Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
You're about as dumbass as they come.
What, you don't have a mirror?
Sitting around endlessly bashing another country's politics in every thread you can. Every single day.
Keeping old threads alive.
Arguing, and always trying to get the last word in.
Quite a life you've got going for yourself there, boy.
This place would be so much better off without Last2stroke
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
If you don't like my posts, don't read them or block them.
Yes, it is true, as demonstrated by the recent Houthi attack. Signaling that maybe our current strategy isn’t having the desired impact. Which was predicted but summarily ignored.
Or I can read them and realize that you are nothing but a google puppet with no thoughts of your own
Actually its even less than 10%. We are an exporter of oil, we have a surplus. While the middle east conflict has increased prices, we will not have fuel shortages in America, we refine all that we need.
The net effect of the conflict in the middle east is that the US producers will increase output due to the price per barrel. Due to the cost of fracking US producers like to see oil above 60 a barrel. If the price drops below that they start capping wells.
It's best that you have a better understanding of how this all works before posting nonsense, .
Are you really that dense?
The US is oil independent. You stated that "everyone get ready for fuel shortages" it's not going to happen as much as you would like it to.
Just wait - as soon as oil prices come back down we'll be hearing from the same people that it's the forbidden fruit of oligarchical oppression.
"The US is oil independent."
Not exactly. We still import almost 40% of the oil we refine here because we can't refine much of the light crude we produce. The vast majority of the oil we import comes from Canada and the idiot in chief has decided to put a tariff on it which we all pay for. The light crude we export goes to places that are able to refine it. It's a great premise for free trade. Most modern states understand that concept, except ours.
I think that depending on your perspective, the US would be far more guilty of what you are describing, don't you?
I mean, what if Iran were to have funded and aided an armed coup of our country and installed a monarch who ran an oppressive dictatorship? Would that qualify?
I'm not justifying all, or even much of, the actions of the current leadership of Iran. But you also shouldn't be viewing everything in a vacuum, either. Our meddling (to be charitable) in their political affairs predates their actions against us by quite a while.
How many bombs or missiles has Iran used inside the actual borders of the United States? How many has the US used inside the borders of Iran?
I think that we can agree that Iran is not a great neighbor and has some real leadership issues, but we shouldn't ignore the steps that got the situation to the state it is in. And putting all of the blame on Iran is convenient, but not historically accurate or honest.
Very well said. Last sentence especially.
The only reason that we use the heavy crude for diesel is due to the refineries in US being built to process them. It is actually easier to make diesel from light crude. The refineries are the problem for Canada in that they won't be able to find enough buyers for their heavy crude to replace the amount of oil that the US purchases from them. That's why the current round of tariffs imposed by both countries does not include oil. Canada cutting off oil export to the US would financially cripple Canada. It's not going to happen as much as you are cheering for it to happen..
"I'm not justifying all, or even much of, the actions of the current leadership of Iran".
That's exactly what you are trying to do.
"I mean, what if Iran were to have funded and aided an armed coup of our country and installed a monarch who ran an oppressive dictatorship? Would that qualify?"
It's obvious that the regime that replaced the Shah is much more oppressive than the Shah ever was, wouldn't you agree?
"How many bombs or missiles has Iran used inside the actual borders of the United States? How many has the US used inside the borders of Iran?' Overly simplistic Straw man argument. If Iran had the capability to attack the US it would have a long time ago.
"I think that we can agree that Iran is not a great neighbor and has some real leadership issues"
Not a good neighbor? How about an evil regime that abuses women, kills those that speak out against the regime, exports terrorism around the world, etc. This has got to be the one of most understated statement's ever.
At this point Iran has shown the world that it is an evil regime hell bent on converting the world to a form of radical Islam. When Iran states death to America and death to Israel they mean it.
You really need a better understanding of who the good guys are and who the bad guys. That's about as simple as I can make it for you.
OH MAN! 😂
Pit Row
He really is.
That particular statement proves it.
The very notion that you think that there are 'good guys' says a lot......
Every nation state or group is a 'bad guy' far more often than they, or their citizenry, like to admit. It simply is what it is.
The regime that replaced the Shah is not a good one. Is it worse than the Shah? Again, depends upon one's perspective, but I think most can agree that the 'regime' before the Shah was better than either of the next two.
There is no straw man argument being made, only an inconvenient truth that causes you cognitive dissonance. That's why you simply can't answer the question in good faith.
I think that if we were in Ukraine's position, I'd be all too happy to bring the world to a screeching halt just to bring up the whole, "we're fighting for our lives while you're all crying about your commute" perspective. Sucks for everyone, but if it drives the world to pressure russia into stopping its terrorist invasion, then they should keep bombing the fuck out of russian oil.
"The regime that replaced the Shah is not a good one. Is it worse than the Shah? Again, depends upon one's perspective, but I think most can agree that the 'regime' before the Shah was better than either of the next two".
What an interesting take. The current Islamic government may not be worse than the previous Iranian government ran by the Shah? I must say your perspective is unbelievably twisted. Under the Shah the people saw a large increase in standard of living even though it was unequal. Shah was far from perfect but life was far better for the Iranian citizens than the current pure evil regime. You must not have seen where the Iranian singer Ahmadi was sentenced to 74 lashes for performing without a habib. The Shah was bad but not that bad.
