AN ENTIRE AIRPLANE!

[MDM4AU 337]

The above is a MiG-25 hidden in the desert in Iraq found when an informant tipped off US troops. They hid an ENTIRE AIRPLANE!!! IN THE SAND!

That is unreal.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Here is a link to more pics and a confirmation by Snopes that this is indeed a true story.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

These are old pics. They discovered this plane over a year ago, right after the initial invasion of Iraq was finished.

[Weagle98 119]

They found it because an informant came forward, not by tripping over it in the sand. Of course nothing else could be barried.

[DaddyBoyAU 119]

They found it because an informant came forward, not by tripping over it in the sand.

As per the snopes article cited by TT:

According to the Pentagon, at least one of the MiG-25s was found because searchers spotted its twin tail fins protruding from the sand

[CCTAU 3,369]

Yep. Nothing else under that little sandbox.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Yep. Nothing else under that little sandbox.

So you reckon that's where Bush has stashed the Bill of Rights?

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

So you reckon that's where Bush has stashed the Bill of Rights?

???? (Thread hijack?)

No ... stay with us here and try to keep up: we "reckon" if SH went to all this trouble to hide his valuable conventional arms in this manner that maybe, just maybe, he might do the same with WMD assets. Call it a hunch. :roll:

[TitanTiger 20,708]

That would be way too logical. It's much better to assume that even though he could never account for where all the weapons went, they just disappeared, never existed, or the always-competent UN inspectors destroyed it all. :roll:

[TexasTiger 13,556]

That would be way too logical. It's much better to assume that even though he could never account for where all the weapons went, they just disappeared, never existed, or the always-competent UN inspectors destroyed it all. :roll:

Or maybe, he needed his neighbors (and us) to fear him more than his actual "stockpiles" warranted in hopes of detering attacks? Remember the threat that our troops would be hit with chemical agents if they attacked? When Saddam had nothing left to lose, wouldn't it have been "logical" to use them on our troops then if he had them in such great abundance? But since his goal was not world domination, but rather a "Greater Persia", if he did have large stockpiles of WMDs, he had no motivation to disseminate them until we let him know we were going to invade. I suspect small caches of biological and chemical agents will be found eventually, but not the level that was stated when making the case for war. He is an awful excuse for a human being, but he was not a major threat to us.

[quietfan 233]

maybe, just maybe, he might do the same with WMD assets. Call it a hunch. :roll:

Of course "almost anything" MIGHT be hidden in the desert, and we may yet find huge stockpiles of WMD or the smoking gun that Saddam was providing significant aid to Bin Laden & Co, but it's looking less and less likely. I will be more than willing to concede that such claims were accurate when and if they are proven true.

However, before going to war I expect stronger evidence of a threat than we have found yet. War is serious, ugly, deadly business, and the burden of proof that war is necessary lies with those who want to go to war. It is not up to those supporting peace to prove their case.

Bush rallied the American public to the need for war and invaded Iraq based on two specific arguments: 1) Iraq possessed WMD in significant deliverable quantities that posed a serious threat to the US and the world, and 2) Saddam Hussein was providing significant levels of support to terrorists. Neither of these was established with any level of certainty before the war was launched and neither has yet been proven. Of course they may eventually be shown to be true, but don't start a war with the hope that justification can be found AFTER the hostilities begin. The burden of proof to justify their actions lies with those who want to start a war, not on those who want to remain at peace. Don't go to war just because I can't prove that someone DOESN'T have WMD.

It is true that we have freed the people of Iraqi from the sadistic barbarism practiced by the Hussein regime. However, that was NOT the primary argument used by the Bush Administration when trying to convince Americans, Europeans, and the UN of the need for invasion. I'm not sure anyone, the few allies we do have in Iraq or even the majority of Americans who supported the invasion initially, would have supported an invasion just to stop Saddam’s abuse of his own people. We had tolerated his psychotic regime for over twenty years, and left him in power after Desert Storm when it would have been much easier to oust him than now. I’m glad the Iraqi people no longer have to fear Saddam’s torture, rape, and murder squads, but if that was not justification for ousting him in 1991, it wasn’t sufficient cause in 2003.

