Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CurtissP-6EHawk on September 22, 2004, 06:00:01 PM
-
Mig (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp#photo01)
-
He was just preparing for the afterlife. At least that is what they would assume in 2346AD when they dug them up to make way for a super-duper Walmart.
-
NOOO! IT...JUST...CAN'T...BEEEEE!!!!!
-
Thats no way to treat a lady?!:(
-
HAHA they call a Mig a WMD...
-
Wow, thank god they found it. I, for one, will sleep easier.
-
I wonder if those were part of the Iraq Air Force show team, "The Lawndarts".
-
Regardless, it's an excellent indication of the difficulties inspectors have.
-
That just gave me a great idea for a cartoon.
The caption reads: "Martlet, fed-up with the lack of results in the search for WMD, personally goes to Iraq to find them."
The accompanying picture: Martlet bending over with head buried in sand.
-
how the hell is having an air force a BAD thing?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well ... you did find the MiGs ...
Yeah..worthless MiGs seeing as how they were in the sand..with no protective wrapping..they are ruined..considering the age og that model of MiG..to completely tear them down and rebuild just to get rid of sand intrusion would be cost prohibative.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Yeah..worthless MiGs seeing as how they were in the sand..with no protective wrapping..they are ruined..considering the age og that model of MiG..to completely tear them down and rebuild just to get rid of sand intrusion would be cost prohibative.
Go read it again. Some were buried wraped in plastic. They either ran out of plastic or got scared from something....kinda like the USA stepping close on thier heels maybe?
-
Originally posted by Nash
That just gave me a great idea for a cartoon.
The caption reads: "Martlet, fed-up with the lack of results in the search for WMD, personally goes to Iraq to find them."
The accompanying picture: Martlet bending over with head buried in sand.
You're all class.
-
By that I take it that you think you're all class?
-
Hmm... I get the sneaking suspicion that you don't get the joke.
It's not a beheading thing, if that's what yer thinking....
Yer actually putting yer head in the sand because you appearently think that's where WMD is. The effect; yer head is buried in the sand.
It's a great metaphor if I do say so myself... but the fact that I gotta explain the joke renders the joke lame.
Thanks for wrecking my joke. Thanks a lot.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
HAHA they call a Mig a WMD...
They arent calling the MiG WMD, they are implying that the WMD's were also buried. At least thats how I saw it :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
They arent calling the MiG WMD, they are implying that the WMD's were also buried. At least thats how I saw it :)
correct
which would be easier to hide in say 10 feet of sand?
nah - Saddam was an officer and a gentleman and the US was evil in removing him and killing his angelic pair of sons - LOL
-
Those migs were found over a year ago.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Those migs were found over a year ago.
still about 10 years after they were supposed to be there, iirc.
-
'sides... as far as I know, they've just given up looking.
This represents, perhaps, the only evidence in existsence of the administration accepting reality about anything.
-
examples Nash?
-
Oh please don't make this one of those things where I'm asked over and over to demonstrate the obvious.
-
if they went to the trouble to hide MIGs in then sand, why do you think they did not hide WMD in the sand?
-
Originally posted by Nash
'sides... as far as I know, they've just given up looking.
This represents, perhaps, the only evidence in existsence of the administration accepting reality about anything.
no, just give a few examples.
-
When a body gets dumped and buried in some remote section of forest, does its discovery come as a result of some search?
No, because that barely happens.
It gets discovered, 99 times out of 100, because someone tells them where it is.
Now you can be very certain that every name on any document relating to weapons programs has been summarily rounded up, and the neccessary pressure to talk has been applied.
How many people are we talking about here... 100's? 1,000's?
And *NOBODY* has talked?
As far as I can tell about the ME, a high premium on loyalty aint happenin. So the question is, how could not one person have spoken up?
The answer is a lot like the reason why Iraq didn't reveal its WMD to the world.
They weren't there.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
examples Nash?
to have them all deleted by tomorrow morning Nuke?
-
Originally posted by Nash
When a body gets dumped and buried in some remote section of forest, does its discovery come as a result of some search?
No, because that wouldn't happen.
It gets discovered, 99 times out of 100, because someone tells them where it is.
I would say that 9 times out of ten, someone happens upon the body by accident. That is how most bodies are found...by people passing by.
-
Originally posted by Nash
to have them all deleted by tomorrow morning Nuke?
I dont get it.
-
Ah Nuke.... Well okay yeah... that happens. But I said dumped and buried.
And even then, they have on occasion turned up from a search.
But that's just rare.
