# American Forces Pull Hidden MiG fighters out of Iraqi Desert



## D-n-A (7 Aug 2003)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2003/n08062003_200308063.html 

By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service 

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 â€¦ 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 â€¦ 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." 

 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2003/200308063a_hr.jpg 
A U.S. military search team uncovers a Cold War-era MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor buried beneath the sands in Iraq. Several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets have been found buried at al-Taqqadum airfield west of Baghdad. Photo by Master Sgt. T. Collins, USAF 


 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2003/200308063b_hr.jpg 

A U.S. military search team prepares to move a Cold War-era MiG- 25 Foxbat interceptor that was found buried beneath the sands in Iraq. Several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets have been found buried at al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad. Photo by Master Sgt. T. Collins, USAF


----------



## deathwing5 (7 Aug 2003)

lol holy crap, I wonder what else they got down there.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Aug 2003)

WMD


----------



## nULL (7 Aug 2003)

Yeah, right. Perhaps they have UFO‘s too!!!


----------



## Infanteer (7 Aug 2003)

So, are you going to try and convince me that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction?


----------



## nULL (7 Aug 2003)

If you can prove it, you‘d be the one person in the world who can. So go ahead.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Aug 2003)

Not that the opinions of anyone from British California counted for much to begin with, but I should suspect that if nULL really feels Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein, he‘s entitled to that opinion, too.   I wouldn‘t expect that opinion to be shared too widely, though, on either side of the Kootenays or beyond.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Aug 2003)

British California LOL  I like it


----------



## nULL (7 Aug 2003)

When did I say that? Nobody in the world protesting the war in Iraq is arguing that Saddam was NOT a cruel despot, and that he should have been kept in power. When did I say that Michael? 

I just think it sets a dangerous precedent when the leaders of countries use what amount to blatant lies and fear-mongering propoganda to influence the populace. Let‘s be honest here, and look at facts, political slants aside;

Bush told the American people that the Iraqis had WMD, and said weapons could be launched within an hours notice; obviously, that is incorrect. If the Americans had clear photographic/satellite imagery of these weapons facilites, there would BE no debate as to the legitimacy of these claims. Come on, if the Americans or their Allies had such evidence, you think they‘d be hiding it?

You‘ve probably all read that poll conducted about a month ago; what was it, 1 in 5 Americans think Iraq had WMD, and of that, 1 in 4 thought that American troops had been attacked by WMD in Iraq? 

Clearly, there‘s alot of misinformation going on.

Here‘s a question for you, do you REALLY think the United States attacked Iraq for humanitarian purposes? There‘s no doubt what was happening there was horrible, no doubt at all. Had the US gone before the Security Council with that as their motive, given the proper assurances (that the US would not set up a puppet-government for instance) I believe most countries, including Canada, would have supported an invasion.

But seeing as how Michael seems so prone to sticking up for the United States in their quest to fight for the abused people in the world (good for him!), I trust he‘ll be encouraging everyone to petition the American consulate to lead the charge to head to all those many impoverished, war torn African nations, which offer nothing in the way of rich natural resources or key strategical positions.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2003)

"Here‘s a question for you, do you REALLY think the United States attacked Iraq for humanitarian purposes?"
Not for a second.
But I as a human being am glad they did.


----------



## Jungle (9 Aug 2003)

NuLL, obviously, you‘ve never seen how people live under a totalitarian dictatorship. The death rate was lower DURING the war then before...
If the Iraqis were able to bury a large number of large aircraft, imagine how easy it is to hide a few thousand rockets loaded with chem/ bio agents. If the Iraqis had cooperated, maybe there would not have been a war.
Finally, name one country that doesn‘t have it‘s own interests at heart...


----------



## nULL (9 Aug 2003)

OK, Jungle, you missed my point somewhat, and you didn‘t seem to read any of my last post. NOBODY IS DEFENDING WHAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS REPORTED TO HAVE DONE. Ok? But for the record, where are you getting that death rate statistic from? I‘ve heard reports that up to 6000 civilians were killed (that‘s excluding the Iraqi soldiers mind you). That does seem to be an exaggeration, but I‘m not expert, so I wouldn‘t know what would be considered "acceptable" civilian casualties in a campaign such as that.

Yes, while it‘s certainly possible that Iraq had said weapons, it‘s quite possible that I do to. Hey, maybe YOU do! "Perhaps they do, we‘re really not sure, let‘s just do it anyway" doesn‘t seem like a legitimate reason for a country (or your neighbours) to go and blow the crap out of a sovereign nation (or you).

I mean, Jesus. There WERE United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq just before the war, remember? Remember how Hans Blix was saying it was going to take a while to find any such weapons? Well, they were there for what....a month and a half, two months before being told to leave? 

