Mistaken Conservatives

L has this link as proof of the jets they uncovered in Iraq as evidence of WMD. It did also say that "in many cases, had their wings removed." Where did the wings go?

Here's some facts refuting this as a WMD:

1. The plane currently has no wings.

2. The plane in the picture is "an advanced reconnaissance version" which means it wasn't meant for combat.

3. It is a Mig-25 Foxbat. The fact is that without its wings, the plane is not, let me repeat NOT a WMD. Why, do you ask? Well, besides the obvious fact that it cannot fly.

Here's one site's analysis of the Foxbat: "single-seat reconnaissance aircraft with limited precision bombing capability."

Here's another site's analysis of the Foxbat's weaponry:

WEAPONS

The aircraft is armed with four R-40 (Nato codename AA-6 Acrid) air-to-air missiles equipped with infrared and radar homing heads. The range of these missiles is 2-60km. The missiles are suspended from four underwing pylons. It may also be fitted with two R-40 and four R-60 (AA-8 Aphid), or two R-23 (AA-Apex) and four R-73 (AA-11 Archer). The MiG-25 is not fitted with a gun.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION MY ASS!!!!!!!!!

Without the wings, the plane is not a threat. Once the missiles and wings are unearthed, then AND ONLY THEN will I believe that WMDs were discovered with respect to this plane's unearthing.

However, if it was a Mig-23 or a Mig-27, then it would be a WMD, since those are weapons capable of dogfighting and doing damage.

Here's a not-so-stupid site easily found on the internet. It only shows the exhumation of the same aicraft, but says that the Mig-25 was indeed used in combat. However, given that it can fire 4 or 6 missles at most, I wouldn't say it would be an efficient jet to take up. But, still, this one DIDN'T HAVE ANY WINGS!! I'm sure that, like a car, buying wings might be cheaper than buying whole new planes.

(P.S. Sand is not good for engines, if I remember correctly. So, in addition to the aforementioned problems, sand is terrible)

IN ADDITION TO THIS:
White House documents say "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons" is the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction, with some variations thereof (capable of mass destruction, mass killings, injuries, etc). Sorry, but the missiles which the MIg-25 is capable of carrying is only coventional missile warheads, and not nuclear warheads. This adds to the fact that THIS IS NOT A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. A weapon of plane destruction, maybe, but not mass.