Someone goes missing, and the suspects are rounded up, and someone cops to it, and tells the lea where the body is.
Please don't get hung-up by the possibility of WMD getting discovered by a camel herder wandering through the desert.
Answer instead with what my post was getting at...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I dont get it.
Do you want me to provide you with examples? :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ah Nuke.... Well okay yeah... that happens. But I said dumped and buried.
And even then, they have on occasion turned up from a search.
But that's just rare.
Someone goes missing, and the suspects are rounded up, and someone cops to it, and tells the lea where the body is.
Please don't get hung-up by the possibility of WMD getting discovered by a camel herder wandering through the desert.
Answer instead with what my post was getting at...
sorry Nash, been drinking a little. What specifically do you want me to answer buddy?
-
Originally posted by Nash
When a body gets dumped and buried in some remote section of forest, does its discovery come as a result of some search?
I think that's the wrong question, Nash.
The real question is, "When a body gets dumped and buried in some remote section of forest does it make a sound?"
-
Instead of expecting a search of sand to reveal WMD, how could not the traditional method of locating things have produced anything?
How could not ONE person have spilled the beans by now?
-
Liz: :D
-
From my POV, finding WMD never was an issue, so I never cared if we found them really.
My main issue was that Saddam would never do enough to convince me that he did not have banned weapons, including WMD. I believe that Saddam thought he could skate through his "crisis".
For me, the only thing that mattered was that Saddam could never be trusted and that nobody was going to do anything to stop him.
-
Plenty of folks can't be trusted.
Gud enough reason to go to war? At what it's costing you?
You're in Arizona: 24 soldiers killed and 160 wounded. 2.2 billion dollars of your money, so far.
-
At the time of the decision to invade, the decision was between fighting and continuing the sanctions, inspections.
I haven't found a single quote by a world leader, other than Saddam Hussein, uttered before the invasion, stating that his government was confident that SH did not have WMD's. I have spent quite a bit of time googling.
1441 passed unanimously, and implict in that acceptance by the UNSC was that the members were concerned about SH WMD capability.
The conventional wisdom at the time was that we were going to get gassed during the fight.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Plenty of folks can't be trusted.
Gud enough reason to go to war? At what it's costing you?
You're in Arizona: 24 soldiers killed and 160 wounded. 2.2 billion dollars of your money, so far.
Nash, I really do not want to argue. If Iraq had never invaded Kuwait, the the US would never have been in Iraq and Saddam would still be in control.
The US did not invade Iraq on a whim.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I haven't found a single quote by a world leader, other than Saddam Hussein, uttered before the invasion, stating that his government was confident that SH did not have WMD's.
Maybe that's why they ordered a final and pretty harsh all-requests-get-fufilled-and-all-access-gets-granted-or-mr.-hussein-you're-a-dead-man inspection.
The team went to *every* place mentioned in Powell's UN speech, and much more.
They couldn't find squat. But they were still looking, and the cooperation was golden, yet...
Bush yanked them out. Cut short that inspection. There was an accepted deadline, and Bush changed his mind and ordered them out now.
Google the answer to why that was, instead. I frankly haven't been able to make heads nor tails of it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Maybe that's why they ordered a final and pretty harsh all-requests-get-fufilled-and-all-access-gets-granted-or-mr.-hussein-you're-a-dead-man inspection.
The team went to *every* place mentioned in Powell's UN speech, and much more.
They couldn't find squat. But they were still looking, and the cooperation was golden, yet...
Bush yanked them out. Cut short that inspection.
Google the answer to why that was, instead. I frankly haven't been able to make heads nor tails of it.
Nash, that's not true. We found more than 500 tons of yellow-cake uranium at ONE site.... a site that the inspectors had limited access to before the war. We found and removed 1.8 tons of enriched uranium from the same site. We found reference strains of biological WMD.
-
Cooperation was golden?
February 08, 2003
Chief UN arms inspector Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday urged a "drastic change" in Iraq's cooperation with inspections as a US-led war on Iraq looms large.
Speaking to reporters in Cyprus before heading for Iraq, ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said he and his fellow Hans Blix wanted to see a "drastic change" in Baghdad's cooperation.
"We expect to see drastic change with regard to particular areas, the areas of surveillance flights, and the question of private interviews, these are the areas where it is important to move on," ElBaradei said.
January 27, 2003
UNITED NATIONS - With the United States escalating threats of war, the chief U.N. arms inspector sharply criticized Iraq on Monday for failing to disclose all its long range missile, chemical and biological arms programs.
