HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If President Obama wants ...

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:29 PM

If President Obama wants to send a message against the use of chemical weapons; why doesn't he

Rally Congress to pass a law OUTLAWING the manufacturing them?

Wouldn't that be a better use of his time than agitating to continue the neocon's wars of aggression?

43 replies, 1352 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply If President Obama wants to send a message against the use of chemical weapons; why doesn't he (Original post)
Vincardog Sep 2013 OP
polichick Sep 2013 #1
Vincardog Sep 2013 #2
polichick Sep 2013 #4
Marrah_G Sep 2013 #17
LineReply .
blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #3
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #5
Vincardog Sep 2013 #6
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #7
Vincardog Sep 2013 #8
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #9
Vincardog Sep 2013 #11
bhikkhu Sep 2013 #14
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #22
Dragonfli Sep 2013 #21
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #23
Dragonfli Sep 2013 #25
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #26
Dragonfli Sep 2013 #27
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #29
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #30
Dragonfli Sep 2013 #32
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #37
Dragonfli Sep 2013 #39
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #40
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #10
Vincardog Sep 2013 #12
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #13
lumpy Sep 2013 #18
idwiyo Sep 2013 #15
Marrah_G Sep 2013 #16
lumpy Sep 2013 #19
jazzimov Sep 2013 #20
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #24
jazzimov Sep 2013 #33
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #35
bhikkhu Sep 2013 #28
KittyWampus Sep 2013 #31
bigwillq Sep 2013 #34
Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2013 #36
MrMickeysMom Sep 2013 #38
hack89 Sep 2013 #41
Vincardog Sep 2013 #42
hack89 Sep 2013 #43

Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:31 PM

1. How about closing these labs too:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:35 PM

2. Could it be that there is too much MONEY to be made by pursuing them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:37 PM

4. Yes - it's our taxpayer money going for such creepy purposes...

and Americans are down wind of all this stuff. Horrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 09:08 PM

17. USAMRIID at Fort Detrick does alot of important work with infectious diseases

It was once a bioweapon lab but now it does alot of important work with WHO and CDC, etc.

I know that there is always the chance that secret programs might be going on, but I hate to see scientists who do inportant and very dangerous work to help others be lumped into the chemical weapons argument.

When a monkey quarantine outside DC had a problem with airborne Ebola in monkeys (unbelievably scary, fortunately it was limited to monkeys and not humans) it was USAMRIID that answered the call there. They also do testing from all sorts of outbreaks all over the world. Level 4 labs are no joke.

Viruses and the people who work on them have been a topic of great interest to me since the loss of a friend during the swine flu pandemic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:36 PM

3. .

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:38 PM

5. It wont be a message:

it will be against the chemicals and means to deliver them...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:43 PM

6. That article presupposes the necessity for the US to do SOMETHING about this alleged use of CW.

Where was that need when Saddam attacked the Kurds with the Chemical weapons Rumsfeld sold him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:44 PM

7. that was before Obama...

thats where...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:46 PM

8. We were still the worlds moral authority and policeman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:48 PM

9. Because we are the only ones with the technology to do anything...

thats why.,...

WE are the ones that have been trying for over a decade to design methods to neutralize chemical weapons...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:49 PM

11. That misses the point which is "Why are we still manufacturing Chemical Weapons?".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 09:01 PM

14. We're not, and it has been against internation law since 1925.

For a period during the cold war the Soviet Union was manufacturing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, and the US followed suit. The nuclear arms race was worse, but that's all long past. All of the stockpiles on both sides have either been destroyed or are scheduled to be destroyed within a few years (its much easier to make it than it is to get rid of it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 10:59 PM

22. the US is scheduled to eliminate all chem weapons in 2017

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 10:58 PM

21. Now you think Obama was Lying when he told us all he intended to send said "message"?

Obama may think punitive killing will somehow teach the lesson of morality to the world or it may simply be the latest justification being used to continue the PNAC agenda that still has Syria and Iran on it's list, but I don't think he is lying about his goal of sending his symbolic dick waving "message of death".

You are brave IMO to imply that he is lying, I give you that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:00 PM

23. Yeah that message is that those chem weapons are gone POOF!

and anyone else who tries pulling that stunt can expect the same treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:08 PM

25. LOL, you are becoming most entertaining, keep it up little hawk, you have a place here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:10 PM

26. Not a hawk...

just think that the 2% of the worlds countries that haven't signed the treaty to eliminate chemical weapons might need persuading to do so...

98% of the world has signed it...Syria is one of the 2% haven't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #26)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:13 PM

27. Humanitarian hawking is the best kind, those we kill can sign treaties for instance...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:15 PM

29. so as an accused hawk...would I have to have supported every war or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:17 PM

30. and if wanting the world to eliminate chemical weapons makes me a hawk...so be it...

We seem to have been making HUGE inroads in eliminating them altogether...so if supporting that makes me a hawk...then so be that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:26 PM

32. No, you are doing just fine, hawks need only support the war of the moment and the idea

that Killing people is the best course of action (often but not exclusively with bombs).

