Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Beans
I was saying is if they are not viable weapons then why were they being guarded?
Why did the "rebels" risk lives to take the bunker?
And why is it being reported as news? If they captured an empty bunker?
Since all 3 of those things hapened I tend to believe there must have been at least some of those weapons that were useable, or the damaged oned were since replaced by viable weapons, which would now be in the hands of the "rebels".
In other news: "Rebel forces capture Little Tommy's tree house that was built on the site where a ammunitions building "USED" to be".
|
The Iraqi government has a legal responsibility to dispose of the old munitions. I'm sure it's still toxic stuff but according to the inspectors can't function as intended and poses a much less significant risk.
I don't think ISIS is really concerned with lives. There's a military facility so they take it. Was it even really defended? Doesn't sound like it.
Don't you think if these were known and viable weapons they would have been used to show Saddam DID have WMD as the Bush Administration claimed?
-spence