"It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can," said Hans Blix. "Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."
After two months of inspections, the reports by top disarmament inspectors Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to the U.N. Security Council appeared to bolster Washington's case that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
But countries with misgivings about a military strike, including China, France, Germany, Russia, Syria, Canada, Norway and others insisted inspectors had to be given more time.
Blix delivered his toughest assessment yet of Iraq's cooperation, particularly on Baghdad's 12,000-page arms declaration submitted on Dec. 7. However, he did not corroborate U.S. claims that Baghdad had rebuilt its arsenal, saying he could not give a verdict one way or another.
Blix was far harsher in his evaluation than his colleague Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who said there was no evidence that Iraq had revived a nuclear weapons program dismantled in the early 1990s.
-
The irony is that if Bush didn't threaten force, the UN inspectors would have never been allowed back into Iraq in the first place. Doesn't that make you wonder about the threat and use of force Nash?
Why do you think Iraq EVER would have allowed ANY UN inpsections?
-
Good quotes Holden.
How about one from the actual Security Council report just two weeks before the invasion:
"Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998."
Their plug was pulled not 10 days later.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Good quotes Holden.
How about one from the actual Security Council report just two weeks before the invasion:
"Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998."
Their plug was pulled not 10 days later.
Nash, can you explain why inpections resumed under Bush? Why was Saddam able to kick inpsectors out?
Maybe Iraq suddenly thought they'd be nice.
-
Oh fer sure Nuke... Iraq wouldn't have aquiesced without the pressure. Totally...
I hear that all the time here though: "Oh the irony"...
Thing is, so WHAT?
The show of force was neccessary... and it worked. So far, so good.
So why was it neccessary to actually go in again?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh fer sure Nuke... Iraq wouldn't have aquiesced without the pressure. Totally...
I hear that all the time here though: "Oh the irony"...
Thing is, so WHAT?
The show of force was neccessary... and it worked. So far, so good.
So why was it neccessary to actually go in again?
My point is: Iraq would have NEVER allowed inspections unless FORCED. Right?
-
Again, you are correct.
And again, my question is, so what. Why did you need to actually go in?
The show of force worked.
Why invade?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Again, you are correct.
And again, my question is, so what. Why did you need to actually go in?
The show of force worked.
Why invade?
Show of force brought inspections back, not full cooperation.
Force brought full cooperation and compliance.
Nash, what more could you ask for? Iraq in full compliance and ZERO Canadian risk. Why *****?
-
And again - I'm not saying it didn't.
Because it did.
Resulting in full access being granted by Iraq.
Then on the 18th of March, despite being told things were peachy WRT the inspections, Bush suddenly and for seemingly no reason yanked the inspectors out of there.
Why did he do that?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Good quotes Holden.
How about one from the actual Security Council report just two weeks before the invasion:
Is that the one that starts out:
Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix reported to the Security Council this morning that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there had been an acceleration of initiatives by Iraq since the end of January, including an acceptance that its Al-Samoud 2 missiles must be destroyed.
As to whether Iraq had cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively”, Mr. Blix, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said that the Iraqi side had tried on occasion to attach conditions, but so far had not persisted in those or other conditions. The initiatives now taken by the Iraqi side, three to four months into resolution 1441, could not be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.
From Security Council 4714th Meeting (AM)?
All I was pointing out was that "Golden" would not be my choice for a descriptor of Hussein's cooperation.
-
Originally posted by Nash
And again - I'm not saying it didn't.
Because it did.
Resulting in full access being granted by Iraq.
Then on the 18th of March, despite being told things were peachy WRT the inspections, Bush suddenly and for seemingly no reason yanked the inspectors out of there.
Why did he do that?
The problem was that is was not full access. Saddam continued to play games. The war was Saddam's to prevent.
-
(response to Holden McGroin)
Okay, yeah... Inspections didn't start out golden, but they certainly where by the time Bush yanked the inspectors - as your last quote shows.
My question still stands (not to make a point, but because I'm still sincerely curious):
Why did they all of a sudden get yanked that day?
-
Originally posted by Nash
(response to Holden McGroin)
Okay, yeah... Inspections didn't start out golden, but they certainly where by the time Bush yanked the inspectors - as your last quote shows.
My question still stands (not to make a point, but because I'm still sincerely curious):
Why did they all of a sudden get yanked that day?
The UN issued a "final" warning for Iraqi full compliance. The date passed, still no full compliance and no consequences.
-
That's sure as hell not what the inspectors said.
-
And what dates are you reffering to? What transpired didn't conform to any official dates laid out by anyone.
