there's a long list of countries we should be going after. shall we proceed in alphabetical order, or shall we start with the ones which have the most oil?
2006-12-30 14:55:50 · 26 answers · asked by AVATARD 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nice question/statement. Hang Bush, Reagan (if he was still alive), Omar al-Bashir, and the list goes on...
Bush - Starting a war based off lies and used a tragic event to support his agenda. Result killed over 50,000 people (not including soldiers of any country) and hundreds of hate crimes worldwide against "Mawzlem Terrorists" for somehow they participate in the violence in Iraq (that's logic) and Sikhs because they wear Turbans (more logic). "Liberates" countries that were in no need of it and ignores countries such as Sudan which needs it badly.
Reagan - Gave Iraq it's Chemical Weapons and urged Iraq into the Iran-Iraq War because he saw it "dangerous" that Muslims were gaining power in Iran.
Omar al-Bashir - The man behind the Darfur genocide. Need I say more?
Why should we hang a man who was just following our orders for the past 30 years?
2006-12-30 15:03:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
In the age of Bush/Cheney the only way to protect yourself from the NeoCon agenda for Dominion is the quick acquisition of Nuclear Weapons. Their arguments for public consumption are deliberately like flypaper or glue, and lead one to epileptic seizures of logic, so your question is most appropriate. While everyone is still debating the merits of these absurd positions on justification, the US now has near total Dominion over the Oil region of the Middle East. I would bet you have it right with the ones with the most Oil! Iran is the only pesky holdout to their plans.
2006-12-30 23:09:27 · answer #2 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Could you be a little more specific.Why do you think we should go after China and a long list of other countries? Is this question a statement or an accusation? Please explain what you are thinking. Explain about the oil also. Please state your position a little more clearly and why you feel the way you do.
2006-12-30 23:07:27 · answer #3 · answered by cathyhewed1946 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Iran or Syria will be next, they have the wrong religion for bush so it would be easy to justify an invasion. I don't think he has the courage to take on Korea or China yet. You must remember that the US hasn't actually won a way since WW2
Hey Reb, the US didn't invade a man, they illegally invaded a country because they didn't like it's leader. It just shows what the US government will do when you have ceased to become useful to them.
2006-12-30 23:02:38 · answer #4 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
we will start with the most oil rich countries and work our way down until we no longer have a dependancy on oil because of alternate fuel sources and by that time we will have troops in every country of the world acting on behalf of the UN. then because of all the people commit acts of "terror" to drive out the occupation a law will be made that we need a mark such as a microchip implanted in our hand or forehead to trace people to make sure they are not terrorists. then the earth will turn into a fascist eutopia.
2006-12-30 23:00:29 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NO! What on earth are you thinking about? What is the need to invade China? Just because a country is starting to developing that does not mean that it is a "threat"!
Instead of thinking about what country to bomb, I think that you should get a life and find a hobbie like "making some new friends".
2006-12-30 23:04:21 · answer #6 · answered by Dont Ask 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
On Fox News last night they reported that China executed an estimated 1700 people in 2005. Sure they have a higher population than us, but not by that much. So sure let's go get them, we can't even subdue the weakest of the Arabic nations, but let's go get China.
2006-12-30 23:06:04 · answer #7 · answered by warlord46750 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should start with the ones that we have a reason to. Oil is a reason. Them threatening us or our allies is a reason. Saddam had both and he was a really bad guy. It was as good a place to pick as any. Too bad we didn't go hard enough to end the problems on the way in.
2006-12-30 23:02:14 · answer #8 · answered by Alex 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i agree with your idea! i think that punishing someone for some crime should not be the death penalty cause none of the human have the right to take away other humans life, this should be decided by God. however if they punished Saddam for killing about 1/4 of a million of his people in 30 years, then who should be punished for killing more than half of a million of the innocent Iraqis in about 4 years???
2006-12-30 23:05:20 · answer #9 · answered by hamsa 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In order to prepare for Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, the Chinese Government massacred 8,000 homeless people so that they could build a stadium.
2006-12-30 23:00:45 · answer #10 · answered by Ashley 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