The Hit List

[ordos45]

I was joking around on AIM, and sent someone a bogus link on the U.S. declaring war on Iran. They thought it was real until they clicked it. That got me to thinking, the "Axis of Evil" isn't a list of just countries. It is a Hit List of countries. One down, two to go. North Korea we're supposedly revealing plans to take down its government, and during the best talks with Iran since the hostage situation in Tehran, we break them off.

So, list of evil countries, or hit list, which do you think?

[Navaros]

USA's Hit List is any country which has lots of Oil that can be plundered for USA's Big Oil Companies.

Next on the Hit List: Syria

[Gobalopper]

Syria doesn't have a lot of oil... in fact Iraq was illegaly pumping oil to Syria before the war.

"With proven oil reserves expected to last only about 10 more years and a population growing at 2.5% per year, Syria may become a net importer of oil within the next decade. Thus, the exploration for oil and natural gas is a top priority in Syria."

Syria isn't even shown on that list of oil producing countries.

And the question who ask is a little odd Ordos. I would say both a list of enemies and a hit list although I doubt the "hit" is going to happen the same way the Iraq war did. Iran is more likely to change do to internal factors and North Korea is more likely to starve before attacking the US.

[SurlyPIG]

Why do they have Abu Dhabi on that list? I thought that was a city, the capital of the UAE or something.

Recent foreign policy with both Iran and North Korea has given rise to concessions of cooperation from both countries. I wonder why that is? :O

[Gobalopper]

Not sure, UAE isn't very big though so they might have just listed the capital instead. The image is from a listing of the top oil producing countries and the export/import amounts.

[Egeides]

The control od Middle East is a strategical asset. I dunno what's the next country on the list, but it's not only about oil. Oil is one thing, and there are a bunch of factors such as public image, control over territory, etc etc. I dunno Syria alot, so I wouldn't get into it really, but not only oil exists.

[zamboe]

The control od Middle East is a strategical asset. I dunno what's the next country on the list, but it's not only about oil. Oil is one thing, and there are a bunch of factors such as public image, control over territory, etc etc. I dunno Syria alot, so I wouldn't get into it really, but not only oil exists.

Don't forget Israel...

[SurlyPIG]

There was no oil in Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda...

Not a hit list, just bad foreign policy.

[TMA_1]

this is why I sometimes wish that they would drill in alaska. the attack against the idea is way over dramatized. In the end though the best thing to do is to slowly switch from oils to things like natural gas and then to new and cleaner things.

but right now we need to get the oil companies off of our backs. they hold way too much influence in politics in america

[Egeides]

Well, would it mean that because once it's for oil they have to go only when there's some oil? Nope... There's public image (espescially when NATO's utility is questioned), there's diamonds, there's strategic interests (so that some day you can move things your way), there's public that yelled so much time that you FINALLY decide you go and "save the situation" after that 1/2 de population was killed... by M16 sent through a political alliance made a few years before (Suharto's Indonesia. Besides, they only threw Suharto out and kept his generals, which are now doing big damage in Papouasia).

Remember the colonisation? Well it was doing about the same, and the people DID NOT KNEW ABOUT IT BY THE "FREE" MEDIAS (corporate medias are in a biased position).

Oh, and let's talk about Kosovo. USA's generals said that attacking would make MORE people die because it would bring Milosevic to oppress more. They said this before the attacks, and it was confirm that Milosevic intensified. But what did they said on the news? "We will make so that less people will die."

[SurlyPIG]

LOL. Would you rather have a slower drain until you bleed to death or a quick cut and bandage?

The UN gave Kosovo a shot. The peacekeepers failed miserably. The violence intensified while the peacekeepers were there because of their never-never policy. The fighting only ended when NATO started its air strikes, and because of that, and only that, the region is now peaceful.

I am literally astounded that you hate the US this much Egedeis. To actually suggest that they participate in well-intentioned wars to throw off accusations about other ones is the most absurd thing I've heard in months. Maybe when you let go of your ritualistic, presumptious, prejudicial hatred, you'll actually make some constructive posts in these kinds of threads...