But there were official dates involved. Like the time-frame for the inspections. Bush all of a sudden cut that short, based on nothing I can see.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's sure as hell not what the inspectors said.
The inspectors didn't find the 500 tons of uranium, 1.8 tons enriched uranium, strands of bio WMD, buried migs, and more.
-
Whaaa?
You are telling me now, with that, that WMD was discovered in Iraq?
Why oh why isn't Bush saying the same thing?
-
As I remember it Nash, there was a weather consideration about the force. (which constituted a the threat to SH)
Either they were going to fight in spring at the latest or they would have to fight in Iraqi summer heat in chem suits. The biggest casualty would have been heat stroke.
The other option would have been to demobilize, remove the threat to SH regime that was starting to work, and remobilize the next year.
Go thru all the diplomacy BS again, probably more SC meetings, rebuild a coalition, etc. This was the option SH was hoping GWB would choose.
It was a use it or lose it situation.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Whaaa?
You are telling me now, with that, that WMD was discovered in Iraq?
Why oh why isn't Bush saying the same thing?
WMD have been found in Iraq. Not in significant amounts.
-
Okay lets backtrack then, and try to sum this up...
There is currently a bloodbath in Iraq (and holy, the foreign policy rammifications are... nuts) because of "insignificant" amounts of WMD that the pulled inspectors would have discovered anyways?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As I remember it Nash, there was a weather consideration about the force. (which constituted a the threat to SH)
Either they were going to fight in spring at the latest or they would have to fight in Iraqi summer heat in chem suits. The biggest casualty would have been heat stroke.
Go in despite it being a complete mistake, because the weather was good?
The other option would have been to demobilize, remove the threat to SH regime that was starting to work, and remobilize the next year.
Go thru all the diplomacy BS again, probably more SC meetings, rebuild a coalition, etc. This was the option SH was hoping GWB would choose.
Or the third option was to keep them were they were. Like we're all saying, that threat was working. Let the inspectors complete their job.
It was a use it or lose it situation.
That's kinda tunnelvision-like. Because those troops WERE working already. They didn't need for them to actually invade for them to work.
How much has this cost, this fiasco?
-
Who killed UNSCOM?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/whokilled.html
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay lets backtrack then, and try to sum this up...
There is currently a bloodbath in Iraq (and holy, the foreign policy rammifications are... nuts) because of "insignificant" amounts of WMD that the pulled inspectors would have discovered anyways?
There is less of a bloodbath in Iraq than when Saddam ruled. Now Iraqis have hope.
-
Yeah okay, you keep telling yourself that...
This is off-topic slightly, but does anyone here get how huge this is?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah okay, you keep telling yourself that...
This is off-topic slightly, but does anyone here get how huge this is?
huge what is?
-
The Iraq war...
-
Originally posted by Nash
The Iraq war...
The Iraq war is huge...a huge positive for the middle east.
-
mkay... Gotta run! Cheerio!
-
Originally posted by Nash
mkay... Gotta run! Cheerio!
yeah, best let the fanatics run free....
I'm going to bed too
-
Originally posted by Nash
Go in despite it being a complete mistake, because the weather was good?
Mistake is a 20/20 hindsight opinion. I was giving you a tactical consideration. Why was the invasion of Normandy in the first week of June? Phase of the moon, tides, etc were favorable. Why June 6 instead of June 5? Weather. Weather is an extremely important consideration.
Or the third option was to keep them were they were. Like we're all saying, that threat was working. Let the inspectors complete their job.
The weather window was closing in Iraq. Our commanders knew it, and SH knew it. The threat was based upon the readiness of our armed forces. A sure fire way to ruin an army's readiness is to move them into the middle of the Arabian desert and make them sit in a 115 F tent for a few months.
How much has this cost, this fiasco?
There is also a dollar cost associated with letting troops bake in the desert doing nothing.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I would say that 9 times out of ten, someone happens upon the body by accident. That is how most bodies are found...by people passing by.
....and is exactly how these planes (or at least the one) were found. Go read it. Someone saw the two vertical fins sticking out of the sand!
-
I wonder what kind of equipment they're using to look for these things. Anybody have an idea? I mean, there's all kinds of flyover gravimetric equipment, truck-mounted seismic equipment, etc, that can locate likely petroleum-bearing lithologies thousands of feet beneath the surface. Are they using any of that technology? Just curious. Anybody in here know?(http://[img]http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/236_1095945537_metaldetector.jpg)[/IMG]
How bout this?;)