Skip

can ya dig it?
August 9, 2003 11:39 PM   Subscribe

51 Migs Found Buried in Iraq
posted by Espoo2 (50 comments total)

 
Yo - this is old news...check out the first link:

April 18, 2003, 12:07PM

Australian forces find 51 Migs in western Iraq
Reuters News Service

posted by davidmsc at 12:15 AM on August 10, 2003


Guess it won't be big news until September.
posted by Espoo2 at 12:20 AM on August 10, 2003


Nice that the photo on the bbc link doesn't match the planes they discovered.

NYTimes had some good pictures of these a while back.
posted by rudyfink at 1:28 AM on August 10, 2003


These aren't the Migs you are looking for.
posted by attackthetaxi at 2:34 AM on August 10, 2003


I wonder how long these were buried. The Australian site says that these planes were from the late 1980s.
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:20 AM on August 10, 2003


You mean they had the airplane?!?
posted by Outlawyr at 5:32 AM on August 10, 2003


"Our guys have found 30-something brand new aircraft buried in the sand to deny us access to them," said Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Porter Goss.

Seems to me these stories are about two different lots of hidden airplanes. The Australians found 51 planes back in April and said the newest of them were from the mid-1980's. Now the Americans are saying they found 30-odd brand new ones.
posted by orange swan at 5:42 AM on August 10, 2003


It's time for the Iraqi-Decepticon crossover comic. . . "Starscream RISES!"
posted by spslsausse at 5:44 AM on August 10, 2003


The discovery comes as America's weapons inspector in Iraq say they are making solid progress in the search for banned weapons the US says Saddam Hussein was hiding.

Since when did "still empty-handed and running out of places to look" equal "making solid progress in the search"?
posted by orange swan at 5:51 AM on August 10, 2003


Are airplanes weapons of mass destruction? Should I run around with my hands in the air screaming every time the 10:50 from Cincinnati to Columbus Delta Air flight goes overhead?
posted by benjh at 6:01 AM on August 10, 2003


Are airplanes weapons of mass destruction? Should I run around with my hands in the air screaming every time the 10:50 from Cincinnati to Columbus Delta Air flight goes overhead?

Only if the flight is piloted by a terrorist intent on crashing it into your tallest building.
posted by bwg at 6:05 AM on August 10, 2003


Since when did "still empty-handed and running out of places to look" equal "making solid progress in the search"?

shit, ever since war equaled peace and freedom equaled slavery. tsk! you haven't been reading the memos, have you?
posted by quonsar at 6:07 AM on August 10, 2003


I think they were saying the planes were manufactured in the 80s... probably only recently buried to hide locations of interest from the US.
posted by shadow45 at 6:12 AM on August 10, 2003


Can we just close this thread and pretend it never happened?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:22 AM on August 10, 2003


I have a friend whose brother collects junk, and he has run out of space in the various garages of the several houses he owns and rents out. So he has taken to burying especially good finds. Usable hot water heaters, for example. Of course, the yard space for burying has been running out, so sometimes he sneaks out at night and buries things in his neighbors yard.

Somebody should call the WMD inspectors! I know a hot water heater isn't quite what the US would like to find, but still - imagine the headline:

"Mysterious devices which might be related to Iraq's WMD program found!"

OK - they were found in Maryland, sure, but still this headline wouldn't be incorrect. After all, who knows where the water heaters came from? Iraqi WMD scientists take showers, right? And maybe my friend's brother in Maryland is on Saddam's secret payroll. You never know.
posted by troutfishing at 6:32 AM on August 10, 2003


the question is, did the planes die of natural causes or were they executed point-blank and then buried in a shallow grave?
posted by matteo at 6:56 AM on August 10, 2003


Are airplanes weapons of mass destruction?

They were on August 6th & 9th in 1945 and September 11th 2001.
posted by wfrgms at 7:54 AM on August 10, 2003


US Secretary of Offence Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a hastily convened press conference at the Pentagon this morning that what appears to be the entire armed forces of failed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein have been found buried in the desert at a disused air base west of Baghdad. (heh)
posted by VulcanMike at 8:21 AM on August 10, 2003


They were on August 6th & 9th in 1945 and September 11th 2001.

Why does this feel like a "Which one of thes three doesn't belong" question?
posted by srboisvert at 8:29 AM on August 10, 2003


They were on August 6th & 9th in 1945 and September 11th 2001

I think you'll find that the latter case does not exactly fall in the category of Weapon of Mass Destruction, which generally would be considered a weapon capable of killing or injuring a few more than 5000 odd people.