[zamboe]

"To actually suggest that they participate in well-intentioned wars to throw off accusations about other ones is the most absurd thing I've heard in months."

Do you actually know or have a simple idea what the US-foreing policy- have done in South/Central America in the past ?, if you ever get some info from that events you

[ordos45]

I'd have to agree with Zamboe on that, part of my final six weeks grade in Spanish I was to watch videos on our intervention. (Think, if Fidel dies we'll be able to use the Platt Ammendment in Cuba again.)

[Egeides]

LOL. Would you rather have a slower drain until you bleed to death or a quick cut and bandage?

The UN gave Kosovo a shot. The peacekeepers failed miserably. The violence intensified while the peacekeepers were there because of their never-never policy. The fighting only ended when NATO started its air strikes, and because of that, and only that, the region is now peaceful.

I am literally astounded that you hate the US this much Egedeis. To actually suggest that they participate in well-intentioned wars to throw off accusations about other ones is the most absurd thing I've heard in months. Maybe when you let go of your ritualistic, presumptious, prejudicial hatred, you'll actually make some constructive posts in these kinds of threads...

It's nice to see your presumptions about my feeling, but actually if I have such feelings (which some say are normal for humans, but I), then I could say I have arguments and these are what's BRINGING THESE FEELINGS. Personally, I believe hate is not the goal; changing things and being concious of them is.

Now about my "presumptions" (should it be such or not), well it's based on the diplomatic tensions that existed at the time and I proposed it as an hypothesis, not as a conclusion. And it's probably not only one thing, as usual.

Besides, the region is NOT PEACEFUL now. DynCorp, the company that got the contract from USA, is reputated in this country to do nothing but receiving the funds. Its people is also implicated in local crime (sexual, espescially). They were no better in South America, where they killed children and animals by throwing "anti-coca chemicals" on people (they're reputated to be cow boy)

About Kosovo again, I wasn't talking about a slow bleed. I was saying that GLOBALLY, they thought it would be worst. Not only when the strike comes. On total.

PS: ACE, from someone's ideological referencial, there is nothing surprising to see an administration acting incorrectly if it is considered corrupted. If it's corrupted, it'll act differently everywhere it can.

[SurlyPIG]

It's nice to see your presumptions about my feeling, but actually if I have such feelings (which some say are normal for humans, but I), then I could say I have arguments and these are what's BRINGING THESE FEELINGS. Personally, I believe hate is not the goal; changing things and being concious of them is.

Fat chance. You've already decided that corruption has motivated any decision the US makes before you've looked at all possible reasoning behind their decisions. You automatically jump to the paranoid conclusion, while ignoring all other logical means of explanation. Hell, you even said so:

PS: ACE, from someone's ideological referencial, there is nothing surprising to see an administration acting incorrectly if it is considered corrupted. If it's corrupted, it'll act differently everywhere it can.

Now about my "presumptions" (should it be such or not), well it's based on the diplomatic tensions that existed at the time and I proposed it as an hypothesis, not as a conclusion. And it's probably not only one thing, as usual.

Hypothetical? That's a joke. I've never once heard you postulate anything other than the US is full of fraudulent, oil-stealing, lying, murderous yuppies. Here's a hypothesis for you; maybe it's not.

Besides, the region is NOT PEACEFUL now. DynCorp, the company that got the contract from USA, is reputated in this country to do nothing but receiving the funds. Its people is also implicated in local crime (sexual, espescially). They were no better in South America, where they killed children and animals by throwing "anti-coca chemicals" on people (they're reputated to be cow boy)

Yes yes I'm sure that Americans only wanted to rape the and murder them. ::) Give me a freaking break. No region in the world is completely peaceful. I was referring to the fact that there is no longer organized war in the region, thanks to NATO.

About Kosovo again, I wasn't talking about a slow bleed. I was saying that GLOBALLY, they thought it would be worst. Not only when the strike comes. On total.

And they were wrong. Just like the UN was wrong when it said that 500,000 Iraqi civillians would die in any US-lead war. They were just plain wrong.

[Egeides]

Fat chance.