SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#1
how many people here think war goes beyond the scope of the term "serious consequences"?

keep in mind the nations who are holding back on the us signed a resolution in november demanding full cooperation from iraq and full disarmament to avoid "serious consequences"

ill quote neal boortz on this

"like what? super double secret probation"
 
May 12, 2002
3,583
101
0
GoProGraphics.com
#2
LMAO "like what? super double secret probation"

I think War is the worst. I think its all about trying to turn the Arab nations into new United States. Theres a lot of people there that arent owned by us yet, and by promoting our democracy there... well we'll be that much closer to officially owning/running the entire world.

Im totally against Globalization.

To get back to the topic, i think the consequenses are far down the line when we see that the world is now watched by spy's above. Controlling our money on plastic. Keeping exact records on chips; even putting chips in people. The world will become ONE-OPINION. Fuck that, we have to stop it now.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#3
your response to my question has absolutely nothing to do with what i asked. lol

how many people here think war goes beyond the scope of the term "serious consequences"?

do you really think those countries intended on anything less when it said those two words?
 
Oct 3, 2002
266
0
0
46
www.beat-tech.com
#4
Those countries feel that weapons inspections work and Iraq is cooperating to a satisfactory degree where mass killing and destruction isn't needed and weapons inspections should be able to continue without the use of violence. Remember weapons inspector's can go anywhere at anytime to search for weapons of mass destruction and I applaud these countries for going against the Bush administration and supporting a peaceful solution instead of immediate war consequences…
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#9
they are currently destroying weapons that they didnt admit to having until they were found. there is still no accounting for documented vx gases, anthrax and other weapons saddam has admitted to having in the past. you can make excuses all you want. your hero saddam is going down.
 
Oct 3, 2002
266
0
0
46
www.beat-tech.com
#10
Saddam is no hero of mine, I just believe there are better ways of solving this bullshit issue than war... Furthermore, Newsweek has reported that Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect and Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, told the United Nations, the CIA and Britain's MI-6 in 1995 that Iraq destroyed all of its chemical and biological stocks, as well as the missiles to deliver them, in 1991.

Yet the U.N. arms inspectors, the CIA and MI-6 chose to keep that secret. If it's true — and there's no reason to believe it isn't — then it's pretty hard evidence that the Bush administration is lying through its teeth when it keeps insisting that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It also bolsters the credibility of former chief arms inspector Scott Ritter, who has likewise insisted that Iraq's weapons were destroyed. For that matter, it bolsters the credibility of the Iraqi government, which insists it no longer has any weapons of mass destruction.

You might recall that Kamel defected to Jordan and about six months later made the mistake of returning to Iraq, where he was killed. This coming war with Iraq gets murkier and murkier. Let's see if we can sort it out.

First, we have a chief executive so naive about the world outside of Texas, he probably couldn't find a lot of countries on a map. Second, he has surrounded himself with American Likudniks — supporters of Israel's right-wing government. Even The Washington Post reported recently what I've been saying for months: that Bush's policy is identical to that of Ariel Sharon's, the Israeli prime minister. I've said that Bush has been acting like Sharon's puppet; The Washington Post story quoted a U.S. official as saying Sharon has "played Bush like a violin."

The Israelis have long feared Iraq, Iran and North Korea (because they fear it will sell missiles to Iran). What a coincidence that those three countries are Bush's "axis of evil."

Before Bush's election, Dick Cheney (now vice president), John Bolton (now undersecretary of state for arms control), Douglas Feith (now third-highest-ranking official in the Defense Department), Richard Perle (now chairman of the Defense Policy Board) and James Woolsey (former CIA director) all had one thing in common: They served as advisers to the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. This is according to an article that appeared in the magazine The Nation. Bush recently appointed as director of Middle Eastern affairs for the National Security Council Elliott Abrams, a protégé of Perle and a man convicted of lying to Congress during the Iran-Contra affair.

In 1996, according to an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Perle, Feith and David Wurmser, now an assistant to Bolton, wrote a policy proposal for Benjamin Netanyahu, then Israel's prime minister. Included in their advice were tips on how to manipulate the American government (OK, even the Haaretz reporter says the report comes "dangerously close" to dual loyalty) and advice to drop the peace plan, drop the idea of land for peace and concentrate on toppling Saddam Hussein and eventually replacing other Middle Eastern governments in order to create a safe environment for Israel.

There's your explanation for the war. When sons and daughters come home in body bags or maimed, those are the people you can blame. Others in this group — who formed an outfit called the Project for the New American Century in 1997 that also called for toppling Saddam — include, in addition to most of those named above, Donald Rumsfeld; William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's No. 2 guy; William Bennett, the best the neocons can do for an intellectual; Richard Armitage, now Colin Powell's deputy; Zalmay Khalilzad, now ambassador to Afghanistan; and others.

If you watch the silly cable-news shows, you will recognize many of these names as part of the parade of "experts" in favor of war with Iraq. The American people are being played for suckers. Their sons and daughters will be cannon fodder in a war that might benefit a foreign country but will greatly damage the interests of our own.
 
May 12, 2002
3,583
101
0
GoProGraphics.com
#11
I guess i still dont exactly understand the question cause im still gonna say...

the consequenses are far down the line when we see that the world is now watched by spy's above. Controlling our money on plastic. Keeping exact records on chips; even putting chips in people. The world will become ONE-OPINION.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#12
blight, what do you think those countries thought serious consequences were? are you that naive to say that war wasnt what they thought was meant by that?
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
49
#13
ReservoirDog said:
Saddam is no hero of mine, I just believe there are better ways of solving this bullshit issue than war... Furthermore, Newsweek has reported that Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect and Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, told the United Nations, the CIA and Britain's MI-6 in 1995 that Iraq destroyed all of its chemical and biological stocks, as well as the missiles to deliver them, in 1991.
are you sure you read that right, because from what i heard Hussein Kamal defected to jordan, told the UN inspectors about alote of banned weapons that Sadam had. then he was lured back to Iraq by Sadam telling him that he had no grudge against him, and then once he returned, he KILLED him.

that is what i heard
 
May 12, 2002
3,583
101
0
GoProGraphics.com
#15
Oh, i got ya, lol.

ITS TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE IT SEEM YOU DIDNT KNOW "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" DOESNT INCLUDE WAR. Its most definetely they knew, but they dont have to tell ya that. For instance like this new case (i think its HR 206) for scheduling ProHormones, the wording can ultimately lead to things precursors to them, even precursors to precursors of Testosterone. Its all in the wording. If your not SPECIFIC it can be taken any other way somone wants. ANY LAWER WOULD AGREE.
 
May 12, 2002
3,583
101
0
GoProGraphics.com
#17
You have to. Is it isnt specific, whos to say. Thats how we get some current laws today the way they are. Its how its interpreted. If i can be confronted with an apeal to force such as this: "You do what i say or there will be serious concequences" I first think of OH IMMA GET MY ASS BEAT! but it could mean IMMA GET MY BED SHITTED IN! it could mean IMMA GET MY WINDOWS SMASHED IN!

the text is so vague. even tho weve been hearing the president bark war for so long, its not defienate that its what a serious concequence is.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#18
im asking YOU blight, what YOU think THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES THOUGHT serious consequences were. (im having bill clinton flashbacks here with all this hair splitting on the definition)