Chemical weapons destroyed in international waters?

othershoe1030 wrote:If you can't get agreement from any particular nation then why not go to international waters? Environmental considerations aside (and there may not be a problem there at all if they do it right) heading out to sea might just solve the problem. This is some "thinking outside the box" stuff if I've ever seen it, or thinking outside the border.

Additionally it doesn't look as if any congressional approval would be necessary either. Not that that would be a problem.

WASHINGTON — Unable to find a country willing to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons, the United States is considering plans to place the chemical components of the weapons on a barge where they would be dissolved or incinerated, according to senior American officials.
Multimedia

Photographs
The Historic Scale of Syria’s Refugee Crisis

Video Feature
WATCHING SYRIA’S WAR
Days Before Death, Rebel Leader Urged Followers to Pray
Related

West Faces Challenge in Moving Syrian Chemical Arms Through Battlefields (November 18, 2013)
World Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
The two systems under review are intended to destroy the precursor materials that are designed to be combined to form chemical munitions. Syria’s smaller arsenal of operational chemical weapons would be destroyed separately, officials said.

Officials from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is operating in Syria to locate and identify the weapons, would monitor the destruction, which would be carried out following safety standards set by legislation in the United States and the European Union, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/middleeast/us-weighs-destroying-syrian-chemicals-on-barge-officials-say.html?_r=0

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:If you can't get agreement from any particular nation then why not go to international waters? Environmental considerations aside (and there may not be a problem there at all if they do it right) heading out to sea might just solve the problem. This is some "thinking outside the box" stuff if I've ever seen it, or thinking outside the border.

Additionally it doesn't look as if any congressional approval would be necessary either. Not that that would be a problem.

WASHINGTON — Unable to find a country willing to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons, the United States is considering plans to place the chemical components of the weapons on a barge where they would be dissolved or incinerated, according to senior American officials.
Multimedia

Photographs
The Historic Scale of Syria’s Refugee Crisis

Video Feature
WATCHING SYRIA’S WAR
Days Before Death, Rebel Leader Urged Followers to Pray
Related

West Faces Challenge in Moving Syrian Chemical Arms Through Battlefields (November 18, 2013)
World Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
The two systems under review are intended to destroy the precursor materials that are designed to be combined to form chemical munitions. Syria’s smaller arsenal of operational chemical weapons would be destroyed separately, officials said.

Officials from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is operating in Syria to locate and identify the weapons, would monitor the destruction, which would be carried out following safety standards set by legislation in the United States and the European Union, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/middleeast/us-weighs-destroying-syrian-chemicals-on-barge-officials-say.html?_r=0

why not, thy do every other fake thing at sea  

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:If you can't get agreement from any particular nation then why not go to international waters? Environmental considerations aside (and there may not be a problem there at all if they do it right) heading out to sea might just solve the problem. This is some "thinking outside the box" stuff if I've ever seen it, or thinking outside the border.

Additionally it doesn't look as if any congressional approval would be necessary either. Not that that would be a problem.

WASHINGTON — Unable to find a country willing to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons, the United States is considering plans to place the chemical components of the weapons on a barge where they would be dissolved or incinerated, according to senior American officials.
Multimedia

Photographs
The Historic Scale of Syria’s Refugee Crisis

Video Feature
WATCHING SYRIA’S WAR
Days Before Death, Rebel Leader Urged Followers to Pray
Related

West Faces Challenge in Moving Syrian Chemical Arms Through Battlefields (November 18, 2013)
World Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
The two systems under review are intended to destroy the precursor materials that are designed to be combined to form chemical munitions. Syria’s smaller arsenal of operational chemical weapons would be destroyed separately, officials said.

Officials from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is operating in Syria to locate and identify the weapons, would monitor the destruction, which would be carried out following safety standards set by legislation in the United States and the European Union, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/middleeast/us-weighs-destroying-syrian-chemicals-on-barge-officials-say.html?_r=0

why not, thy do every other fake thing at sea  

Like burying Saddam Hussein's body at sea? What are you talking about?

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:If you can't get agreement from any particular nation then why not go to international waters? Environmental considerations aside (and there may not be a problem there at all if they do it right) heading out to sea might just solve the problem. This is some "thinking outside the box" stuff if I've ever seen it, or thinking outside the border.

Additionally it doesn't look as if any congressional approval would be necessary either. Not that that would be a problem.

WASHINGTON — Unable to find a country willing to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons, the United States is considering plans to place the chemical components of the weapons on a barge where they would be dissolved or incinerated, according to senior American officials.
Multimedia

Photographs
The Historic Scale of Syria’s Refugee Crisis

Video Feature
WATCHING SYRIA’S WAR
Days Before Death, Rebel Leader Urged Followers to Pray
Related

West Faces Challenge in Moving Syrian Chemical Arms Through Battlefields (November 18, 2013)
World Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
The two systems under review are intended to destroy the precursor materials that are designed to be combined to form chemical munitions. Syria’s smaller arsenal of operational chemical weapons would be destroyed separately, officials said.

Officials from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is operating in Syria to locate and identify the weapons, would monitor the destruction, which would be carried out following safety standards set by legislation in the United States and the European Union, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/middleeast/us-weighs-destroying-syrian-chemicals-on-barge-officials-say.html?_r=0

why not, thy do every other fake thing at sea  

Like burying Saddam Hussein's body at sea? What are you talking about?

bin laden

and if you are buying this crock of shit, im surprised.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:If you can't get agreement from any particular nation then why not go to international waters? Environmental considerations aside (and there may not be a problem there at all if they do it right) heading out to sea might just solve the problem. This is some "thinking outside the box" stuff if I've ever seen it, or thinking outside the border.

Additionally it doesn't look as if any congressional approval would be necessary either. Not that that would be a problem.

WASHINGTON — Unable to find a country willing to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons, the United States is considering plans to place the chemical components of the weapons on a barge where they would be dissolved or incinerated, according to senior American officials.
Multimedia

Photographs
The Historic Scale of Syria’s Refugee Crisis

Video Feature
WATCHING SYRIA’S WAR
Days Before Death, Rebel Leader Urged Followers to Pray
Related

West Faces Challenge in Moving Syrian Chemical Arms Through Battlefields (November 18, 2013)
World Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
The two systems under review are intended to destroy the precursor materials that are designed to be combined to form chemical munitions. Syria’s smaller arsenal of operational chemical weapons would be destroyed separately, officials said.

Officials from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is operating in Syria to locate and identify the weapons, would monitor the destruction, which would be carried out following safety standards set by legislation in the United States and the European Union, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/middleeast/us-weighs-destroying-syrian-chemicals-on-barge-officials-say.html?_r=0

why not, thy do every other fake thing at sea  

Like burying Saddam Hussein's body at sea? What are you talking about?

bin laden

and if you are buying this crock of shit, im surprised.

Right, bin laden, my bad. So many bad guys, so little time!

Are you saying they don't have the capability of destroying chemicals at sea or what exactly are you calling a crock of shit? It is an alternative idea/method for getting rid of chemicals and chemical weapons since no nation, understandably, wants the process going on in their backyard. It would be a way to accomplish the goal of destroying the stuff.