Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Xithras

(16,191 posts)

16. The United States began destroying its chemical weapons in 1990. We're still not finished.

Reply to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2013, 12:13 PM

Sep 2013

One year, during an active civil war, is a very aggressive timeline.

As for the money thing, you'll all remember that the US and EU have frozen Assad's accounts. He's flat broke and has no money to purchase the equipment or people needed to do the job. You can't take someones money, hand them an expensive list of demands, and then complain when they have no money to pay for it.

We either have to pay for it, or give him access to his countries money again. "Neither" isn't an option.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Assad To Destroy Chemical Weapons 'In A Year' [View all] dipsydoodle Sep 2013 OP

Every day that Assad can hold on to power Turbineguy Sep 2013 #1

he does have a point Niceguy1 Sep 2013 #2

Not intended to work like that. dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #3

they probably don't have the technology Niceguy1 Sep 2013 #8

Let the Saudis fund it, they were willing to fund the bombing. morningfog Sep 2013 #4

Even better - Russia and Qatar. Big weapons suppliers, small players in humanitarian aid. pampango Sep 2013 #10

Just a small difference. arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #18

Agreed. Although whether either is moral is another question. n/t pampango Sep 2013 #19

To all the people celebrating that diplomatic solution... jessie04 Sep 2013 #5

Look, a crystal ball! Celefin Sep 2013 #7

Laugh all you want. jessie04 Sep 2013 #23

Not really Celefin Sep 2013 #24

And thank you. jessie04 Sep 2013 #27

The goal of the administration was never a diplomatic solution, it was a PR solution. hughee99 Sep 2013 #32

Compared to a bombing campaign that's probably a bargain Celefin Sep 2013 #6

The USA has a ban on selling weapons to Syria/Iran/NK , let the F-ing salesmen and investors pay Sunlei Sep 2013 #9

"The country that sold the guns gets to clean up the mess" JoeyT Sep 2013 #11

the helicoptors Assad flies, the huge rocket launchers came from someone. Sunlei Sep 2013 #12

So you think the US should pay for everyone we ever armed? JoeyT Sep 2013 #14

could start with today without having to pay for all 300 years of injustices first. Sunlei Sep 2013 #15

Oh right. I forgot that we're special. JoeyT Sep 2013 #17

"Our country has a mandate, Americans are banned from selling to those countries" Nihil Sep 2013 #28

The USA has been training people there for decades. We do have a mandate. Sunlei Sep 2013 #29

Straight out of the North Korean playbook. Daniel537 Sep 2013 #13

The United States began destroying its chemical weapons in 1990. We're still not finished. Xithras Sep 2013 #16

you're being far too reasonable frylock Sep 2013 #20

^^THIS^^ -nt- Celefin Sep 2013 #25

Agreed. My first thought was disbelief, then I realized it's not an easy thing to do the right way stevenleser Sep 2013 #30

Ok sounds good. obxhead Sep 2013 #21

There is a precedent Nunn/Lugar and then Lugar/Obama funded the US karynnj Sep 2013 #22

Who sold them JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #26

Short answer? No one. The precursor chemicals can be used for a variety of non-weapon things. stevenleser Sep 2013 #31

Thanks JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #34

It has taken the U.S.and Russia over a decade daleo Sep 2013 #33