Numerous times when discussing the war in Iraq the discussion often comes around to “There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction”, “Bush lied about WMD’s to go into Iraq”, “WMD is not why we went into Iraq”, etc.
I believed, and still do, that Saddam & Iraq possessed WMD for he has used them in the past even against his own people. President Clinton and many democrat members of congress made statements regarding this known fact in the past. Several other countries using their own forms of intelligence stated the same belief that Iraq had WMD’s.
My concern is not that WMD’s existed, for liberals and Bush-haters will trot that issue out forever, but where did the known weapons of mass destruction go?
If Saddam and Iraq destroyed all of the weapons that the United Nations inventoried at the end of the Gulf war, where are the records and proof?
Why were many of the Iraqi troops found with gas masks and other forms of gas exposure protection?
I believe that unfortunately many of these WMD’s have been moved into Syria and other countries dealing with and protecting Saddam. There were several reports of long convoy’s moving items into Syria while we spent almost a full month going to the United Nations for the final resolution #1441.
Below are several items from stories written about the above photos of Mig jets found buried in the Iraq desert. Sources provided and full articles can be found by performing a search on “Buried Mig Jets”…
Australian troops, who on April 16 captured the Al Asad Airfield, 112 miles northwest of Baghdad, found scores of fighter aircraft, mostly Soviet-era MiGs but also three advanced MiG-25 Foxbats, the fastest combat aircraft today. Helicopters, radar systems and millions of pounds of explosives also were found. (Military.com)
AS SAYLIYA CAMP, Qatar - Australian special forces have found 51 Mig fighter planes hidden at an airfield in western Iraq, a senior Australian officer said today. (Chron.com)
At least one Cold War-era MiG-25 interceptor was found when searchers saw the tops of its twin tail fins poking up from the sands, said one Pentagon official familiar with the hunt. He said search teams have found several MiG-25s and Su-25 ground attack jets buried at al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad (FoxNews.com)
"Something as big as an airplane that's within … a stone's throw of where you're functioning, and you don't know it's there because you don't run around digging into everything on a discovery process," Rumsfeld explained. "So until you find somebody who tells you where to look, or until nature clears some sand away and exposes something over time, we're simply not going to know. (Defense Link)
6 comments:
I'm curious about these WMD's, maybe you can help me figure something out, as you appear to have some answers that have eluded many peole.
1) If the US knew that Saddam was such a bad guy and planned to use the WMD's he possessed years ago on Iran and then on his own countrymen, then why did the US have such friendly relations with this monster in the '80's (ie Rumsfeld shaking hands and smiling)?
2) When it was agreed that Saddam possessed WMD's ten years ago during the first Gulf War, Why Saddam did not use those weapons then? Wouldn't he have been more likely to use them then, than during the 2003 invasion?
These are just a couple of logical questions that stem from the assertions that Saddam's WMD threat was the reason behind invading Iraq. And if the WMD issue was indeed itself enough to invade, then why did new and improved validations continue to develop (regieme change, spread democracy...)?
Do you not recall inspectors searching Iraq? Do you not recall the destruction of al Samud 2 missles that were deemed as having a range beyond what was allowed?
Fianlly I hear a lot about UN #1441. It's strange how in one hand war supporters point to that resolution as justification of the invasion, while at the same time going against what the security council said about invading. It cannot be both ways. One cannot point to that and then go against it.
OH, wow ... and I'll wager you believe the one about how Ollie North warned the world about Osama bin Laden back in 1980-somethin'. Even Ollie had the decency to make sure the rest of the world knew that was B.S.
But B.S. is exactly what you have here, meine freunde ... for behold, from the arhives of Snopes, another B.S. Bunkerbuster:
THE "BURIED MIGS" URBAN LEGEND
Origins: The al Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad in Iraq, a sandy wasteland surrounded by high dunes off the main Baghdad-to-Jordan highway, was the focus of intense search-and-destroy activity after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003; its vast desert spaces were thought to be a likely location for missile launchers or aircraft from which chemical or biological strikes against U.S. troops might be launched.
What military search teams eventually found at al Taqqadum, in July 2003, were remnants of the Iraqi Air Force as pictured above: a reported 30 to 40 planes, including several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets, buried more than 10 feet beneath tons of soil and covered with camouflage netting. According to the Pentagon, at least one of the MiG-25s was found because searchers spotted its twin tail fins protruding from the sand. Some of the planes had been wrapped in plastic sheeting to protect their electronics and machinery from the sand (and some had had their wings removed), but others were interred with little or no protection from the sand or the elements. The recovery teams had to use large earth-moving equipment to uncover the aircraft.
The discovery at al Taqqadum was not announced to the public until a month later, in a press briefing delivered by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6, 2003 — American forces have found Russian fighter jets buried in the Iraqi desert, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an Aug. 5 press briefing.
"We'd heard a great many things had been buried, but we had not known where they were, and we'd been operating in that immediate vicinity for weeks and weeks and weeks . . . 12, 13 weeks, and didn't know they were (there)," Rumsfeld said.
The secretary said he wasn't sure how many such aircraft had been found, but noted, "It wasn't one or two."