In the 2 former instances I think you'll find that the planes merely delivered the W'sMD and can not be considered W'sMD themselves.
posted by zoid at 9:30 AM on August 10, 2003


They were on August 6th & 9th in 1945 and September 11th 2001

Agreed. On the first two dates, airplanes delivered such weapons, and on the third, they served as weapons of mass disruption.

Hundreds of thousands of japanese vs three thousand american. Even with coke-bottle goggles, I'd like to think we don't think we're that much more important than the rest of the planet (at least on such a per capita basis).
posted by Busithoth at 10:01 AM on August 10, 2003


Oh my god, they cloned Miguel!
posted by scody at 11:15 AM on August 10, 2003


Are airplanes weapons of mass destruction?

They were on August 6th & 9th in 1945 and September 11th 2001


Perfect. We've found the WMDs. Death to all countries who have active aviation programs.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:15 AM on August 10, 2003


I think the point is if it took them this long to uncover a huge mass grave of migs, there's a good chance that there ARE real WMD buried somewhere else in Iraq that they haven't found just yet.
posted by VeGiTo at 11:20 AM on August 10, 2003


Again, this article is from APRIL.
posted by Hildago at 11:26 AM on August 10, 2003


it's a great find for the future Iraqi air force, at least until they can work up enough scratch to buy American planes.
posted by chaz at 11:44 AM on August 10, 2003


The first article is April, the second is August. They're talking about 2 different finds.
posted by VeGiTo at 11:47 AM on August 10, 2003


why would Saddam bury his airforce? That makes no sense what so ever! Did his generals betray him and refuse to mobilize the air force? This is just weird.

And VeGiTo, how does this relate to Bush's WMD? Finding these warplanes does not bring the US any closer to finding any WMD's.
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:57 AM on August 10, 2003



why would Saddam bury his airforce? That makes no sense what so ever!

Where were they going to fly them?
posted by thirteen at 12:11 PM on August 10, 2003


why would Saddam bury his airforce? That makes no sense what so ever! ... This is just weird.

Hmmm, let's think about it a little.
United States, England, and France have established no-fly-zones in the north and south of the country. Every radar satellite station you try to deploy in the field gets blown sky-high as soon as it's online, and constant sorties are looking for targets.

What would you do to keep your jets from getting bombed? Note that the article mentions some were just abandoned under camouflage netting...

Hooray for the Iraqi air force of tomorrow! On second thought, maybe these could be liquidated and sold to India for parts, since they seem to need to maintenance them so bad...
posted by Busithoth at 12:14 PM on August 10, 2003


That's just the thing, he could have sold them. At least, he could have tried to fly them during the war, knowing they'd get shot down, but at least he could put up a fight. Burying planes in the dessert, basically destroying them for no strategic, or financial gain, seems, well, stupid.
I think I just broke my comma key
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:22 PM on August 10, 2003


elwoodwiles: do you have problem reading? I said if it took them so long to find these migs, there's a good chance that there are still areas of Iraq unsearched and those areas may have buried WMD.
posted by VeGiTo at 12:24 PM on August 10, 2003


The first article is April, the second is August. They're talking about 2 different finds.

Australian troops found buried planes at Al Asad on or just after April 16th. American troops found more, at Al-Taqqadum on, or before July 6th. For some reason, the Al-Taqqadum find hasn't been widely reported until around August 1st. This is all apparent from the linked articles, but can be verified with a little googling.

However, it does look to me like someone's carefully managing the flow of news.

...

Also, why bury them? Well, if you remember, last time around they flew a bunch over to Iran for safe keeping, and I don't think they ever got them back.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 1:18 PM on August 10, 2003


s/but can be/and can be
posted by inpHilltr8r at 1:21 PM on August 10, 2003


Well, after recently getting hooked on phonics my reading comprehension has risen dramatically. Thank you. What I do not understand about your comments is the connection between finding these warplanes and finding WMD. It is just as logical to say that as more of Iraq is searched, the odds of finding WMD's goes down. If Iraq was capable of striking the US and other targets within 45 minutes of making that decision (as is alleged by certain authorities) wouldn't the WMD's be easier to find?

The real problem here is I do not believe Iraq had the WMD alleged by the US and British government. The more the US digs around Iraq, the more things they find that are not WMD. This only supports my opinion that the Bush admin lied.

