Uncovered in Iraq...Buried WMD

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mym1a

If my memory is correct the other side wanted to re-inact the draft?now im not totaly against the draft even if i was called! "tho I fulfilled my obligation years ago" but did the other side realy have the best interests of the country in mind when they attempted this?after discovering they would be committing political suicide those that introduced their own bill shot it down when it came to vote.it appeared at least to me,that the other side wanted to recreate another vietnam era enviroment where civil discourse was running very high!!! thats just my humble opinion!!!!
steriods implies over kill to me thats my humble opinion

As a raiding party, the force we sent into Iraq was an awesome thing. But that's all it was, basically. There weren't enough troops, equipment and supplies to secure and hold the ground as they took it; they just kept moving and left what was behind them to the vagaries of fate. That's why we wound up with armories being looted, etc.

The Bush team had a serious blind spot; one that I think was a case of ideology overcoming good sense. They didn't think they'd have to hold any ground; they believed the people would dance in the streets, throw flowers and candy, then settle down and immediately become imitation Americans with a funny accent.

They didn't realize the average Iraqi neither understands nor particularly wants democracy, American-style.

As far as the draft goes, it wasn't "the other side" introducing a bill for the draft, then reversing course. It was one man, who put it forth as a hook to hang a discussion of the Iraq War on, rather than as a serious proposal. He knew from the get-go it had no chance at all.

[ibfestus]

1. The MIG was found in 2002... this is 2008. Why now?

2. Should we automatically call every opther nation's leaders liars? Putin said IRAQ had WMD, the British, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and others agreed. Troy 2000 is the only one that didn't think the same.

3. The Crew of the carrier Bush landed on put up the sign "Mission Accomplished" and he merely commented on the sign.

4. The reason Bush used the number of troops we did is because that is what we had! Remember in 2002, defense spending was less than half what it was under Jimmy Carter.

[Wingwiper]

Originally Posted by Pred

First, link? Second, change the title of this thread as it's very misleading. There were no WMD's found in Iraq, yet your trying to lead people in to believing there were. They found a jet, and? Next...

Now that depends what you'all consider to be WMDs.
We have found Sarin Gas filled Artillery rods, several hundred
We have found Saddam and Ousay and Odday and the three of them were the worst WMDs responsible for hundreds if not millions of deaths.
So if everyone is waiting for that Container that has WMD stamped on its side, you will not find one. We have found alot of WMDs that don't rate the glamour or the sensationalism that many are awaiting, but no one cares to say "AH yes! they really are WMDs"

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by ibfestus

1. The MIG was found in 2002... this is 2008. Why now?
2. Should we automatically call every opther nation's leaders liars? Putin said IRAQ had WMD, the British, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and others agreed. Troy 2000 is the only one that didn't think the same.
3. The Crew of the carrier Bush landed on put up the sign "Mission Accomplished" and he merely commented on the sign.
4. The reason Bush used the number of troops we did is because that is what we had! Remember in 2002, defense spending was less than half what it was under Jimmy Carter.

I'm hardly the "only one;" ibfestus. Our own weapons inspectors said the same thing, and Bush chose not to believe them. Remember Scott Ritter?

Bush didn't put the banner up, but he's the one who gave the speech basically saying the war was over. How many years ago was that?

He had more troops available. And if there honestly weren't enough to do the job, he had no business invading Iraq.

[CrazyIvan]

Where exactly is the WMD??? This is an Airplane. And, last I looked...or heard...The UN had no sanctions against Iraq concerning aircraft.

Please channge the title.

Also, need a link.

Also...it says "is an advanced reconnaissance version never before seen in the West and is equipped with sophisticated electronic warfare devices."

But later, it says "The advanced electronic reconnaissance version found by the U.S. Air Force is currently in service with the Russian air force."

Last I looked, the new Russia is part of "The West."