You don't even have to be a chicken hawk to be a war hawk, that is just a sub classification for those that will not be doing the killing themselves but use proxy warriors to shed the sweet blood for them (chicken hawks like to watch on TV).

I imagine you are a warrior however and will have at least some role in your preferred methods of killing. You are aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:33 PM

37. I don't care for killing nor...

and indiscriminate bombing...I want measures taken to attempt to prevent loss of life. But understand that there are no guarantees. I have opposed others because those leading the charge were most decidely NOT in any way concerned about loss of life as the previous administration was. This is not THOSE guys...

and you damn skippy...I know how to fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #37)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 12:22 PM

39. Judging by the sheer number of your posts advocating killing (bombs kill they don't spread love)

I'd say you care a great deal for killing.... I'd even say by the volume you are obsessed with it!

It is good that you know how to fight, the recruiter will be pleased that your training will be that much less difficult.

I am excited for you in your decision to enlist, I hope you find the glory you seek and get to spray some blood around (hopefully by following honorable orders)

So tell me, which branch have you chosen to join?
Judging by the policies espoused by both parties now, it appears they will continue to keep us active in the ME on a permanent basis so I am sure you will see plenty of action.

At least you have decided to put your own life where your war mongering mouth is, I appreciate that, if enough of you killers for peace join then some of the more innocent kids may not have to serve so damn many tours to achieve the hawk agenda and so have a better chance of getting out with some of their sanity still intact.

Good luck and thank you for your service (I mean that most sincerely)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #39)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 03:13 PM

40. Not advocating killing....Advocating removing the Chemical Weapons from the world...

all but 2% have not signed the treaty...Assad being one of them.

I also don't like it when Anarchists try and pretend to be Democrats. They are as anti-govt as the Libertarians...and that is the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:49 PM

10. ARe you unaware:

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction

The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed. The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.
As of June 2013, 189 states are party to the CWC, and another two countries (Israel and Myanmar) have signed but not yet ratified the convention.[

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Vincardog (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:55 PM

13. alibaba.com?

the place you go to buy stuff online? Seriously dude

How bout you grok this:

The CWC was ratified by the Senate that same month. Since then, Albania, Libya, Russia, the United States, and India have declared over 71,000 metric tons of chemical weapon stockpiles, and destroyed about a third of them. Under the terms of the agreement, the United States and Russia agreed to eliminate the rest of their supplies of chemical weapons by 2012. Having not meet their goal, the U.S. government estimates remaining stocks will be destroyed by 2017.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 10:36 PM

18. You have to be kidding

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 09:06 PM

15. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 10:41 PM

19. How would Congress be able to pass a law outlaw the manufactoring of chemical weapons in

other countries ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 10:46 PM

20. That particular message has already been sent

NOT just to stop manufacture, but to DESTROY existing stockpiles. And NOT just by Congress, but by 98% of the WORLD in 1993.

Interestingly, Syria was part of the 2% of the world that did NOT sign this agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:04 PM

24. apparently Assad needs a little help eliminating them!

he seems to have too much...they seem to be burning a hole in his pocket..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:26 PM

33. apparently! Look if you had

an "ace in the hole" that could be a game-changer in keeping all the power and money you're used to enjoying adn you have no compunction about the innocents that will certainly be killed, wouldn't you try it?

Now, consider the added repercussion - if I do this, I could lose any potential advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:28 PM

35. He could pull a Saddam and just let everyone think he had them!

Saddam seemed to be doing pretty well with that bluff for a while...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:14 PM

28. They did sign onto the 1925 Geneva Protocols in December of 1968

...a little late, but they did sign on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol scroll down the list of member countries.

The later Chemical Weapons Convention has more restrictions and more detail, but the original international agreement is in no way unclear - it prohibits the use of chemical weapons against either military or civilian targets, and Syria agreed to it.


...but, on edit, my reading comprehension fail. Of course you are right - the CWC requiring the destruction of chemical stockpiles, Syria never agreed to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:17 PM

31. Because Assad already has stockpiles and is going to us them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:27 PM

34. Just stop. Obama knows more than all of us.

Stay calm, or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:31 PM

36. It didn't help that the British were supplying the chemicals to Syria after the conflict started!

ouch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:37 PM

38. K&R

I can't believe it, but we appear to be standing at the edge of choosing that road.

He's going to need our help to choose the correct path... it's the only one left, I believe in all my heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 03:27 PM

41. You are several decades behind the times

America committed to destroying their entire stock of chemical weapons a long time ago in accordance with UN treaties outlawing chemical weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 03:51 PM

42. What difference would that make if companies keep on making more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #42)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 04:01 PM

43. The precursor chemicals for chemical weapons are ubiquitous through the industrial world

because they have many other uses besides making chemical weapons. The jump, for example, from pesticides and herbicides to chemical weapons is small.

No one is manufacturing Sarin or Mustard gas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread