General Discussion

blkmusclmachine

(16,149 posts)

3. .

Reply to Vincardog (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:36 PM

Sep 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If President Obama wants to send a message against the use of chemical weapons; why doesn't he [View all] Vincardog Sep 2013 OP

How about closing these labs too: polichick Sep 2013 #1

Could it be that there is too much MONEY to be made by pursuing them? Vincardog Sep 2013 #2

Yes - it's our taxpayer money going for such creepy purposes... polichick Sep 2013 #4

USAMRIID at Fort Detrick does alot of important work with infectious diseases Marrah_G Sep 2013 #17

. blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #3

It wont be a message: VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #5

That article presupposes the necessity for the US to do SOMETHING about this alleged use of CW. Vincardog Sep 2013 #6

that was before Obama... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #7

We were still the worlds moral authority and policeman. Vincardog Sep 2013 #8

Because we are the only ones with the technology to do anything... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #9

That misses the point which is "Why are we still manufacturing Chemical Weapons?". Vincardog Sep 2013 #11

We're not, and it has been against internation law since 1925. bhikkhu Sep 2013 #14

the US is scheduled to eliminate all chem weapons in 2017 VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #22

Now you think Obama was Lying when he told us all he intended to send said "message"? Dragonfli Sep 2013 #21

Yeah that message is that those chem weapons are gone POOF! VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #23

LOL, you are becoming most entertaining, keep it up little hawk, you have a place here Dragonfli Sep 2013 #25

Not a hawk... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #26

Humanitarian hawking is the best kind, those we kill can sign treaties for instance... Dragonfli Sep 2013 #27

so as an accused hawk...would I have to have supported every war or not? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #29

and if wanting the world to eliminate chemical weapons makes me a hawk...so be it... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #30

No, you are doing just fine, hawks need only support the war of the moment and the idea Dragonfli Sep 2013 #32

I don't care for killing nor... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #37

Judging by the sheer number of your posts advocating killing (bombs kill they don't spread love) Dragonfli Sep 2013 #39

Not advocating killing....Advocating removing the Chemical Weapons from the world... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #40

ARe you unaware: VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #10

visit this link Vincardog Sep 2013 #12

alibaba.com? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #13

You have to be kidding lumpy Sep 2013 #18

K&R idwiyo Sep 2013 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author Marrah_G Sep 2013 #16

How would Congress be able to pass a law outlaw the manufactoring of chemical weapons in lumpy Sep 2013 #19

That particular message has already been sent jazzimov Sep 2013 #20

apparently Assad needs a little help eliminating them! VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #24

apparently! Look if you had jazzimov Sep 2013 #33

He could pull a Saddam and just let everyone think he had them! VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #35

They did sign onto the 1925 Geneva Protocols in December of 1968 bhikkhu Sep 2013 #28

Because Assad already has stockpiles and is going to us them. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #31

Just stop. Obama knows more than all of us. bigwillq Sep 2013 #34

It didn't help that the British were supplying the chemicals to Syria after the conflict started! Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2013 #36

K&R MrMickeysMom Sep 2013 #38

You are several decades behind the times hack89 Sep 2013 #41

What difference would that make if companies keep on making more? Vincardog Sep 2013 #42

The precursor chemicals for chemical weapons are ubiquitous through the industrial world hack89 Sep 2013 #43