Nukes in Iraq

Russian MiG fighter hidden in dessert by Iraq! - how about that then!
@forfein (2507)
January 4, 2007 3:54pm CST
There seems to be lots of discussions on www.mylot.com about the Iraq War, Bush, Blair, whether or not the War in Iraq is illegal, and Saddam Hussein......... This post is to all those people that think Bush and Blair may have been wrong about WMD.......... I saw this pic at work, it was sent to me by a friend. But I thought is was restricted to Forces Personnel only. However, tonight I thought I would see if I could find them on the Internet, and after a bit of seaching they came up:- http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp If the Iraqi Forces can hide Russian made MiG fighters, what do you think they can do to Missiles???
1 person likes this
24 responses
@neilf49 (809)
4 Jan 07
Love the pics forfein, and I am one of those who doubt that the war was legal. Yes they may have been able to hide the WMD but Bush just seemed too eager to invade, and Blair has been proven to have lied to Government for his support (or his minions but he is the voice of Government and should be held to account). I can't argue that the ousting of Saddam was probably for the good of Iraq, although things don't look any better at the moment and their Prime Minister is quoted as hating the job and wants out as soon as possible. But one has to question the legality of the invasion. The US is a member of the UN and is bound by its regulations, not the UN being part of the US and doing as it wants. Until someone manages to find the remains of WMD then this arguement will continue, and I suspect that will be well into the future and the downfall of Saddam will be written within the history books of our schools.
2 people like this
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
Excellent comment and you deserve a big fat (+) for that one! Agreed about the UN and the US. I dont like bashing the US, but I think if we made one mistake after World War II it is putting the UN in New York It should have been in Switzerland, and then it would have more credence!! People now think that the UN is part of the US and of course it is not!
• Pakistan
5 Jan 07
ofcourse its not part of the US its the biatch of the US
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
smbilalshah I dont understand biatch???
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
4 Jan 07
The reports from the Iraq Survey Group that allegedly prove there were no WMD's or chemical weapons were from searching 10 of 130 possible weapons depots. Two of the largest depots put together are bigger than Manhattan. They had made their chemical weapons program ready to jump start as soon as sanctions and embargos were lifted. There was so much unaccounted for chemical product they don't know where it is. The UNMOVIC inspection teams admitted they had no idea of what was moving in and out of Iraq even when the US occupied it, let alone beforehand. A general Gorge Sada from the Iraqi Airforce wrote a book about how Saddam used airplanes to fly all the weapons programs out of the country to neighboring countries. There have been 500 chemical weapons found in Iraq munitions depots and there are still many such items left hidden. Iraq had a set of around 40 missiles they were barred from having by the UN that could be used to deliver chemical warheads to Israel. Saddam had an active desire to build weapons of mass destruction and believed he had the right to make them. How many of you were smart enough to doubt there were WMD's before the war? Did anyone?
1 person likes this
@forfein (2507)
4 Jan 07
Correct! When Saddam invaded Kuwait he launched his Russian made SCUD's It does'nt take much to think that he could adapt these to take Nukes or Chemical!
• Pakistan
5 Jan 07
i think u r just another american idiot if Saddam had any he should have used em against US and besides US has the biggest arsenal Isral has WMDs then y not any muslim country? oh i get it it becomes a threat to Israel and to the US supremecy plans posts like these realy force me to say that world is full of idiots and coz of such idiots zionists cotrol the world today
@arqam2 (74)
• Pakistan
5 Jan 07
i completely agreee wid mr.shah if saddam had WMDs y didnt he used it against enemies?? wat was he waiting for??was he waiting for u to come in the field?? and secondly,if he even had those wepons so wat american storage facilities r greater than whole of iraq then y to mention just to depos greater than manhattan? israel has even nukes then y dont u call them terrorist?y dont u consider them as threat to world?? america has weapons israel has weapons weapons that could destroy approx whole of world but this not a threat to world?? say clearly that the threat to world means threat to israel n anti muslim elements y r u concealing ur intentions in the name of wmds nukes terrorist,etc say clearly!!
