U.S. Search Teams Find Buried Iraqi Jets

by hawkaw 57 Replies latest social current

  • Simon

    Iraq has planes? Oh no ... shock, horror ... and we thought the no-fly-zones were because they could all zip about like superman

    I believe that hiding and camoflaging your troops and weapons is some sort of standard military practice. I mean, I'm not a general or anything but it's what I would think of.

    The airforce made a no show. I wonder what the point of having an air force is if you don't use them in a war. When do you want them if not in a war ?!?!

    As for Israel and other nations possessing similar weapons, when have they been turned on and used against the citizens of that nation?

    erm ... Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Or does the fact that they were undefended civilian targets from a defeated enemy mean they don't count?

  • Bendrr


    Actually I blame it on the Muslims.

    What do you call one muslim on the moon?


    What do you call one hundred muslims on the moon?


    What do you call one thousand muslims on the moon?


    What do you call every muslim on the moon?

    -Problem solved !

    Hamas! Not nice! So not nice! (lmao though!)


  • Robdar

    the argument was not whether or not they existed

    Not from me it wasn't. I have always said that they do not exist. At least not in enough quantities to do damage to the US or their allies. I still say that.

    BTW, just because Hillary and Bill said something doesn't mean it's true. You and I both know that they are full of shite. Why in the world would you quote somebody who is so full of it as an authority on the matter? Did you think that you would sway the "left"? Sorry, it doesn't work.


  • Hamas


    guess that joke works better with JW's tho.

    Can you believe it was a Muslim that told me that joke ?


  • DakotaRed
    erm ... Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

    Uh, erm, well, Pearl Harbor, Battaan, Nanking, Wake Island.

  • patio34

    Really good points on this thread. Thanks, DRed, for all those articles.

    Actually, the WMDs are clouding the issues a bit, it seems to me. True, in fact, they have not been found. But, what still rankles is the fact that the US and UK broke international law by disregarding the UN in going to war in the first place. Because remember the reasoning changed a few times from WMDs, regime change, liberation, Osama link (remember that one? It may have been the Saudis all along), etc. The issue of WMDs was not a legal basis for the US/UK to attack without the UN. So, even if they were found, this major underlying issue remains.

    Additionally, of course it's known they had them, but Hussein's story was that they had been destroyed, dismantled.

    These are very serious issues when countries disregard international law and attack a sovereign nation that MIGHT be a danger someday. The US announced a new policy (a very dangerous one) that they would attack a nation that MIGHT be a danger to them--preventive (not technically pre-emptive) war. This is a precedent that has increased the danger level of the world considerably.

    Just another point is that Hussein did gas the Kurds, but where was the outrage then from the US. Why is it relevant only a decade later. And the US had a bit of involvement in it in that they, it seems to me, encouraged them to rebel and then stepped aside (is that the way it happened?).

    Peace and happiness to all,


  • DakotaRed
    Just another point is that Hussein did gas the Kurds, but where was the outrage then from the US.

    Many of us who were outraged and cried out then went unheard and unnoticed by those from the other side who also sided with those who would only allow the first Bush to oust Hussein from Kuwait and go no further. Amongst them was the UN, Arab members of the then coalition and a few Europeans.

    If memory serves correctly, when the Kurds and Shiites stood up against Saddam, as encouraged by the first Bush, the cries from the left prevented any aide from being sent in then. A similar thing happened at the fall of Saigon back in 1975. Part of the agreement then to the cease fire of 1973 was that if North Vietnam invaded the South, the US would return and help fend them off. As Saigon was overrun, I was sitting packed and ready to return at Ft. Bragg, NC. The Democratic controlled Congress of the time prevented President Ford was issuing such an order.

    Both incidents are a shameful part of our history, to me.

  • Satanus
    Many of us who were outraged and cried out then went unheard and unnoticed by those from the other side who also sided with those who would only allow the first Bush to oust Hussein from Kuwait and go no further.

    Originally, bush wasn't planning to say anything about saddam taking kuwait, but then thacther changed his mind.


    His first intention was to follow through on a statement made by april glaspie, american ambassador, to saddam. In this conversation, saddam asked glaspie of american govt opinion of his taking of kuwait. She said her govt had no interest. Here is the transcript:


    Saddam-Glaspie meeting

    Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

    July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

    U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

    Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

    U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

    Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam’s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

    U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

    On August 2, 1990 four days later, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

    Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

    One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

    Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

    Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

    Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?

    U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

    Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
    Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?
    (Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)

    Former US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, meeting with Saddam Hussein, July 25th 1990. US State Department transcripts have been published in James Ridgeway's ‘The March to War’ Four Walls and Eight Windows, New York 1991 (page 28). Also in Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent's ‘Secret Dossier - The Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War’ Penguin, Harmondworth 1991, and ‘The Gulf War Reader’, Times Books, Random House, New York 1991, editors Michael Sifry and Christopher Cert.

    On 20th September 1990, seven weeks after the invasion of Kuwait, Glaspie was interviewed by the New York Times, during which she remarked:

    "I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take ALL of Kuwait."


    I suppose, based on the info the public received at the time, many felt as you do. However, the above details were likely missing from the information they were given.


  • Simon
    Pearl Harbor, Battaan, Nanking, Wake Island

    Are you trying to claim that Weapons of Mass Destruction were used there?! You seem to be comfusing them with just weapons.

    You'll be telling us next that sticks and stones qualify. "Look Mr Bush, we found a rock".

  • DakotaRed
    Are you trying to claim that Weapons of Mass Destruction were used there?! You seem to be comfusing them with just weapons.

    Hundreds of thousands of innocents slaughtered didn't matter because of the weaponry used?

    I wonder how the world would have faired if Tojo or Hitler obtained the Bomb first?



    Perhaps reading Iris Changs "The Rape of Nanking" might enlighten you a bit. Perhaps researching into the Japanese mindset of the time would help too. Would it have been better, in your eyes, for an outright invasion, as was also planned and fighting to the death of even more Japanese, American, British, Australian and other soldiers and civilians? Casualty estimates were in the millions, beyond the hundreds of thousands already killed.

    Seek out and talk about this with British POWs of the era and see how the "innocent" Japanese civilians treated your own countrymen held in Japan as POWs.

    You have the luxury that they didn't have back then, 58 years of seeing what a horrible weapon it is. Back then, they needed to end the bloodiest war in history, quickly. That they've never been used again is a testimony to the world seeing what a hideous weapon they are and all the more reason to ensure they don't fall into the hands of egomaniacal tyrants like Saddam.

    It is also my hope that someday, you will realize this is 2003, no longer 1945.

Share this