Their previous acts? What previous acts? A bunch of countries have chemical weapons...what was the "watchdog" previously successful in doing in regards to them?

Hell, I want a Nobel prize, because I watch all sorts of shit happen around me that I have no influence over and do nothing to change...

Destroying 80% of declared stockpiles is not an achievement?

They haven't destroyed it yet.

No, I mean they destroyed 80% of known stockpiles in the world - including completely eliminating very large stockpiles in a number of countries. They're also currently trying to disarm Syria in the middle of a warzone. I'd like to see if Invictus would have such a cynical view if he had to get rid of nerve agents around explosives.

Cynical, schminical. Giving the prize to an organization dedicated to destroying chemical weapons in a year where they've been used in war is a joke.

If they're gonna get it, give it to them NEXT year if their mission in Syria is successful!

Recipient=good
Timing=horrible

Obama's peace prize should be retracted immediately.

The timing puts pressure on the six non-signatories of the chemical weapons non-proliferation regime.

But why let context get in the way of your tired bashing of international institutions.

Obviously we don't know who else was nominated but surely there were some better options. However it's definitely not a travesty worth protesting like some of the recent ones were (like Obama's).

It would put more pressure if the OPCW had completed its heroic efforts to "clean" the war in Syria and the award had been awarded then. Even a failed effort, just for the effort, could have justified a NPP. But not before the fact. That's like giving it to Higgs for physics 50 years ago and say "hey Higgs, you're an undergrad student now, but in a few years from now, you'll probably predict a super interesting new particle."

You can continue to act like OPCW has done nothing since 1997 but the fact of the matter is that India, South Korea, Russia, USA, Albania, and Libya have largely been disarmed of chemical weapons stockpiles, with Syria next on the docket.

Face it, neither you nor Invictus would ever offer a modicum of praise to any international organization, no matter what they did or how dangerous their work was.

"Face it, neither you nor Invictus would ever offer a modicum of praise to any international organization, no matter what they did or how dangerous their work was."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"If they're gonna get it, give it to them NEXT year if their mission in Syria is successful! "

Ha ha...that's even funnier than giving it to them this year. First of all, what mission? YOu mean the phony deal brokered by Russia, whereby Obama breathed a sigh of relief because after mouthing off like a bitch and rattling his sabre like he was tough, he got to sidle away like a bitch and hand off the reign to Putin, who will help destroy a few weapons for show, and help hide the rest for future use?

Give me a break....


And then there are ass clowns like Putin, who think that these fraudulant organizations are doing some good. Let's see, they get praise in Putin's eyes for being an international organization...but certainly not for any success. How is this chemical weapons watchdog organization unaware of Syrias weapons? Because it seems to me everyone was shocked..SHOCKED...the Syria used chemical weapons, and then (aftger giving Syrias ample time to hide weapons under the desert sand...) we demand that weapons inspectors be allowed inthe country and blah blah blah...

IF this award-winning organization did it's job even half as well as is suggested, then we wouldn't need chemical weapons inspectors in Syria to tell us how many weapons they had BECAUSE WE WOULD ALREADY KNOW.

And this great success in the US and Russia and other destroying SOME of their stockpiles? lol LAUGHABLE. Yeah, we used to have enough to kill the global population 10 times over....now we can only kill everyone twice, and the fraud Putin thinks this is succes.

The only weapons the US and Russia ever agree to destroy are those that are old and getting to costly to maintain, especially given that better technology has made them obsolete.

If they were successful in working to get rid of the illegal chemical weapons, we woldn't be "largely" disarmed, we would be totally disarmed.

For once I think we - the US - smell a little like shit in a case like this - and here is ass clown Putin heaping praise ONLY because pretends that some global-authoritarian government group pushed the US around....except he's too stupid to realize that they haven't.

I never said the work wasn't important, just that this is the worst possible time to give them the award.

As for international organizations, I'm probably the biggest proponent of the United States signing UNCLOS on there. I'm sure I've said nice things about the Red Cross here. As a free trader, I give lots of consistent praise for institutions like the WTO. But you're just mudding the waters and mixing up issues by even bringing up the alleged lack of support redhouse1938 and I have for international organizations. The issue, your attempts at tangents aside, is that it's ridiculous for the OPCW to get the award this year, just months after the use of chemical weapons in war.

krellin, just look what I've said about the chemical weapons deal brokered by Russia being a joke. It's everywhere here. I'm probably the one who made YOU realize it was a phoney deal.