He said it's a "classic example" of the challenges the Iraqi Survey Group is facing in finding weapons of mass destruction in the country.
"Something as big as an airplane that's within . . . a stone's throw of where you're functioning, and you don't know it's there because you don't run around digging into everything on a discovery process," Rumsfeld explained. "So until you find somebody who tells you where to look, or until nature clears some sand away and exposes something over time, we're simply not going to know.
"But, as we all know," he added, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Check out the link by your own bad self;
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp
Numerous very good points made and I will do my best to address each. These are the type of posts that I look forward to for they debate the issues instead of attacking the other side...
1. "Why did U.S. have such friendly relations with the monster (Iran)in the 80's?"
Unfortunately those who we call friends now will probably change down the road with changes in government and leaders. Dictators, etc. Remember when Hillary stood on the steps with Yassir Arafat's wife, kissed her, and stood there as she made incredible derrogative statements against Isreal and the United States? Politics make strange bedfellows...
2. "Why didn't Saddam use the WMD's back during the first Gulf war?"
The way I understand it and read about it, The deal the coalition made with the Arab countries and other allies was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. I believe that is why we stopped when we were rolling towards Baghdad the first time for those countries did not sign on for the removal of Saddam, only getting him out of Kuwait. I believe he knew that if he used the chemical, biological, and other WMD's at that time he knew he would loose the Arab countries limited support and they would would not be able to justify stopping the coalition from removing him for using WMD's...
There is more to write about but have to get to work now. Anybody else have anything to add?
I appreciate your cordial response.
#1) You may have misunderstood. The 'monster' I refer to is Saddam. It seems we knew he was dealing in WMDs in the '80's, we knew he was using them on his neighbors, we even encouraged it. So as the time of his 'usefulness' came to an end, he was no longer a friend and became an enemy. Do you not see anything ethically challenging about that sort of policy? No connection with US policy actions and their consequences?
I hear lots of pro-war types going on about "those poor Iraqi people." But for the decade + that we had sanctions in place, starving them and denying them a chance to prosper, we sure didn't hear much about "those poor Iraqi people." Just an observation.
Point #2) You said, "I believe he knew that if he used the chemical, biological, and other WMD's at that time he knew he would loose the Arab countries limited support and they would would not be able to justify stopping the coalition from removing him for using WMD's."
That seems like quite a stretch don't you think? But if that's what you think, and contend that he still had WMDs in 2003, then why didn't he use them then? What's the point of working so hard to obtain and conceal these weapons, if one doesn't use them, even when one's back is against the wall?
From the link below:
"U.S. analysts have expressed concern for the safety of the 225,000 troops deployed in the Persian Gulf region. They worry that if Iraq is still hiding chemical and biological weapons, it could load them on the Al Samoud 2 to target U.S. forces."
But they didn't.
#3) What about using both sides of the UN #1441? Either we play by the rules of the UN, or we don't. Can't have it both ways.
#4) Check this link. Seems that even Fox covered the fact that inspections were making progress—destroying missles, seizing equipment, etc.
And as it turns out no "stockpiles" of WMDs have ever been discovered. So insn't it a strawman argument to tell someone to disarm or suffer the wrath of the military if they don't...if they have nothing to disarm?
Let me be absolutely clear on this point though. I do not mean to imply that Saddam was innocent, or deserved to be left alone. That's not at all what I am saying here. Moreover there are usually more than 2 ways to do anything.
Saddam had responsibilities, but we cannot be accountable for him. We can only be responsible for our own actions, and so it would be entirely dishonest to say that if one opposed invading Iraq, then they must have wanted to leave Saddam alone. This again would be a strawman argument, and completely false. And often an immediate conclusion drawn by some.
Thanks for you thoughts on this.
No response to my follow ups?
Regarding Saddam being a friend thene a enemy, Yes we did support him in the past but yet people, attitudes, goals, and governments change. I often wonder how much changing a President every 4 or 8 years effects that. Saddam has been around for decades. He has seean and dealt with Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush43 administrations. Just like Castro, Fidel has been around for many decades and sometimes you just "Wait" your enemy out...
Chemical & biological weapons?
Just like Iran now, having a WMD gives you an incredible bargaining chip. The issue is that if you use that chip you have elevated the game to a whole new level. Unfortunately I fear that if Iran goes Nuke they may just use it against Isreal. That will get ugly very fast..."They worry that if Iraq is still hiding chemical and biological weapons, it could load them on the Al Samoud 2 to target U.S. forces."
But they didn't."
Can we afford to wait for them to use the chemical\Biological weapons. The reason for the whole buried mig post was to show how easy it is to hide something of that size. Imagine what is still out there? Before that post did you know of the jets or saw this story in the media?
Unfortunately Leaving Saddam alone was not and issue and to continue with the inspectors was used up. They kicked the inspectors out several times once they got close to sensative areas. Condition of surrender was allowing free and complete inspections of the weapons and the destruction of those weapons. They did destroy some of the weapons but could not, and would not provide proof of destruction of very large stockpiles.....
Post a Comment