[tessalu]

USA should not subject it's troops to biological and chemical warfare until it bombs the heck out of Iraq.
USA has no business taking unnecessary and foolish risks.

[u-89]

USA should not subject it's troops to biological and chemical warfare until it bombs the heck out of Iraq.

A long bombardment before invasion is not in the cards. Troops will be in country and very active before bombardment begins. Advance forces need to secure bridges needed for the main ground force. They need to secure the oil wells so they can't be blown and to take out any missles in western Iraq within range of hitting Iarael. The first bomb to hit Iraq is a signal that the war is underway and Iraq countermeasures go into effect. We have to act before they know to implement their plans. There will be a massive bombardment before the heavy ground troops move for sure but the fighting will start before that.

[error99]

"...USA should not subject it's troops to biological and chemical warfare until it bombs the heck out of Iraq...USA has no business taking unnecessary and foolish risks..."
- - -
Gee, did you read this on a sign somewhere or did you make it up?
-
So you mean it is OK to subject our troops to biological and chemical warfare AFTER we have bombed the heck out of Iraq?
-
The USA has PLENTY of business taking risks.
What is it you see as being "unnecessary and/or foolish?
-
You do everythng you can to mitigate risks during planning.
-
There are plans, contingency plans, and contingency contingency plans.
-
But there aare always "risks".
-
Always.
-
The liberation of Iraq, when it finally comes, will be one hell of a coordinated attack. The operative word here is "coordinated". Just pray that everybody sets their watches correctly.
-
Most of the "good stuff" will be over with before we know it ever even got started. It will be the mother of all fireworks-shows grand-finales.