Iraq could have WMD buried in the sands somewhere. It‘s true. They could also have a spaceship that is thousands of years old. They could have anything. The problem with that arguement is that NOBODY IS SURE WHAT IS THERE. When you are going to stifle international relations, kill thousands of people, and potentially create a country that will take decades to stabilize, people are going to assume you‘ve really taken a look at the place, that you actually know what‘s there. 

Bush LIED to the world. From "being able to launch WMD within an hour" to "these things take time to find" indicate that SOMEBODY made a mistake.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Aug 2003)

Besides denying entry at times, Saddam played games with the inspectors for years. He had ample opportunity to demonstrate what he didn‘t have.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Aug 2003)

If Blix said it would take a long time to find them, why is everyone so **** surprised the Americans haven‘t found them yet?


----------



## nULL (9 Aug 2003)

Muskrat: That last round of inspections, according to Hans Blix, went very smoothly; Games or not, with the threat of invasion imminent, the Iraqis WERE cooperationg. Look at Blix‘s comments; Bush wasn‘t there.

Michael: I think it‘s because of statements like these.

February 5, 2003

--Secretary of State Colin Powell, before the UN Security Council

"We know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads had been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection."

"Dr. Blix told this Council that Iraq has provided little evidence to verify anthrax production and no convincing evidence of its destruction. It should come as not shock then that since Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998, we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons."

"We know that Iraq has at least seven of these mobile, biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each. That means that the mobile production facilities are very few--perhaps 18 trucks that we know of. There may be more. But perhaps 18 that we know of."

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction."

"550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents."

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."

"We have sources who tell us that he [Saddam] recently has authorized his field commanders to use them [chemical weapons]. He wouldn‘t be passing out the orders if he didn‘t have the weapons or the intent to use them."

"We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons."

SOURCE:
 http://www.clw.org/iraqintelligence/adminquotes.html


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Aug 2003)

Null - Nice, objective source you cited there. I suggest everyone go have a look. Nice peacenik-looking group, for an army guy...  Like any issue, the 2 sides selectively present things - some alternate stories:
here 
and here and even  here too How about  this? 

Null - in any argument like this, the sides are going to square off, cite articles and sources, discredit or ignore the other sides articles and sources, and no one is convincing the other side. Personally, I would like to know why you consider yourself an authority on this, and how you, personally, decide what is credible?


----------



## nULL (9 Aug 2003)

What I posted weren‘t politically slanted opinions or articles. Those are actual QUOTES. 

And since when does one have to be an expert to read the news? I read what you posted; there‘s a few too many "evidence of" and "it is likely" type sentences. When they find WMD, if they do, we‘ll all know about it.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Aug 2003)

Yes, they were quotes - on a peace page. I‘m sure if I looked hard enough, I could find selected, actual quotes from Saddam, on a pro-war page, that would give reason to expect they had WMD. 

I didn‘t say you had to be an expert. You issue edicts like they were gospel - not opinions as from a casual observer. Just made me curious, thats all. I also found it interesting that a Military person would be using that source - all of those quotes can be found in other places, I am sure.

Anyway, you are far too worldly and clever for me - I must extract myself from this debate. You stand steadfastly by your beliefs, and that is admirable. That being said, I don‘t think you nor I will convince the other to change our mind. Cheers


----------



## D-n-A (9 Aug 2003)

> actual quotes from Saddam, on a pro-war page, that would give reason to expect they had WMD.


I remember something about him saying that if US an British Forces got within 100km? of Baghdad, he would use chemical weapons


----------



## nULL (9 Aug 2003)

Heh, I‘m not a military person YET....just one of those outspoken students living in a cheaply rented basement you keep hearing about. And when it comes to debates, I just naturally try and play devil‘s advocate, that way you learn stuff (of course, doing it with current military personnel carries a few risks


----------



## Infanteer (9 Aug 2003)

How about we ask teenage Iranian conscripts or Kurdish guerilla fighters if Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction.


----------



## McInnes (10 Aug 2003)

well yeah, the american thing with iraq was all a bunch of BS. I mean, sure remove sadam. I always thought that the mighty US with all their "surgical tactics" and super intel. could just insert units of special forces and take out sadam and then go from there. something other than starting on one end of the country, and sweeping across killing. and tehn they get there, and put up an american flag. nice liberation attempt when you put up your own flag, tahts more like domination. and anyways, all that WMD crap, i mean, what harm would there have actually been in leaving ol‘ blix in there untill he said that nothing could be done, or whatever. Instead of, o, suddenly iraq is co-operating, better pull him outta there and declare war before things are all better. i guess i should stop the pointless ranting.


----------



## deathwing5 (10 Aug 2003)

I love what America did to Hussein, that *******.  Good for killing his sons too, I didn‘t like America for leaving the Kurds in the first war, they should‘ve removed him then.


----------