@gabs8513 (48686)
• United Kingdom
4 Jan 07
Hi there forfein Well my Answer to that is I dread to think This is what makes me mad People are so fast in judging and calling names and they don't even check the facts
1 person likes this
@deeeky (3667)
• Edinburgh, Scotland
5 Jan 07
There were no weapons of mass destruction and that is a FACT and if you can dig up a bit of sand and find a Russian plane then why not dig up more and find the missiles. Maybe with that smart technology that you have in space, that can look at what car you have outside you door, and use it find those weapons?
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
5 Jan 07
Oh, please! Still looking for some justification for the unnecessary 2003 invasion of Iraq, are we? You will always lead to yourself!So, Iraq had or has WMD that were originally given to Iraq by the "model democracy" USA so Iraq could destroy Iran! See: Friends or Foes? - http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam_Rumsfeld_GoldSpurs.html So, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and etc. want to expand on WMD just like the USA, Russia (both yet to comply, after more 30 years, with signed UN treaty on WMD) and Israel! Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? See: Hiroshima Remembered - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/08/06/world/main305049.shtml Missiliers - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/nuclear/stories/nukes/index.html Nuclear Crisis by US president - http//www.gsinstitute.org/archives/000032.shtml So, Iraq or the Saddam Hussein regime was in violation of human rights just like any nation in the world! Want to talk to Native Americans, US thinkers, Black Americans or lower income US nationals and residents? or to British children taken to Australia to populate the continent without the consent and knowledge of their relatives? (Conduct an online research on mentioned topics.) If self-defense is good for imperialistic British and US governments, then it is good for every nation! How about we settle this WMD nonsense by making sure any nation that has ever used WMD on another is truly without WMD? It will have to be one standard for every nation or one whatsoever! Boo!
• United States
10 Jan 07
A Nuclear Crisis by a US president - http://www.gsinstitute.org/archives/000032.shtml
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
11 Jan 07
yeah, obviously the US is likely to attack South Korea with nukes. Obviously the US intends to "wipe Israel off the map". And of course, the US is likely to use its nukes against Kuwait, Kurds, or Israel. Wait, those are North Korea's, Iran's, and Iraq's (respectively) self professed goals or aspirations. Its not the US that says who can or can't have WMD's, the entire global community agrees those countries should not have nuclear capabilities.
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
5 Jan 07
This question has been extensively researched by the UN inspectors and by the US forces, which have been in country for several years now. Missiles and such can be detected even if buried by radiation detectors, x-rays, etc. etc. Burying them in the sand would be useless in preventing them from being detected. The Iraqis hid planes in the sand during the first Gulf War and the second, I believe. This photo is supposdly from 2003. It proves nothing, as far as I'm concerned, except that Iraq hid planes in the sand to prevent them from being bombed. How does this give any credibility to the WMD argument? It doesn't! Many Iraqi authorities friendly to the US have admitted there was no WMD program. But I guess some people just refuse to believe it.
1 person likes this
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
QUOTE nuffsed If one expected to ever fly the plane again, wouldn't one wrap it up against the sand? I guess this is a picture of a scrap aeroplane. It doesn't even prove that it is Iraq, or what decade. Just a dessert somewhere. lol UNQUOTE He was beaten in 1991 in the First Gulf War!! He knew what was coming and wanted to save his Airforce! My argument is..... If they can hide this sort of thing, surely it is possible to hide anything!! Dont forget, HE DID gas the Iranian people during the war with Iran!
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
5 Jan 07
Many Iraqi authorities have also confirmed the presence of the programs and weapons as well. :) Don't forget that the UN admits they aren't very good at inspecting and that they aren't even done searching everything yet.
