist, I am only against financial ties with people and countries who are against us or places who ahrbor them. My point about China is, the rest of the world has talked about trying to hurt some of the ME countries, financially and such, but we can't do a thing as long as China openly says they will continue to fund or deal with whoever they please and we don't hold any of the cards.

Bang, I'm glad we are on the same page and appologize for thinking you of being in the "they hate us for our freedoms, because we did nothing wrong" group.

[Bang]

I agree with what your saying. I hope none of my views are looked about as isolationist, I am only against financial ties with people and countries who are against us or places who ahrbor them. My point about China is, the rest of the world has talked about trying to hurt some of the ME countries, financially and such, but we can't do a thing as long as China openly says they will continue to fund or deal with whoever they please and we don't hold any of the cards.

Bang, I'm glad we are on the same page and appologize for thinking you of being in the "they hate us for our freedoms, because we did nothing wrong" group.

No apologies necessary,, a good debate is just that, and this is a good one. (I find myself checking this thread all day to see where it goes. :laugh: )

I'm against that, too, but world affairs are indeed a tangled web. I say what I believe in here, but no way do I want to pretend i know the actual ins and outs. There are so many twists and turns that make up relations between nations I wouldn't even know where to begin.

~Bang