Bottom line: “Maybe”, “might be hidden”, and "a hunch" are not sufficient reasons to go to war and risk the lives of American servicemen or innocent civilians. Prove your case BEFORE you start a war!

[Tiger Al 0]

maybe, just maybe, he might do the same with WMD assets.  Call it a hunch.  :roll:

Of course "almost anything" MIGHT be hidden in the desert, and we may yet find huge stockpiles of WMD or the smoking gun that Saddam was providing significant aid to Bin Laden & Co, but it's looking less and less likely. I will be more than willing to concede that such claims were accurate when and if they are proven true.

However, before going to war I expect stronger evidence of a threat than we have found yet. War is serious, ugly, deadly business, and the burden of proof that war is necessary lies with those who want to go to war. It is not up to those supporting peace to prove their case.

Bush rallied the American public to the need for war and invaded Iraq based on two specific arguments: 1) Iraq possessed WMD in significant deliverable quantities that posed a serious threat to the US and the world, and 2) Saddam Hussein was providing significant levels of support to terrorists. Neither of these was established with any level of certainty before the war was launched and neither has yet been proven. Of course they may eventually be shown to be true, but don't start a war with the hope that justification can be found AFTER the hostilities begin. The burden of proof to justify their actions lies with those who want to start a war, not on those who want to remain at peace. Don't go to war just because I can't prove that someone DOESN'T have WMD.

It is true that we have freed the people of Iraqi from the sadistic barbarism practiced by the Hussein regime. However, that was NOT the primary argument used by the Bush Administration when trying to convince Americans, Europeans, and the UN of the need for invasion. I'm not sure anyone, the few allies we do have in Iraq or even the majority of Americans who supported the invasion initially, would have supported an invasion just to stop Saddam’s abuse of his own people. We had tolerated his psychotic regime for over twenty years, and left him in power after Desert Storm when it would have been much easier to oust him than now. I’m glad the Iraqi people no longer have to fear Saddam’s torture, rape, and murder squads, but if that was not justification for ousting him in 1991, it wasn’t sufficient cause in 2003.

Bottom line: “Maybe”, “might be hidden”, and "a hunch" are not sufficient reasons to go to war and risk the lives of American servicemen or innocent civilians. Prove your case BEFORE you start a war!

Thanks, quietfan. I've been saying this exact thing for over a year. I saw Meet the Press yesterday and Republican House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (Ca.)was on and he must've been hitting the Kool-Aid pretty hard in the Green Room before the show.

REP. HUNTER:  You know, that's very interesting, Tim.  First, General Kimmitt announced that the first round that has been tested positive for sarin, which is a weapon of mass destruction, was discovered last week by two GIs, who were dismantling IEDs.  Both the GIs got sick carrying this thing back.  I've gotten a picture from Iraq.  This has tested positive for weapons of mass destruction--that is for sarin-- with both the American force that's on the ground and the British force and it's now back in the United States for final testing or more testing, more thorough testing.

That is a picture of the 130mm mortar round that was found in Iraq that General Kimmitt talked about.  If so, the important aspect of this is we are finding dozens of weapons caches every month.  This is one that comes from a cache that obviously we don't know about, and that has...

REP. KUCINICH:  Can I see that?

REP. HUNTER:  Sure, you can see it.  In fact, you can have that, Dennis.

REP. KUCINICH:  Thank you.

REP. HUNTER:  And let me give you one...

REP. KUCINICH:  Duncan, are you saying this is why we went to war?  Come on.

REP. HUNTER:  No, you watch...

REP. KUCINICH:  This is incredible.