@nuffsed (1271)
5 Jan 07
If one expected to ever fly the plane again, wouldn't one wrap it up against the sand? I guess this is a picture of a scrap aeroplane. It doesn't even prove that it is Iraq, or what decade. Just a dessert somewhere. lol Ok so you guys want to justify spending a trillion dollars....be my guest. Knock yourselves out!
@nuffsed (1271)
5 Jan 07
You have to realise you are not always addressing morons on here... Published on Friday, January 5, 2007 by TomPaine.com Can We Let Intelligence Officials Lie With Impunity? by Ray McGovern and W. Patrick Lang http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0105-23.htm Lies have consequences. All those who helped President George W. Bush launch a war of aggression—termed by Nuremberg “the supreme international crime”—have blood on their hands and must be held accountable. This includes corrupt intelligence officials. Otherwise, look for them to perform the same service in facilitating war on Iran. “They should have been shot,” said former State Department intelligence director, Carl Ford, referring to ex-CIA director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin, for their “fundamentally dishonest” cooking of intelligence to please the White House. Ford was alluding to “intelligence” on the menacing but non-existent mobile biological weapons laboratories in Iraq.
• United States
10 Jan 07
Nuffsed, what you do not know is that you are dealing with robots - beings that do not think and cannot reason! Truth and facts mean nothing to these beings whatsoever. You can sing truth and facts all day long to these beings, and they will just keep parroting whatever they were programmed to parrot. Just remember that you are dealing with robots! Yes, machines! They can only operate under directives of their programmers! Robots just do not think and cannot reason!
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
10 Jan 07
Netsbridge is right. WIth so much rhetoric and baseless accusations and rumors so obviously common in todays society, media, and culture, it is impossible to try to argue against the Bush Derangment Syndrome liberals. Everyone is blinded by what Jon Stewart and pop-culture tell them. Molehills are mountains when ignorance and lemmings come in. :)
@nuffsed (1271)
5 Jan 07
to continue.... Ford was angry that Tenet and McLaughlin persisted in portraying the labs as real several months after they had been duly warned that they existed only in the imagination of intelligence analysts who, in their own eagerness to please, had glommed onto second-hand tales told by a con-man appropriately dubbed “Curveball.” In fact, Tenet and McLaughlin had been warned about Curveball long before they let then-Secretary of State Colin Powell shame himself, and the rest of us, by peddling Curveball’s wares at the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003. After the war began, those same analysts, still “leaning forward,” misrepresented a tractor-trailer found in Iraq outfitted with industrial equipment as one of the mobile bio-labs. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay, then working for NBC News, obliged by pointing out the equipment “where the biological process took place... Literally, there is nothing else for which it could be used.” George Tenet knows a good man when he sees him. A few weeks later he hired Kay to lead the Pentagon-created Iraq Survey Group in the famous search to find other (equally non-existent, it turned out) “weapons of mass destruction.” (Eventually Kay, a scientist given to empirical evidence more than faith-based intelligence, became the skunk at the picnic when, in January 2004, he insisted on telling senators the truth: “We were almost all wrong—and I certainly include myself here.” But that came later.) On May 28, 2003, CIA’s intrepid analysts cooked up a fraudulent six-page report claiming that the trailer discovered earlier in May was proof they had been right about Iraq’s “bio-weapons labs.” They then performed what could be called a “night-time requisition,” getting the only Defense Intelligence Agency analyst sympathetic to their position to provide DIA “coordination,” (which was subsequently withdrawn by DIA). On May 29, President George W. Bush, visiting Poland, proudly announced on Polish TV, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.” When the State Department's Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts realized that this was not some kind of Polish joke, they “went ballistic,” according to Ford, who immediately warned Colin Powell that there was a problem. Tenet must have learned of this quickly, for he called Ford on the carpet, literally, the following day. No shrinking violet, Ford held his ground. He told Tenet and McLaughlin, “That report is one of the worst intelligence assessments I’ve ever read.” This vignette—and several like it—are found in Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, who say Ford is still angry over the fraudulent paper. Ford told the authors: It was clear that they [Tenet and McLaughlin] had been personally involved in the preparation of the report... It wasn’t just that it was wrong. They lied.
