Apparently it was a deliberate decision, even if you want to argue that it was a bad decision.
I can think of some (unstated) reasons why they might have done that. I'm not sure there wasn't a better way.
The truth is that there were still stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. The truth is that chemical munitions were used to attack coalition forces. The truth is that there was also accidental exposure to those chemical agents in some cases. They caused both death and wounds.
There were also biological weapons removed from Iraq. Oddly enough around that time Iraq suffered an outbreak of a disease that was weaponized. Coincidence?
We aren't fighting on the battlefield, we're having a discussion. I don't "blather mindless propaganda," I reference news items bearing on the discussion. The fact that some of that is contrary to what you either believe or think you know gives you a chance to examine new facts. If you are an intelligent person (I'll take no position) it is possible that you may find your previous beliefs in error and adopt a new position. Some people have difficulties doing this since not mouthing the party position will get them in trouble with friends, family, or the party, so they prefer to be wrong as part of the group instead of being right and alone. Many people on Slashdot get some fairly simple issues or questions wrong because of ideology.
So, I'll meet you half-way given your post. You might want to actually read these stories.
However, according to a report published by The New York Times on Tuesday, the U.S. military not only recovered massive stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq, including in the Muthanna complex now controlled by ISIS, it actively attempted to keep the discovery of the munitions a secret. The report, which is based on interviews with several former U.S. army personnel, alleged that between 2004 and 2010, soldiers found thousands of rusty and corroded chemical munitions.
Just because you think it sounds wrong or stupid doesn't mean that it is.
I'm pretty sure that Pinochet's government didn't need any assistance with killing people.
You're confused. The invading army in South Vietnam was the North Vietnamese Army. They used infantry and take divisions to conquer and annex South Vietnam. The US had been in South Vietnam at the invitation of the South Vietnamese government.
--Citation needed. Got link(s)?
+1 Mod parent up Insightful.
Because it worked so well back in 1940 with Japan.
Aggressive military dictatorships aren't always deterred by anything less than war. Can you think of a measure less than war that would have deterred Japan from its path of conquest in Asia and war against America? Surrender doesn't count.
. . . amid all their paranoia and psychopathy they are honestly scared about what happens to non-nuclear countries once USA tells them "you are not my friend" and how different it is when the one at the receiving end is an ICBM-capable country.
Your theory needs some adjustments. North Korea was at war with South Korea, the UN powers, and through that the US before there were ICBMs. You're trying to paint a 60 year old war with a 10 year old brush and it doesn't work. Many countries have had an interest in nuclear arms and many of them were US allies. I don't think your idea holds water. North Korea wants nuclear weapons for the power, not just to use against the US.
By the way, did you take any notice of what happened to the "friends" of the USSR that went off script? East Germany? Hungary? Czechoslovakia? Afghanistan? I don't recall the US invading a friendly nation like that.
There are actually a great many people from South America, the Middle East, and Vietnam in the US now, and they seem to agree. There are also those back in their homelands that would agree as well
You misunderstand things. The US Congress has approved military operations on many occasions by issuing an Authorization for Use of Military Force. They are legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is the basis for the current armed action against al Qaida and Daesh, for example.
Many people in the US and on Slashdot have the mistaken belief that the magic words "Declaration of War" are needed for US military operations to take place and be legal and that is not the case.
There is nothing unconstitutional about it, not exploiting of procedural loopholes. Congress has the power to exercise how they see fit.
He seems to have had a really bad aim then as he kept hitting London.
Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke