and syria ... who is next on our agenda . the usa is doing something that i consider , a plot to controll natural resources with help of israel .... i think in my opinion egypt is next ... sudan if in confilct and israel and the states have power over this part , egypt ill not get it's share of nile water, iraq is bomberd , saudi arabia is under our thumb, so is kuwait and emriates , lebanon issue is nothing but a start to finish off syria and iran ....
what do you think , is it a plot to controll natrual resouerces and egypt is next on the agenda ?
2006-08-20 01:56:20 · 11 answers · asked by interested 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
i do not see why am i called a "fascist pig " anyway , north korea is our enemy too and they are not muslim so there
2006-08-20 02:13:53 · update #1
for oe of the comments : you can controll natural resources by using TATATATAT " DAMS " not soliders
2006-08-20 02:34:29 · update #2
I think what you said has a lot of valid points. However, I don't think natural resources are the primary reason!! I think the primary reason is to satisfy Israel and make its dream of occupying Nile to Tigres River come true. I think it’s a war against Israel's enemy Arabs and Muslims. I think the natural resources thing is a bonus and it’s the engine that can fuel the wars (wars cost money). So if you really think of it!! We are killing Arabs and Muslims + occupying Middle East and handing it to Israel + all expenses paid by Arabs (taking their oil and resources) + employing hundred of thousand of American & Israeli soldiers and training them in the battle field i.e. Practical (not just theory). Sounds good to me…
2006-08-20 02:20:16 · answer #1 · answered by hot_anthony_1982 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Egypt was first on the agenda ... It has already been neutralized from any regional equation with the creation of the state of Israel (4 destructive Wars, a cold-as-ice peace treaty, and USD 2.3 billion of keep your mouth shut aid).
With the current Egyptian government in power .... it is still neutralized, so I don't think it is going to be a target any time soon.
Should the government change ....... then Iran and Syrian may look like chicken feed compared to the current US led war on Islam, Arabs, non-Westerners, Justice (or whatever the hell they are calling current US foreign policy - take your pick)
2006-08-20 14:35:16 · answer #2 · answered by kheyara 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
MadMax, the muse of your question assumes we won't be able to remedy those complications. we do not recognize that yet. it truly is a really complicated difficulty interior the middle East and, for the most area, we've particularly only lately (fairly speaking) gotten heavily in touch. We should not anticipate, only because there aren't any quick or user-friendly recommendations, that it truly is a hopeless difficulty. we've given the people of Iraq a golden danger to verify their destiny as a loose society the position the authorities solutions to the people, particularly than any incorrect way round. enable's wish they don't sqander it.
2016-11-05 05:29:47 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sudan is a hopeless quagmire and the U.S. leaves it alone. We have no compelling interest in it.
Syria and Iran both support terrorism by providing weapons and ordinance. Their stated goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth...it's called genocide.
Egypt and the U.S. are on good terms and have been for many decades. Again, there is no compelling, strategic interest in Egypt. You are very, very foolish to think that we could control the water in the Nile; to do so there would have to be U.S. soldiers placed along both banks of the Nile river to prevent anyone taking the water. We have no interest in trying to control the waters of the Nile, that is a ridiculous idea.
Iraq, in case you missed it, has already been bombed. Iraq was controlled by a cold-blooded murderer who indiscriminately killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons, and thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of his own people simply because they spoke out in opposition to this rabid pig.
Saudi Arabia is far from "being under our thumb". They are an independent & soverign nation. Who, by the way, sends millions of dollars every month in support of Hezbollah and Al Fatah...both terrorist organizations with one goal; to wipe Israel from the face of the earth...it's called genocide.
Kuwait is not under our thumb, but they are overwhelmingly grateful to us for driving a mad pig and his toadies from their country. Remember? Saddam Hussein invaded their country, slaughtered many Kuwatis and looted the country. If they wish to remain friendly with the U.S., a country that drove the Iraqi army from their lands, they are welcome to do so.
The U.S. has no interest in controlling all natural resources but it does have a compelling strategic interest in making sure certain resources, in this case oil, is not interrupted. If it is we will be paying much, much more for a gallon of gasoline. Whether you like it or not, for the time being our country runs on oil, and we need to insure that supply is not hampered.
2006-08-20 02:24:51 · answer #4 · answered by Albannach 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No! I believe it is the evils of Islam perpetrating these activities. Haven't you noticed, with all the world conflicts around the globe, that the opposing enemy is Islam. Doesn't that tell you anything?
Islam has become the common enemy to the world, and then, fascists pigs like yourself, come on here to point fingers at anybody you can, to draw attention away from the real evil, Islam!
2006-08-20 02:09:41 · answer #5 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Uh no. Egypt and the US have descent relations.
Darfur is in the Sudan you don't have to list those separately.
Iran...maybe.
2006-08-20 02:02:28 · answer #6 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes briang that what bush wants u to think to support the ones like him.by the way have u ever asked yourself from where it all begun?this hatered between the arab countryes and the usa?
inform yourself please and then talk about it.and no im not arab i dont even know anyone arab.
and to get to the point: i think siria is next bush wont risk attacking iran without siria off-line.
2006-08-20 02:16:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You sound like a conspiracy theorists to me? Have you heard that it was Clinton who planned the WTC attack because he was angry that Gore lost the election?
2006-08-20 02:04:50 · answer #8 · answered by gtoacp 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, i don't think egypt is next. they would never be able to explain that, they are still trying to explain what's happened so far.
2006-08-20 02:02:29 · answer #9 · answered by anonymous 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no I see no reason for going at egypt
israel worries me though
how can peace come?
2006-08-20 02:04:51 · answer #10 · answered by coogle 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