XBOX 360 2632
XBOX 360 2633
I thought for a fact? I took an educated guess. Allowing in inspectors to make sure that there's really no threat was a neat touch. It was already fairly clear in 1998 that Iraq...
They didn't exist in 2003. Nobody could find any. That wasn't unexpected. If the UN inspectors hadn't been forced to bugout by imminent military action, all the sites would have been cleared within another few months.
Sadam would have still been having tantrums but one can't honestly say that Iraq is now more stable than before the war. An oppressive regime is gone, but has been replaced by an oppression by fear.
My guess is that the USA's intel' "knew" that any chemical weapons threat in Iraq would be negligible, else hundreds of thousands of troops wouldn't have been sent in. Even the USA's can't harness so much stupidity. The risk of returning 50,000+ filled body bags after a week in the desert wouldn't have been excuseable. Even the political impact of 1000 would have been very difficult to overcome.
Finding that at the "end of a war", that "friendly fire" casualties outnumber those inflicted by an enemy should have been sobering... but the US military has had lots of practice. SASR felt it was safer to operate deep in enemy territory ... they have lots of experience "cooperating" with US farces.
It's not that they're bad at what they do; they just seem to be "over-enthusiastic" about killing things that move and blowing up things that don't. Even factories producing WMR (Weapons of Mbuttive headache Relief).
Destroyed (mostly under UN supervision) or way beyond use-by date. Chemical weapons tend to go "off", some of it within two years even when carefully stored. They become ineffective or too dangerous to handle. The USA is probably still making fresh ones to maintain their standing arsenal of chemical weapons.
-- "Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia ASCII ribbon campaign CynicismCyn"i*cism X against HTML mail A visual defect caused by the and postings intrusion of reality