Chemical Weapons Watchdog wins Nobel Peace Prize

Started by Viking, October 11, 2013, 08:14:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Admiral Yi

#15
October 11, 2013, 07:31:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2013, 07:22:01 PM
This is the organization which works to ban chemical weapons.

How?

Viking

#16
October 11, 2013, 08:06:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2013, 07:31:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2013, 07:22:01 PM
This is the organization which works to ban chemical weapons.

How?

They monitor and inspect actual and potential chemical weapons sites.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/11/what-is-the-opcw-and-what-does-it-do/2964751/

much like the IAEA does for nuclear weapons.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Admiral Yi

#17
October 11, 2013, 08:18:55 PM
It seems more fair to say they verify destruction rather than "work to ban chemical weapons."

I honestly don't get it Puff.  You're usually a steely eyed realpolitik guy.  Bad guy countries give up chemical weapons when they get threatened or bribed, not when they read extremely persuasive letters written on international organization letterhead.

Viking

#18
October 11, 2013, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2013, 08:18:55 PM
It seems more fair to say they verify destruction rather than "work to ban chemical weapons."

I honestly don't get it Puff.  You're usually a steely eyed realpolitik guy.  Bad guy countries give up chemical weapons when they get threatened or bribed, not when they read extremely persuasive letters written on international organization letterhead.

It's because guys like this everybody can be sure that the other side doesn't have chemical weapons.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Sheilbh

#19
October 11, 2013, 08:27:46 PM Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 08:30:32 PM by Sheilbh
Okay - I'm not entirely sure that's true given the extent of chemical weapons that have been given up in the last 20 years. But you still need a system of verification and providing that, working under those regimes and currently in a war zone. That's admirable and includes a degree of personal risk that I think makes this prize pretty worthwhile.

QuoteYou're usually a steely eyed realpolitik guy.
No he's not. With all the love in the world he's a bloody lunatic crusading liberal who makes Blair look like the Marquess of Salisbury. Most people go on gap years backpacking round the world; Viking uses Lonely Planet to identify the unenlightened and unbombed masses :P

Edit: Incidentally I thought this is interesting on the organisation:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/opcw-nobel-organisation-for-prohibition-chemical-weapons
Let's bomb Russia!

Admiral Yi

#20
October 11, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2013, 08:25:51 PM
It's because guys like this everybody can be sure that the other side doesn't have chemical weapons.

In the same way the IAEA let us know Iran didn't have nukes?  :yeahright:

Viking

#21
October 11, 2013, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2013, 08:25:51 PM
It's because guys like this everybody can be sure that the other side doesn't have chemical weapons.

In the same way the IAEA let us know Iran didn't have nukes?  :yeahright:

Yes, the same way the IAEA let us know that Iran was fiddling the books with their nuclear program.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Viking

#22
October 11, 2013, 09:02:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2013, 08:27:46 PM

QuoteYou're usually a steely eyed realpolitik guy.
No he's not. With all the love in the world he's a bloody lunatic crusading liberal who makes Blair look like the Marquess of Salisbury. Most people go on gap years backpacking round the world; Viking uses Lonely Planet to identify the unenlightened and unbombed masses :P

I'm a rational crusading liberal. I don't believe that non-democratic governments have any right to life and that military force is a morally acceptable means for ending non-democratic governments.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Admiral Yi

#23
October 11, 2013, 09:04:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2013, 08:57:13 PM
Yes, the same way the IAEA let us know that Iran was fiddling the books with their nuclear program.

Did they do that?  I thought Iran was busted by the CIA and Mossad after al-Baradi had famously given them a clean bill of health.

Spellcheck doesn't like Mossad either.  :Joos

Viking

#24
October 11, 2013, 09:08:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2013, 09:04:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2013, 08:57:13 PM
Yes, the same way the IAEA let us know that Iran was fiddling the books with their nuclear program.

Did they do that?  I thought Iran was busted by the CIA and Mossad after al-Baradi had famously given them a clean bill of health.

Spellcheck doesn't like Mossad either.  :Joos

The IAEA was the group that confirmed the agency sourced information. The IAEA never gave the Iranians a clean bill of health. The removal of the non-US sanctions on Iran are contingent on a clean bill of Health from the IAEA.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

The Brain

#25
October 12, 2013, 12:04:52 AM
The IKEA is lovely. :wub:
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Warspite

#26
October 12, 2013, 08:12:45 AM
The OPCW is a fine organisation, but the Peace Prize? Really?

These guys help with implementation, but they're not the reason Assad decided to sign the CWC. If that's what the prize is for, then you need to give it to Putin or Lavrov (which would, of course, be very silly).
" SIR – I must commend you on some of your recent obituaries. I was delighted to read of the deaths of Foday Sankoh (August 9th), and Uday and Qusay Hussein (July 26th). Do you take requests? "

OVO JE SRBIJA
BUDALO, OVO JE POSTA

Viking

#27
October 12, 2013, 12:47:11 PM
Quote from: Warspite on October 12, 2013, 08:12:45 AM
The OPCW is a fine organisation, but the Peace Prize? Really?

These guys help with implementation, but they're not the reason Assad decided to sign the CWC. If that's what the prize is for, then you need to give it to Putin or Lavrov (which would, of course, be very silly).

The intention of the prize was to reward people and organizations which worked for peace and human comity. Unlike many of the recent winners this organization actually meets the scope of the prize as described in Nobel's will. They are not the reason why Assad will hand over his weapons, they are the reason that people who don't trust assad, don't trust the russians, the americans or the zionists will trust to verify that he has disarmed.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Sheilbh

#28
October 12, 2013, 01:27:35 PM
As I say I think the speed and risk of the Syria mission is reason alone to give recognition.

I've always wanted the ICMP to get something too. I believe they're currently working in Libya.
Let's bomb Russia!

Eddie Teach

#29
October 12, 2013, 11:06:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2013, 01:27:35 PM
As I say I think the speed and risk of the Syria mission is reason alone to give recognition.

I've always wanted the ICMP to get something too. I believe they're currently working in Libya.

They're the ones responsible for ping attacks, that'd be like giving the prize to Arafat.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions