Weapons of Mass Destruction - Proof!!!

[cymro1170]

http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/un_proof/

[Macsen]

Waw, mae dail yn rli massif yn Baghdad.

[Dan Dean]

Nath yr hen George W. Bush ddeud ddoe yn y nonsens Sdet of ddi iwniyn bod nhw wedi ffendio "12 Bahlajical Eand Cemicl Prograhms Ahf Wehumsofmassdishrucshun" yn irac.

Pan ath Tony Bliar ddeud rwbath tebyg rhywbryd dolig 'ma, dyma odd ymateb America:

TONY Blair is facing severe embarrassment after the US official running Iraq dismissed his claims that “massive evidence” of weapons programmes had been found in the country as a “red herring”.
Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, has recorded an interview for broadcast this morning, in which he was unaware the claims were from the Prime Minister, when he described them as unfounded and the work of someone trying to undermine the US-led coalition in Iraq.

The humiliation comes at the end of a year when Blair’s claims on Iraqi weapons have consistently hobbled his leadership. Currently on a New Year family break in Egypt, Blair comes back to face publication of Lord Hutton’s report into the circumstances leading to the death of weapons scientist David Kelly.

Odd o'n ffycin amlwg i rhywyn call bod nhw yn deud clwydda or dechra.

[RET79]

Odd o'n ffycin amlwg i rhywyn call bod nhw yn deud clwydda or dechra.

I fi, mae regime change yn ddigon o reswm i fynd i mewn a dyna oedd polisi Bush. Blair wnaeth falu cach am WMD.

Beth bynnag, mae'r WMD mwyaf wedi ei ddal ac mae'r diolch i America a Phrydain am hynny.

[Dan Dean]

Odd o'n ffycin amlwg i rhywyn call bod nhw yn deud clwydda or dechra.

I fi, mae regime change yn ddigon o reswm i fynd i mewn a dyna oedd polisi Bush. Blair wnaeth falu cach am WMD.

Beth bynnag, mae'r WMD mwyaf wedi ei ddal ac mae'r diolch i America a Phrydain am hynny.

BE?!?!?!?!?!?!

"Blair nath falu cachu am WMD"
Ti wirioneddol meddwl hynnu? Nath Bush fyth malu cachu am WMD llu?

Mae'r wefan mae cymro1170 di roi i ni yn amlwg yn cymud y pus o Colin Powell pan ath o ddangos llynia o loria yn mynd o gwmpas irac mewn cyflwyniad i'r UN. Odd rhain yn "Mowbahl Bahlajical Wehpns Ffahctri" medda Colin.
Hefyd nath Bush son am WMD ddoe yn y sdet of ddi iwniyn.

Oeddynt i gyd yn son am WMD ret. Tria ddallt.

WMD mwyaf di cael ei ddal? Dwin cymud ti'n son am saddam yn fama. Pam fod saddam yn fwy o "WMD" na Bush, Putin, Blair, Sharon ayyb?

[Macsen]

I fi, mae regime change yn ddigon o reswm i fynd i mewn a dyna oedd polisi Bush. Blair wnaeth falu cach am WMD.

Bolycs o'r blewogrwydd eithaf. Mae Bush di bod yn carpio mlaen am WMD am oes pys. Uffern, natho hyd yn oed neud reference idda nhw yn ei State of the Winwn address ddoe.

[Dr Gwion Larsen]

WAW! 0nin ama gair y llywodraeth o'r blaen ond wan dwin coelio bod yna WMD!

[Owain Llwyd]

Odd o'n ffycin amlwg i rhywyn call bod nhw yn deud clwydda or dechra.

I fi, mae regime change yn ddigon o reswm i fynd i mewn a dyna oedd polisi Bush. Blair wnaeth falu cach am WMD.

Dw i'n cofio darllen Boris yn honni rhywbeth tebyg iawn i hyn. Doedd o ddim yn iawn, a dwyt ti ddim chwaith. Wrth gwrs, dw i'n siwr byddi di'n newid dy farn yn syth ar ol darllen y canlynol:

President Bush consistently stated in the run-up to the attack that war could be avoided if Iraq gave up its alleged weapons. [‘In the speech today, Bush called on the world body to force Iraq to disarm and said that failing that, "action will be unavoidable.’ (Washington Post 13/09/02); ’President Bush put Saddam Hussein and the world on notice yesterday that "action will be unavoidable" unless the United Nations forces Iraq to disarm.’ (London Times 13/09/02); ‘Mr Bush said yesterday that Iraq could avoid war if it surrendered its weapons of mass destruction. "Hopefully, we can do this without military action."’ (The Age (Melbourne) 18/10/02); ‘President Bush: If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein… All patriotic Iraqis should embrace this resolution as an opportunity for Iraq to avoid war and end its isolation.’ (Federal Document Clearing House Political Transcripts 08/11/02); ‘"The burden now is on Iraq's dictator to disclose and destroy his arsenal of weapons," [Bush] said in a radio address. "If he refuses then for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm the Iraqi regime and free the Iraqi people."’ (Scotland on Sunday 29/12/02) ‘President George W Bush said yesterday he hoped the North Korean nuclear crisis could be resolved peacefully. But he added that it appeared Saddam Hussein had "not heard the message" that he must disarm to avoid war.’ (Daily Telegraph 01/01/03)].
Furthermore, your contention that ‘regime change’ was the US goal is undermined by the historical record. Firstly, we know that the invasion was not to remove Saddam Hussein personally, since the US made it clear that even if Saddam and his immediate family went into exile this would not prevent US forces entering Iraq [‘U.S. troops are headed into Iraq one way or another. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that even if Saddam seeks exile U.S. forces will enter Iraq to disarm it - hopefully without opposition.’ (AP 18/03/03)].
Secondly, it seems highly implausible that the US was genuinely interested in democratization and human rights. If so, then why did the US not pursue any of the repeated concessions made by Iraq in the final days -including internationally supervised elections within two years, the admittance of FBI agents to search for weapons, and the handover of suspected terrorist Abdul Rahman Yasin? (New York Post 06/11/03), (AFP 07/11/03), (Guardian 07/11/03). True, they may have been a ruse, but we shall never know. The US was in an ideal position to force concessions from Iraq and bring about democratization and ‘disarmament’ without military force -a policy it claims to favour in other instances- yet, in this case, it rejected the option out of hand. Was not the US under a moral duty to test these offers and possibly avoid killing thousands of people?
Thirdly, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that you are correct and ‘regime change’ was the goal, then does this not reduce the whole weapons inspection process to a charade and reveal the Bush’s repeated statements, that disarmament would prevent conflict, as utter lies?

[Dan Dean]

Wel RET, os ti dal i feddwl mai "Blair nath falu cachu am WMD" ar ol darllen yr uchod, mae na rhywbeth mawr yn bod arnat.

[huwwaters]

I fi, mae regime change yn ddigon o reswm i fynd i mewn a dyna oedd polisi Bush. Blair wnaeth falu cach am WMD.

Diffiniad terrorism:

The act of extreme force for a political motive.


Be ma Bush a Balir wedi neud?