using Iraq to destroy aging weapons stock

Does anyone think that aside from pushing our ideologies off on other countries in a colonialist manner that we may be using Iraq and previously
Afghanistan to get rid of our aging military weaponry?

geo

[edit on 11/7/2004 by geocom]

My wife and I were discussing this a while back.the news was saying that we had dropped more bombs (those older ones converted to smart bombs in the 90's) and certain missile types than ever before.plus,nothing like the real thing to test new equipment and new tech out.This is just my opinion though.

Saudi Arabian royalty are major shareholders in US defense companies.

They also fund terrorism.

Therefore, everytime there is a terrorist attack, their defense stock rises.

It's a pretty expensive and impractical way to destroy very expensive weaponry. The smart thing to do is to rebuild, update and refurbish things that reach their use by date, and that is done. Otherwise it goes into land fill or is dumped at sea.

Warpspeed is right. Getting rid of aging munitions is too easy to do without going to war, but the only place to reliably test men, strategy and tactics is on the battlefield.

Originally posted by geocom
we may be using Iraq and previously Afghanistan to get rid of our aging military weaponry?

Depleted uranium too� that�s the reason behind soldiers coming back home with leukemia, and all kinds of medical problems. Sad...