@plasma (673)
• India
5 Jan 07
I don't agree with that. A picture is worth a thousand words but in such cases it could be worth a thousand misleading words. you can't be sure and draw conclusions from whatever they put us to see. Iraq had been on the UN and US watchlist for long and the war which was only a part of Bush's personal agenda. his true motives on capturing the oil reserves and toppling Saddam were the real reasons behind all the bombshells and bodybags. Blair followed because he had to appease Bush and America. all the claims about wmd's and nukes have now fallen flat and they can plant anything to make us believe. Thanks
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
What I am saying is that IF THEY CAN HIDE MiG's what else can they hide?
@qouniq (1966)
• Malaysia
5 Jan 07
ok i can take what you guys have said here,..but why must america destroy iraq if they have such weapon. Do other countries can destroy america who is having the same weapon too?...and if the weapon is from Russia, then why there is no action taken for Russia?...Why America did not attact Russia?...
@forfein (2507)
6 Jan 07
There is an Arms Agreement between the two countries!
@vhmehta (621)
• United States
5 Jan 07
No doubt Saddam could have hidden the missiles... But Bush was too eager to attack Iraq and when you are talking of a war it should always be the last option... Lack of planning has now made matters even worse.. What if hidden WMD gets into the hands of terrorists if they even exists.... I think so Bush made a mistake of underestimating terrorists.... WAR has killed many more Iraqi's than Saddam ever killed... Was WAR good for Iraq?? No definitely they were much happier with Saddam ruling them.
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
Thanks You are correct, he COULD have hidden them! No one WANTS War! You think that the Iraqi people were happy living under the Saddam Hussein Rule?? What about all the rejoicing when his statues were being pulled down??
@SplitZip (1488)
• Portugal
5 Jan 07
Ever heard of Karl Popper's black swan theory? In this case, finding one buried plane doesn't prove anything. Also, this only addresses ONE of the points on why the invasion was unjustified/wrong/illegal. Frankly, I expected more out of this post ;) And honestly, discussing this is pretty much pointless now. Let's discuss how the whole mess should be solved instead. Of course, that's much more difficult than posting buried fighters in the desert and going "DING!". Which is one reason why nobody ever solves anything. Instead of trying to find solutions, people just stick to pointing out the useless and the obvious. And resorting to the radical and the extreme. With this kind of logic and attitude, good luck not getting more terrorist incidents in the next 30 years. "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
Yes I have! Thanks! Of course it does not prove anything! What it DOES prove, is the fact that the Lying "Git" would do ANYTHING to get around the UN resolutions! And..... Yes, trying to find solutions is difficult! See my post:- http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/260180.aspx Thanks!
@xxkash (66)
• India
5 Jan 07
how u load photo to ur discussion..i tried but could not do..plz help me
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
You need to have posted over 500 topics or replies!
@aquilavn (59)
• Vietnam
5 Jan 07
Iraq didn't have nuke weapon, but Bush had to have a reason to attack Iraq.Wars always are illegal.
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
They were gaining the CAPABILITY to manufacture them, which is against UN rules! Why did he throw out the weapons insprectors??
@saikat123 (235)
• India
5 Jan 07
I am afraid that even I agree that this whole Iraq affair is probably the biggest mistake the USA has ever made. Vietnam was an action against a certain people, this has tremendous religious undertones. I think we are doing that of which we are accusing Iran: Trying to accelorate the prophecies. This will become a world war.
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
I sincerely hope that you are wrong!! We have had TWO of those! No-one I know wants to go down that road!
@Reviver (339)
• Romania
5 Jan 07
i hate war....and i think irak do't have a nuclear
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
So do I! I was actually saying that maybe just MAYBE they had the CAPABILITY !!!
@Bhutto (741)
• India
5 Jan 07
In spite of your so called CBI and other inspectors who visited iraq to find out whether they have nuclear weapons and biological weapons,they did not say they have anything of that sort.Even after this America bombed Iraq killed thousands of innocent people.Is it Americas right to have missiles and nuclear and no other should have it.What when they supplied weapons to Iraq to fight Iran was it ok at that time.Be fair in your judgement Mr Forfein.Why do you want to hide Americans attrocities over lesser developed countries specially Middle east.
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
see my comment above!
@deep1608 (321)
• India
5 Jan 07
You r right in some manner.But I dont know much about these political issues.I guess things are much huge than what they appera to us.We are just dummies being ruled by what the politicians tell us n what the media shows us.Sometimes I really cant make out what is right n what is wrong.Wish everyone stays at peace on earth n has no problems whatsoever in life!!!!
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
Sometimes it is difficult to find the truth, but you have to keep searching for it!
• Ireland
5 Jan 07
If you are not blinded by a mainstream media, there is no doubt that alledged threats were just an excuse to get a hold of one of the last reservoirs of crude oil in the world, and Saddam's dictatorship has nothing to do with it (this man kept Shiit and Sunni from tearing apart each other), and the main reason for the invasion is the negative result of central asian issue- mainly the oil exploration of Caspian Sea (of course, the aggresion on Aphganistan has only one objective - oil pipeline that would mean bonanza of oil for US) which proved that 80% of the holes are dry, so that is why the administration had to come quickly with some reports of Saddam's "bad intentions" to get a hold of the remaining oil. This nonsense about bad intentions, if you apply it to every country that is developing powerful weapons, would mean a eternal war against every nation, and bloodshed in every corner of the world, no need to consider the humane part of the war. And the title of this discussion can be safely changed to "Nukes in US" (or China, or), how much do you have around? Can you count them? Or, any ideas what you might do with them?
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
Actually I would suggest that the MAIN reason is so that the US can have SOME kind of Influence in the Middle East due to the rapid rise of Islamic Fundamentalism! You are of course, right about the Oil Reserves, but Iraq is not the last reservoir! See:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Oil_exploration QUOTE This nonsense about bad intentions, if you apply it to every country that is developing powerful weapons, would mean a eternal war against every nation UNQUOTE Isnt that why we have the UN??? Isnt that why we have The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, instigated by the way by YOUR Country (Ireland)
@soumodeep (944)
• India
5 Jan 07
Well I was sure from the beginning that Iraq posses WMD cause they used Chemical weapons on Kurds. So yeah. I am pretty sure they do have WMD.
@kathy77 (7486)
• Australia
5 Jan 07
yes there is too much really about Iraq and Saddam Hussein on mylot discussions. They should get rid of all these missiles people are stealing them and then it is very dangerous for all concerned.
@kiwimac (323)
• New Zealand
5 Jan 07
Fact of the matter is that after considerable searching neither the UN or US found any WMDs other than some elderly shells from GW1, shells so old in fact that the possibility of tetanus was higher than any chemicals they might once have held. Was the invasion of Iraq illegal? Yes, Is the continuing war there illegal, yes! Bush should be tried as a war-criminal IMO but I don't see that happening. But the only legacies his actions will leave behind are many more terrorists than once there were and the destruction of the one secular state in the Middle East other than Israel.
@forfein (2507)
5 Jan 07
The trouble with going to war, is the fact that, no only do you have to win the war, but you also have to win the peace! Now........... The Iraqi Army was beaten, and they surrendered! The problem now is, the US is having a very hard time of trying to re-build the Country! I am not trying to justify the fact of whether is was legal or not legal! Iraq was given the choice of complying with the UN resolutions about the weapons inspectorate, or face the consequences! He (Saddam) chose the latter! What happens to the region when the US and Coalition Forces are withdrawn remains to be seen!