On preview: Hiding one's warplanes in an enemy country is equally as stupid as burying the damned things.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:29 PM on August 10, 2003


"Again, this article is from APRIL."

Yeah, she's good, ain't she?


posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:18 PM on August 10, 2003


I wonder what precautions were taken in preparing the aircraft for underground caching and what shape the avionics and engines are in now. No matter how arid the climate -- and Iraq isn't quite like Death Valley -- there's always ground moisture to some extent.
posted by alumshubby at 4:55 PM on August 10, 2003


avionics

heh. when a server fails at blogger, someone has to come in and reboot the 'blogtronics'.
posted by quonsar at 5:40 PM on August 10, 2003


For those who believe in the rightness of the war, hope will always spring eternal and every infinitesimal bit of evidence will forever represent the the next-to-the-last step to vindication; and for those who believe the war is wrong, no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for justification, even up to incontrovertible proof, which will undoubtedly have been faked.

Thus can we all be assured that, no matter what the report, the usual suspects will line up on their respective sides to debate how many legs a cockroach has.
posted by UncleFes at 9:10 PM on August 10, 2003


51 Migs Found Buried in Iraq,
51 Migs,
take one down,
pass it around,
50 Migs Found Buried in Iraq.
posted by larry_darrell at 9:36 PM on August 10, 2003


...while someone will stand at the sidelines and throw feces, delighting in the chaos.

:)
posted by kavasa at 9:44 PM on August 10, 2003


Now hold on a minute, UncleFes.

I was against the war, but I'm 100% for air-to-air combat. Who can be against man-to-man jet-fighter duels? If only Saddam had unearthed these before the war, there would have been white-knuckle dogfights and exciting new flight sims.

Note that no one put out any exciting new flight sims. That's because no one wants to play a computer game about dropping payloads on weddings and restaurants.

The lack of MiG vs. F-16 combat in this war should embarass any child of the 1980s.
posted by inksyndicate at 10:46 PM on August 10, 2003


Let me get this straight, UncleFes, do you equate the act of challenging unproved claims to actually making unproved claims?
posted by magullo at 3:30 AM on August 11, 2003


What kind of cruel, vicious dictator would bury poor helpless little airplanes alive I ask you?

Do we need more reason than this for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?

We should be willing to pay any price for the rescue of these little winged things!

Damn Islamists!
posted by nofundy at 5:28 AM on August 11, 2003


Sigh. Big friggin' deal. Where's:
- Osama bin Laden?
- Saddam Hussein?
- Evidence on who actually backed 9/11?
- Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?
- Iraq's Nigerian uranium?

Call me when there's news on any of the above.
posted by FormlessOne at 7:34 AM on August 11, 2003


While this may make it more difficult, I still say that we should sneak Clint Eastwood in there and have him steal them, one at a time.
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:42 AM on August 11, 2003


Since we took out the Iraqi air defense network in 1991, the US has had air superiority over the whole of Iraq. Any MiGs left out would be destroyed; it's only rational that they would bury them and then pull them out after sanctions. Big deal.
posted by norm at 9:34 AM on August 11, 2003


Kafkaesque, you made me spew kool-aid out my nose. Damn you! :)
posted by beth at 2:48 PM on August 11, 2003


Sigh. Big friggin' deal. Where's:
- Osama bin Laden?
- Saddam Hussein?
- Evidence on who actually backed 9/11?
- Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?


- My job?
- A good economy in general?

Oh, and -
I was against the war, but I'm 100% for air-to-air combat. Who can be against man-to-man jet-fighter duels?

Yeah, baby - Dubya and Saddy, mano a mano. That's how we should have settled this thing. (Although I doubt either of them would show up for the fight.)
posted by NorthernLite at 4:22 PM on August 11, 2003


Well, the intelegent thing to do would have been to build underground airports. All saddam would have had to do would be to dig up the 'door' to the runways and unleashed his migs.

If Saddam had been intelegent he would have trained his troops and kept his military in tip-top condition. He was a smart guy, but he sorrounded himself with yes-men who told him what he wanted to hear.

If he had actualy been intelegent, he never would have opposed the US's plans for a pipeline, and we we never would have bitched about him taking over kwuait.

I mean, there are so many things saddam could have done diffrently, like blowing up his bridges and oil feilds for one. but it was too late for him, he was divorced from reality.
posted by delmoi at 11:17 PM on August 11, 2003


« Older To Sleep with the Angels   |   Interesting Ideas Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post