REP. HUNTER:  You watch the women and children laid out across that hillside dead, Dennis; that's one reason we went to war, and not on the statements of Mr. Chalabi, but on Hans Blix, who talked about the 8,500 liters of anthrax that Saddam Hussein put together, that he had according to his own records, all of which would fit, Tim, in one pickup truck with good sideboards.

MR. RUSSERT:  But, Congressman, you would acknowledge that the amount of weapons of mass destruction that the administration had talked about, and the potential nuclear threat, has not been realized at the levels that had been suggested.

REP. HUNTER:  Listen, the facts are the facts.  This is what we've found so far.  On the other hand, this is the first weapon of mass destruction, and these first two tests by the Iraqi survey group and the British survey group are borne out by more tests, but their tests are pretty accurate.  This will be the first one that's been found in Iraq.  And the point is, it comes from a location that we obviously didn't know about, and we are finding dozens of these things every month.

He says the facts are the facts! More than a year after 'Mission Accomplished' a morter round with some badly deteriorated sarin in it finds our troops and this loon actually believes that that proves all of the Bush administration's pre-war assertions. I realize he's just trying to be a good GOP soldier but he looked so foolish trying to convince Russert (and us) that Iraq did indeed have these weapons when we said they did. Where's the accountability the republicans have always claimed was their birthright?

[quietfan 233]

Thanks, quietfan. I've been saying this exact thing for over a year.

Your welcome. We libbies have to stick together on this board where we're clearly in the minority. But that's part of the fun, anyway .

I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility that we may yet find the "mother load" of WMD in Iraq, but it clear that such a discovery will be a lucky accident and not the result of unambiguous pre-war intelligence at this piont. Even if we find a hidden stockpile of hundreds of thousands of WMD, the Bush administration has already lost the argument for justifying the war.

It is obvious that the Administration did not have sufficient information to prove their case prior to the outbreak of hostilities or they could have already produced it. Accidentally stumbling upon a major stockpile now will not change the fact that they did not have sufficient evidence to support their claims before they launched an aggressive invasion of another sovereign nation and were not able to produce such evidence even after a year of hostilities.

Again, demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that war is necessary as a last resort BEFORE starting one!

[CCTAU 3,369]

That would be way too logical.  It's much better to assume that even though he could never account for where all the weapons went, they just disappeared, never existed, or the always-competent UN inspectors destroyed it all.  :roll:

Or maybe, he needed his neighbors (and us) to fear him more than his actual "stockpiles" warranted in hopes of detering attacks? Remember the threat that our troops would be hit with chemical agents if they attacked? When Saddam had nothing left to lose, wouldn't it have been "logical" to use them on our troops then if he had them in such great abundance? But since his goal was not world domination, but rather a "Greater Persia", if he did have large stockpiles of WMDs, he had no motivation to disseminate them until we let him know we were going to invade. I suspect small caches of biological and chemical agents will be found eventually, but not the level that was stated when making the case for war. He is an awful excuse for a human being, but he was not a major threat to us.

In that case, why don't you tell EVERYBODY that you will send a bomb to the white house if Bush wins. Only you know that its a firecracker, but when they come and get you, it won't matter. I mean, they should have known you only had a firecracker. The little old lady next door who watches you all the time should have told them. HMMMM, nice argument!

[Tiger Al 0]

That would be way too logical.  It's much better to assume that even though he could never account for where all the weapons went, they just disappeared, never existed, or the always-competent UN inspectors destroyed it all.  :roll:

Or maybe, he needed his neighbors (and us) to fear him more than his actual "stockpiles" warranted in hopes of detering attacks? Remember the threat that our troops would be hit with chemical agents if they attacked? When Saddam had nothing left to lose, wouldn't it have been "logical" to use them on our troops then if he had them in such great abundance? But since his goal was not world domination, but rather a "Greater Persia", if he did have large stockpiles of WMDs, he had no motivation to disseminate them until we let him know we were going to invade. I suspect small caches of biological and chemical agents will be found eventually, but not the level that was stated when making the case for war. He is an awful excuse for a human being, but he was not a major threat to us.

In that case, why don't you tell EVERYBODY that you will send a bomb to the white house if Bush wins. Only you know that its a firecracker, but when they come and get you, it won't matter. I mean, they should have known you only had a firecracker. The little old lady next door who watches you all the time should have told them. HMMMM, nice argument!

The only problem with this analogy is that Iraq didn't threaten to attack the US, either with a bomb or a firecracker.

HMMMM, bad argument!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

However, before going to war I expect stronger evidence of a threat than we have found yet. War is serious, ugly, deadly business, and the burden of proof that war is necessary lies with those who want to go to war. It is not up to those supporting peace to prove their case.

Bottom line: “Maybe”, “might be hidden”, and "a hunch" are not sufficient reasons to go to war and risk the lives of American servicemen or innocent civilians. Prove your case BEFORE you start a war!

My only argument with your position is this "What if the stonger proof you needed came in the form of a sarin gas cloud in the NY subway system?" In a totalitarian regime such as SH, with minimal and basically unreliable HumInt on the ground, getting irrefutable proof is next to impossible. The slashing of the CIA's resources over the past decade rendered them all but impotent in this region of the world, yet when 9/11 happened, they, along with the FBI, were expected to have been completely prescient in preventing the attack.

So I see this as dammned if you do OR if you don't - all the things we KNEW for a FACT about SH pointed to him being a real threat as far as WMD and support for terrorists were concerned, and a very likely source for terrorists to obtain such weapons. The "we don't know 100% but can we afford to be wrong?" thought process was a natural leap to make, and one I also would have made had I been in GWB's shoes. If we had sat back and waited for an Iraqi-built dirty bomb or chemical weapon to be detonated in the US or the UK, what kind of blame game would there have been then? I refuse to believe that if 9/11 had not happened that GWB would have strapped on his 6 shooter and gone after SH just for kicks, or to "avenge his daddy" as others on this board had claimed. Pre-9/11, GWB's positions were "no nation building", "focus on education", "bi-partisan cooperation", etc. But after 9/11, all bets were off.

[Tiger Al 0]

Sorry, Jenny. We had three months worth of 'HumInt' while UNMOVIC was running around Iraq at the administration's direction going to the sites the information, much from Chalabi and INC, said that WMD's would be. What did they find?

[Ranger12 46]

Leave it to liberals to turn this into another *yawn* "Bush lied" thread. :roll: Guess they would know alot about lying since they support two of the biggest liers of all-Clinton and Kerry.

I am going to say this one more time for the apparent illiterate. Women and children were being tortured and killed on a daily basis people! The freakin' world is a better place without that crazy man in power! What the hell makes you think that he would not ever try something against the USA? What the freakin' hell makes you think he would never aid terrorism? Where the hell do you get your dumbass logic? Saddam Hussien was an enemy of humanity, period! You liberals would be singing a different tune if it has been your wives and kids being killed by that madman! It is alot easier to spew you soft, left wing bs, in the comfort of you own safe home in the good ole US of A! If Blow Me Bill Clinton would have did the same thing, all you liberals would be fully behind it. Know how I know that? Because your asses were totally behind him in sending troops to Bosnia to stop the same inhumanities that Saddam was guilty of also. So give me a freakin' break if I think your stances only have one agenda-"I hate Bush".

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Leave it to liberals to turn this into another *yawn* "Bush lied" thread. :roll: Guess they would know alot about lying since they support two of the biggest liers of all-Clinton and Kerry.

I am going to say this one more time for the apparent illiterate. Women and children were being tortured and killed on a daily basis people! The freakin' world is a better place without that crazy man in power! What the hell makes you think that he would not ever try something against the USA? What the freakin' hell makes you think he would never aid terrorism? Where the hell do you get your dumbass logic? Saddam Hussien was an enemy of humanity, period! You liberals would be singing a different tune if it has been your wives and kids being killed by that madman! It is alot easier to spew you soft, left wing bs, in the comfort of you own safe home in the good ole US of A! If Blow Me Bill Clinton would have did the same thing, all you liberals would be fully behind it. Know how I know that? Because your asses were totally behind him in sending troops to Bosnia to stop the same inhumanities that Saddam was guilty of also. So give me a freakin' break if I think your stances only have one agenda-"I hate Bush".

Kosovo was a NATO action. Big difference. We stopped genocide in Kosovo/Bosnia while balancing the budget for the first time in decades. We did it without calling up the guard and reserves for 12 month plus stretches. We did it without losing a single soldier. And perhaps most importantly, Clinton actually told the American people the truth behind why we were doing it. And most Republicans in Congress pitched a fit even while our men and women were in battle.

Saddam was a bad guy when Bush took office. You must really hate his daddy for leaving such a person in power. Bush never mentioned invading Iraq when he ran for President. Musical rationales. Which one do we claim today? You are so delusional and hypocritical you will never see it. But more and more Americans are, including some of the more rational Republicans. I know, it is a small subset, but its something.

There's genocide going on in Africa now. I don't hear you or Bush screaming about that.

So many of you are so eaten up with anger in general, and hatred of anyone named Clinton in particular that you assume everyone else works like you do. You ignore the fact that many of us who opposed invading Iraq, totally supported BUSH invading Afghanistan. You sound like a parody of the most hate-filled, right-wing wacko that any comedian could possibly imitate. Sometimes I hope that you are just pretending to be this stupid.

[quietfan 233]

Saddam Hussien was an enemy of humanity, period!

Yes, Saddam Hussein was/is a psycho- or sociopathic mass murderer. He has been his whole adult life.

Apparently that was not a concern for Ronald Reagan when he was supporting Hussein in his war against Iran, even though Saddam was already executing his political rivals and gassing his own people by then. It also apparently was not a problem for Father Bush when he left Saddam in power at the end of Desert Storm because he felt a strong Hussein would be a safer course for Middle Eastern stability than the chaos that would erupt in Iraq in the power vacuum left by his downfall. [Well, he was right about the chaos part!] Admittedly, Bush Sr. at first encourged the Kurds and Shites to revolt after the war, but then turned around and withheld support from American troops while returning Saddam's helicopters so he could destroy the rebels from the air.

W's arguments for this war were WMD and support of terrorism. He didn't sell the war on the grounds of saving the Iranian people, but on saving the American people from imagined threats that were not adequately supported by reliable intelligence.

There are plenty of other bad guys in the world. Shall we officially assume the role of global policeman and go after them all? Perhaps as the only remaining superpower, that is our moral obligation. But if we are going to take on that job, let's do so with a consensus of the American people, after an open national debate over our moral imperatives and based on unambigous intelligence and complete candor.

Finally, if we're going to be the new sheriff in town, let's understand that doing the job right means acting with legitimate "warrents" for the bad guys' arrests (i.e., with UN approval), with plenty of deputies (i.e., a large coalition supported by all our traditional allies), and a big posse (i.e., paying for a much bigger and more expensive military than we have now).

[quietfan 233]

Guess they would know alot about lying since they support two of the biggest liers of all-Clinton and Kerry.

I'm jaded enough to believe most successful politicians lie at one time or another. Certainly Clinton did and I would not want to vouch for Kerry's complete honesty either. But I don't mind admitting that, even as a bleeding-heart Democrat.

I'm not exactly sure how one goes about rating the "biggest" liars of all time, but I'd like to nominate two other contenders for consideration: Richard "I Am Not a Crook" Nixon and Ronald "This Was Not Arms-for-Hostages" Reagan.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ronald "This Was Not Arms-for-Hostages" Reagan.

Speaking of this, I wonder how it's gonna go over with the Iraqis when they have to deal with their new US ambassador John Negroponte who was armpit deep in supplying arms to Iran?