So, What kind of backward-azz B.S. lie is this?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

Now that depends what you'all consider to be WMDs.
We have found Sarin Gas filled Artillery rods, several hundred
We have found Saddam and Ousay and Odday and the three of them were the worst WMDs responsible for hundreds if not millions of deaths.
So if everyone is waiting for that Container that has WMD stamped on its side, you will not find one. We have found alot of WMDs that don't rate the glamour or the sensationalism that many are awaiting, but no one cares to say "AH yes! they really are WMDs"

We have found nothing that matches what we supposedly invaded to eliminate: major, deadly WMD's constituting a clear and immediate danger to the United States. Remember? We couldn't wait because the "smoking gun" might be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities?

I don't remember Bush telling us were going in because Ousay and Oday were WMD's...

[Windwalker]

Like Rich, I consider the aircraft an important find. I am not a liberal but I find anyone saying liberals and jihadists are one and the same to be very offensive. Troy2000 is a liberal and I sometimes disagree with one of his posts, but to intimate that he could be a traitor or jihadist rubs my fur the wrong way quick. I feel that Troy 2000 like many other members here are outstanding Americans and I will be proud to stand with them.

[troy2000]

Now stop that, Windwalker. Dang it, how do you expect me to keep foaming at the mouth properly, if you're gonna haul off and sound all friendly and reasonable?!?

[Windwalker]

Hang in there Troy. I don't have to agree with you to like and respect you.

[rasterman77]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

Like Rich, I consider the aircraft an important find. I am not a liberal but I find anyone saying liberals and jihadists are one and the same to be very offensive. Troy2000 is a liberal and I sometimes disagree with one of his posts, but to intimate that he could be a traitor or jihadist rubs my fur the wrong way quick. I feel that Troy 2000 like many other members here are outstanding Americans and I will be proud to stand with them.

I am relieved to read this, for awhile I thought the current government supporters where more mislead as the government itself.
Remember everyone here wants to retain the right to bear arms in order to prevent government dictatorship but it seems that a people that can propagate this threads premiss is already creating a support system for a government that carries out it's own will and not one of the majority.

Also a chevette on steroids is still not nearly fast enough to compete in top fuel drag racing.... those of you following this thread should get this!

[Zen900]

Originally Posted by Coeloptera

Oh, I don't doubt that it would, but there are two things in favour of it. First, the climate there is very dry, so corrosion and salt deposits are unlikely to form on or in the plane itself. Next, being buried for a comparatively short time, the sand wouldn't have much chance to actually abrade and damage any sensitive systems.
Now, of course, very nearly the entire aircraft will have to be disassembled, the sand cleaned out, all the fluids replaced (likely all drained before storage), all the electronics tested, and the airframe checked for any damage before they'd even consider testing its systems, let alone flight testing the whole thing.
But a great find, nonetheless.
And yes, I feel compelled to address people flinging "liberal" accusations around again.
Why, of course these mysterious and apparently powerful "libs" want to turn our nation over to Muslim extremists. Why, it should be obvious to everyone that there are literally millions of full-bore traitors to the US living within its borders who are working tirelessly to destroy our way of life and render us all little more than slaves or corpses.
I think they also have an alliance with the Gnomes of Zurich and the Illuminati.
Seriously, even the most hard-core Bush supporter must realize by now that both parties want little to do with him and his numerous missteps. It is not giving comfort to the enemy to point out that the POTUS made a colossal mistake and is doing next to nothing to get the guy who actually masterminded the attack on us while trying to settle an old grudge.
Zen...you're off base. We look even worse than before because we did exactly the wrong thing. We hit the wrong country (most of the hijackers were Saudis, okay? Saudis.) and, while Hussein was not a good guy, he had nothing to do with 9/11.
I'm going to say that again. Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing. It was a secular nation and Al Quaeda couldn't have been happier we wrecked it.
Wrong country, wrong guy executed, and finding one jet buried in the sand sure doesn't make up for the parade of heinous mistakes that have been made since that day.
I won't even get into the assaults on our freedoms that they wanted our own government to do.
Face it. We've messed up big time and likely have lost this one. We're powerful, not perfect. There's a difference.
- Coeloptera

I'll ask you again. What would you have done after 9-11-01? Would you have done anything? Why do you ignore this question? BTW Saddam was paying money out to the familys of surviving terrorists. He tried to kill Bush. He attacked Kuwait. CNN filmed terrorist training grounds in Baghdad when US troops arrived there. You must have been watching Ellen Degeneres when that was shown on world wide tv.