The previous regime under Mosaddegh dissolved the countries parliament. It was effectively at that time a dictatorship. That dictatorship was courting the USSR. That is the primary reason MI5 and the CIA stepped in to stop the USSR from controlling Iran's oil and expanding it's reach.
The problem with your perspective is in always trying to find the US and it's allies at fault for the ill's of the world. More good has come from America, Canada, England, France, etc. than has bad. Absolutely no good came from the USSR and communism, nor has any good come from radical Islamic governments. That's what I mean when figuring out who the good guys are as compared to the bad guys. That's as simple as I can make it for you.
You can't see the forest through the trees.
You’re still proving my point. You’ve already decided who the 'good guys' are, so anything we do gets justified and anything Iran does becomes 'terrorism'.
I don’t like Iran’s government. The vast majority of Americans don’t. But some Iranians do support it, and from their perspective the U.S. has spent 70+ years interfering in their country, backing their enemies, arming proxies, imposing sanctions, supporting covert operations and using military force.
Iran has absolutely targeted U.S. troops and interests in the Middle East. But Iran has essentially never launched conventional attacks on the U.S. homeland, while U.S. interference in Iran predates the Islamic Republic by decades.
You don’t have to agree with their perspective. But if you’re incapable of even seeing it, then 'we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys' isn’t even remotely a try at honest, objective analysis. It’s just tribalism.
Remember, had the Colonies lost the Revolutionary War they would have been considered traitorous 'terrorists'. From the perspective of the British, they definitely were considered that for a long, long time.
You can go back to the end of WW2 when us, and our allies, began setting up "families", and regimes, in order to exploit the entire region's natural resources for our benefit.
I think we all can agree on that.
The rise of racidal islam is, unfortunately, a testament to that.
And multiple past administration's blunders, and turning a blind eye at opportune times in order to curtail their actions, have led us to the actions that must be taken now.
Nobody wants any of this shit.
But sometimes you just have to square up your shoulders and take care of unfinished business.
Edit:
Point being, radical Islamic extremists should never have been allowed to have developed a nuclear program of any kind.
That should have been stopped before it ever started.
Just one of the many blunders of past administrations.
I agree with most of that, especially the part about going back far enough to understand the context.
Where I might differ is making 'radical Islam' the central explanation. Colonialism, resource exploitation, foreign-backed regimes, Cold War meddling and nationalism all helped (and in many cases still help) shape what comes next.
And radicalization isn’t unique to Islam. Nearly any ideology can become dangerous when it becomes absolutist enough. Religious, communist, fascist, nationalist, whatever. It becomes especially dangerous when it turns into a group identity built around the belief that there are sworn enemies everyone must band together against. It becomes a very dangerous tribalism at that point.
That doesn’t excuse Iran’s current regime. It just means the history is a lot more complicated than 'radical Islam appeared and caused all of this'.
My lord you are insufferable. Your rationalities are beyond ridiculous, you apply no common sense to your argument. Your complete argument is nothing more than liberal mumbo jumbo with absolutely no rational or intellectual thought.
It's really not hard to tell the good guys from the bad. Just look at whether a government tries to lift it's people or tries to keep their people down through force and coercion. Iran has done everything they can to keep their people under control. None of this is arguable accept coming from you.
The only people in Iran that support that government are the Islamic nut jobs that hate any type of free society. Surly you must know this but are arguing in defense of this brutal regime.
"But Iran has essentially never launched conventional attacks on the U.S. homeland"
Only because they can't. They can send in terrorist bombers but as far a conventional attack on the US goes they don't have the capability.
You’re literally doing it again.
I say “try looking at the history from an Iranian perspective” and you hear “Aplman is defending the Iranian regime.”
Understanding someone’s perspective is not agreeing with it.
I don’t dispute that the Iranian government is brutally authoritarian, and I don’t dispute that most Iranians appear to want something different. But your claim that only Islamic nut jobs support it is just something you made up. Surveys consistently find a good sized minority (roughly 15–20% in recent years) who actually do support continuing the Islamic Republic.
And you just moved the goalposts on the homeland issue. I specifically said conventional attack on the U.S. homeland. Your response is, “Yeah, but only because they can’t, and they’d send terrorists.”
Iran absolutely has plotted assassinations and terrorist acts inside the U.S., I’m not denying that. DOJ has prosecuted multiple recent Iranian-directed plots. But a foiled assassination plot is not Iran launching a conventional military attack on the United States.
The larger point remains: you start with “we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys” and then interpret every action through that lens.
That’s exactly the tribalism I was talking about.
It's called common sense of which it appears you have none.
"Common sense” isn’t an argument. It’s what people say when they don’t want to examine their assumptions. The cognitive dissonance is just too strong.
You haven’t rebutted a single thing I said. You’ve just declared 'your side' the good guys and treated any attempt to understand the other side’s perspective as stupidity.
Which, again, is exactly my point......
If only we had a pie chart or graph to clear things up.
Post a reply to: How does this thing in Iran end?