It's official.There are no WMDs.

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

Originally posted by freakray


Really You're kidding right?

Whatever made you think that?

It's about time more people started to realise this

Well it had to be said no one else has said it or am I 4 weeks late as per usual when it comes to off-topic

as for burying weapons in the desert it would make the US and UK look bad when they can't find any

[Pick]

Originally posted by freakray


Really You're kidding right?

Whatever made you think that?

It's about time more people started to realise this

That's a crock of horseshit. His father could have very easily gotten rid of Saddam, but chose to leave him in power for the sake of the people and to appease the U.N. W. Bush is just doing HIS damn job as president and getting rid of a tyrannical bitch ruler.

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick


That's a crock of horseshit. His father could have very easily gotten rid of Saddam, but chose to leave him in power for the sake of the people and to appease the U.N. W. Bush is just doing HIS damn job as president and getting rid of a tyrannical bitch ruler.

:thumbup:

If that's the case, I guess Zimbabwe is next....then the DRC.....or are you going to tell me Mugabe and Joseph Kabila aren't tyrants?

[Pick]

Originally posted by freakray


:thumbup:

If that's the case, I guess Zimbabwe is next....then the DRC.....or are you going to tell me Mugabe and Joseph Kabila aren't tyrants?

Well, considerring that the cold war is over, they might be somewhere down the line. As of now, they aren't harboring Al-Quieda and have WMD's.

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick


As of now, they aren't harboring Al-Quieda and have WMD's.

Can you prove that?

Can you even pick them out on a world map without having to look at the map index?

[Pick]

Originally posted by freakray


Can you prove that?

Can you even pick them out on a world map without having to look at the map index?

Yes, I can point out whre these countries are.


The proof is heresay, just as the proof that this war was for oil, and that Bush is finishing his Daddy's job. I have seen a basis of fact for both of my arguments and you can take my word for it. If not, I'll look for a link.

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick


Yes, I can point out whre these countries are.


The proof is heresay, just as the proof that this war was for oil, and that Bush is finishing his Daddy's job. I have seen a basis of fact for both of my arguments and you can take my word for it. If not, I'll look for a link.

Is this proof pre-"war"?
There was a load of propoganda prior to the war about why the war should happen, but there was never any hard evidence presented.

Your proof the DRC or Zimbabwe don't have Al-Qaeda in their country or WMD's is heresay? Who's? Their's?
Saddam said he didn't have either but because George said they did America went to war.
We already know there needs to be no proof, only heresay, and G.W will invade, I mean liberate, the country.
Maybe he isn't interested in Zim or the DRC because they don't have any minerals or wealth that interest him?

[Pick]

I posted in another topic, but here's some more about Saddam's WMD's:

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=245

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick
I posted in another topic, but here's some more about Saddam's WMD's:

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=245

Comments from a pissed off body guard.....no name even....wow....very conclusive.....

[Pick]

Originally posted by freakray


Comments from a pissed off body guard.....no name even....wow....very conclusive.....

Why would he give his name? This was before the war and Sadam would have had him killed. And this is still evidence.

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick


Why would he give his name? This was before the war and Sadam would have had him killed. And this is still evidence.

So wouldn't it stand to reason that if he is that scared of Saddam, and he knows G.W will get of Saddam, so he wouldn't have to be scared of him anymore, wouldn't it then stand to reason that he may have lied in the interview in this hope of being rid of Saddam if his words lead to war?

It's the same as somebody lieing to the police to get out of a situation....a plea bargain almost......

[Pick]

Originally posted by freakray


So wouldn't it stand to reason that if he is that scared of Saddam, and he knows G.W will get of Saddam, so he wouldn't have to be scared of him anymore, wouldn't it then stand to reason that he may have lied in the interview in this hope of being rid of Saddam if his words lead to war?

It's the same as somebody lieing to the police to get out of a situation....a plea bargain almost......

I still have tangible evidence and you don't.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Pick


I still have tangible evidence and you don't.

You call that tangible evidence?I've seen more credible 'evidence' from paranoid schitzophrenics.It reads like utter and complete fantasy.No wonder this alleged bodyguard has not shown up on any of the more credible news sources.

You are clutching at straws Pick,THERE ARE NO WMD'S.

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick


I still have tangible evidence and you don't.

Hmmm......lets see now.....how would I pull a non-existand WMD out of my magic hat to prove it doesn't exist?
Well, if it existed, I would be able to show it to you......

You call the words of a scared man 'tangible evidence'?

[Shortbus]

We all know he has possesed and used them in the past. So I think it is relatively safe to say he still had them in his possesion at least up until the threat of war became imminent. Saddam is not stupid, and with the money seized from his regime shows he definately had the bank to move those weapons around. Or worse the money is from the sales of WMD to other countries and terror cells and that is why we are finding millions of dollars, and the most recent discovery of 500mil in gold bars.