Syria wasn't a signatory to the OPCW until recently so how the hell were they supposed to get in there and disarm them?

It's not the worst time, they're currently in a war zone disarming Syria. By next year chemical weapons might be out of the spotlight, this award keeps the pressure on.



You opposed the disarmament deal and you ridicule the disarmers, but you want us to believe you're really concerned about chemical weapons usage.

Who's "you" now? Vic?

Yes, UNCLOS, I seem to recall you making all sorts of excuses for why the US hasn't bothered to ratify this.

That's as positive as you get.

How dare you say I'm not concerned about chemical weapons usage when you openly support Assad, the guy who has used them!

"You" is Putin33.

You have no proof Assad used them. You're just wanting to get rid of Assad. Non-proliferation is your excuse, just like it was the excuse with Hussein. That's why you attack OPCW and the disarmament deal. An international disarmament effort gets in the way of regime change and putting into place another US-proxy.

Has there yet been any conclusion as to who actually deployed the chemical weapons or is it still just speculation as to who is the terrorist versus the semi-terrorist?

The chemical weapons watchdog have managed to destroy 80% of stockpiles over 40 years or so. Considering the plan was to destroy all of the US and Russia's stockpiles in 10 years this is a pretty poor result.

Yes, it's a tricky job, but there are lots of people with trickier jobs out there. There are lots of people with more dangerous jobs as well. The Syrian work has the potential of more danger than usual, but this is quite a rare situation.

But, as far as the peace prize goes, when it is given to individuals who have gone out of their way to put aside past hates and history in the name of peace I have respected it. When it gets given to organisations for the sake of existing it seems such a waste.

You have to give the Syrians credit. In developing their chemical weapons they have created the most effective missile and aircraft defense system in history. Who needs expensive Russian SAMs when you can slowly dismantal a few chemical warheaps and achieve 100% protection?

I was asking Putin33, sorry for the unclarity. Putin seems to be ascribing the same position to both me and Invictus and there may be nuances between them. That said: bye all.

Nope, no conclusion. Although Nostradamus here will claim the UN said Assad did it, when they said no such thing. And the UN report did not investigate any chemical weapons usage except the Aug. 21 attack. There were previous reports of chemical weapons attacks, brought to the attention of the international community by Syria, they were ignored.

"The chemical weapons watchdog have managed to destroy 80% of stockpiles over 40 years or so"

OPCW was established in 1997. In what form of math is 1997-2013 "40 years or so"?

Those weren't ignored. They made huge news. It's hardly possible to say who set them off though.

@ Putin

Sorry, that was a typo. Should have read 20 years.

Also, it's maths ;)

@INvictus - sorry if I missed you mentioning the deal was a joke - was just skimming over posts and catching up. As for you making me aware that a deal brokered by Putin, which Obama accepted to get the issue out of the US media being a joke...please, give me a break. I'm glad we both agree, but I assure you I need not your enlightening. I'm certain you can find my opinion on this matter in threads from weeks ago when Obama was sweating his ass off worried that he was going to have to man up on his threats before Putin bailed him out.

----

To the further contuation of this *ridiculous* conversation about how affective someone has been at getting rid of chemical weapons -- you are morons, through and through ESPECIALLY PUTIN - who holds nothing but utter disdain for the US government, and generally ascribes all manner of evil to them. How dare you be such a flagrant fucking hypocrite and suddenly declare that the US is noble and honest, that they have sheepishly destroyed their weapons at the urging of some fucked up impotent global watchdog agency who's ONLY tooth in a fight is the US army itself.

You are, as always, a disengenuous shit sucking moron.

First and foremost as mentioned before, we destroy and/or decommission OLD weapons that were headed for the scrap heap anyway. We REPLACE such weapons with higher yield modern weapons. That we have a fewer number of weapons is utterly meaningless, as the total cache available is still more than enough to make a mess of the globe -- so if you consider the US being armed with enough weaponry to dramatically change life on earth as success, then you are a disengenuous fool.

So again - the only reason you even mention any of this is to force upon the ignorant masses this notion that the US sheepishly yielded to your precious internation watchdog group...and YOU know this is an utter and complete lie, and that any yielding to said group was purely for show, and purely because the destruction of said weapons was a *scheduled* event meant to get rid of again, unstable stockpiles.

I don't know what a "contuation" is, but I'll assume you meant continuation... just one question here: how much does a "higher yield modern" warhead actually cost?