Anybody knows that no one can attack Saudi Arabia because the entire worlds economy depends on oil.

[Rave]

If anyone is really interested in why we are in Iraq try reading the 9-11 Commission Report,I did and found it rather informative,and sometimes hard to believe,but the gummint blessed the report and it's there for all to see.
Since I am not privvy to the "political" forum I guess I will leave it at that.

[troy2000]

Zen, why do you keep dragging up 9/11? Saddam Hussein didn't do it..

What I would have done in response to 9/11 is purely a hypothetical question, but I can assure that what I wouldn't have done is invade a country that had nothing to do with it, and leave the guilty parties to run loose laughing at us...

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by troy2000

As a raiding party, the force we sent into Iraq was an awesome thing. But that's all it was, basically. There weren't enough troops, equipment and supplies to secure and hold the ground as they took it; they just kept moving and left what was behind them to the vagaries of fate. That's why we wound up with armories being looted, etc.

The Bush team had a serious blind spot; one that I think was a case of ideology overcoming good sense. They didn't think they'd have to hold any ground; they believed the people would dance in the streets, throw flowers and candy, then settle down and immediately become imitation Americans with a funny accent.

They didn't realize the average Iraqi neither understands nor particularly wants democracy, American-style.

As far as the draft goes, it wasn't "the other side" introducing a bill for the draft, then reversing course. It was one man, who put it forth as a hook to hang a discussion of the Iraq War on, rather than as a serious proposal. He knew from the get-go it had no chance at all.

So if i'm understanding you correctly this is the first war we ever fought were their was a loss of life and alleged error in tactics?Hook on Iraq war? I thought congress gave the president authorization to use military action before Rangel wanted to hook a discussion?once again that party was trying to ride the fence.I do have respect for the politicians that initialy voted against the war and went on record as such.and then their were those that voted for the war before they voted against the war.That was some classic fence riding ?????????

[troy2000]

Did I say any of that, mymia? No...nor does having you stick those words in my mouth negate anything I've said.

This discussion has degenerated into mere quibbling. I've already made the points I wanted to make, I don't feel like repeating myself, and I think I'm done here.

[mym1a]

you know troy2000 we are probably more like minded then we believe I would like to know why we have to be the worlds policemen? How do we get out of this status and still save face?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mym1a

you know troy2000 we are probably more like minded then we believe I would like to know why we have to be the worlds policemen? How do we get out of this status and still save face?

Hoo boy, mym1a. That's a whole new discussion...

I think it's a little late to save face; we already have egg all over it. And having ripped their existing government apart, we have an obligation to make an honest effort at putting something workable back together. Also, we're still looking at probably the main reason Bush sr. didn't take down Saddam during the Gulf War: he wanted Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran and Syria.

So we're probably stuck with a major presence in Iraq for several more years. Much as I would love to see us leave, it probably isn't practical to do it. And as I've said earlier in this thread, I do see some hope. It looks to me like we're finally on the right track with the Sunnis; Al Queda is making itself progressively more unwelcome to all the Iraqis; the Kurds pretty much take care of themselves. The major problem seems to be that the Shi'ites can't get it together.

[mym1a]

you think it would be better to just let them seperate into 3 different states in one country or would it cause even more problems?

[N2914J]

Chris, will you please move this? It's going to be top thread all day at this rate.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mym1a

you think it would be better to just let them seperate into 3 different states in one country or would it cause even more problems?

I think that's inevitable. The best we can hope for is to keep them in some sort of a federal system, like a looser version of the U.S., with local self-rule for the states and a central government for settling disputes, regulating trade, providing national defense and carrying out foreign policy.

If they become totally independent, the Kurds will wind up at war with Turkey, the Shi'ites will be swallowed by Iran, and the Sunnis in the middle, having no oil of their own, will promptly attack each of the others.