Was it wrong of the world to ban chemical weapons?


Chemical Weapons Convention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Chemical Weapons Convention

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction

3 September 1992[1]

13 January 1993[1]

Paris and New York[1]

29 April 1997[1]

Ratification by 65 states[2]


189 (as of June 2013)[1]
Complete List
Seven UN states are not party: Angola, Myanmar, Egypt, Israel, North Korea, South Sudan, Syria

UN Secretary-General[3]

Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish[4]

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands
Go to Damascus and fight Assad.

Your SPAMpaign has failed.

Nobody agrees with you except O-BOMB-YA and the MIC.

Chemical weapons in World War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

A poison gas attack using gas cylinders in World War I.

British troops blinded by tear gas during the Battle of Estaires, 1918
Chemical weapons in World War I were primarily used to demoralize, injure and kill entrenched defenders, against whom the indiscriminate and generally slow-moving or static nature of gas clouds would be most effective. The types of weapons employed ranged from disabling chemicals, such as tear gas and the severe mustard gas, to lethal agents like phosgene and chlorine. This chemical warfare was a major component of the first global war and first total war of the 20th century. The killing capacity of gas, however, was limited – only four percent of combat deaths were caused by gas. Gas was unlike most other weapons of the period because it was possible to develop effective countermeasures, such as gas masks. In the later stages of the war, as the use of gas increased, its overall effectiveness diminished. The widespread use of these agents of chemical warfare, and wartime advances in the composition of high explosives, gave rise to an occasionally expressed view of World War I as "the chemists' war".

The Chemical-Weapons Treaty

By Franklin Foer|Posted Sunday, Feb. 23, 1997, at 3:30 AM

Share on Facebook


On April 29, an international treaty banning chemical weapons will take effect. So far, the United States isn't committed to taking part. Thanks mainly to the efforts of Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate has delayed ratification of the treaty and may ultimately vote it down. Helms claims that despite the ban's best intentions, it will actually encourage chemical-weapons attacks. Proponents of the treaty, including the Clinton administration, worry that Helms' delaying tactics will shut the United States out of critical decisions about chemical arms control. What's really at stake

Basic Facts on Chemical Disarmament


Brief History of the Treaty

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (otherwise known as the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC) was opened for signature with a ceremony in Paris on 13 January 1993—130 States signed the Convention within the first two days. Four years later, in April 1997, the Convention entered into force with 87 States Parties—the ratification of the Convention by at least 65 States, achieved in November 1996, was a precondition to trigger the 180-day countdown until the Convention’s entry into force. Currently, the CWC comprises 184 States Parties, as well as a fully functioning implementing Organisation, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The Convention had been the subject of nearly 20 years of negotiations within the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. The States involved in these negotiations were seeking to finalize an international treaty banning chemical weapons, and designed to ensure their worldwide elimination. This goal was indeed achieved.

The Convention is unique because it is the first multilateral treaty to ban an entire category of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to provide for the international verification of the destruction of these weapons. Furthermore, it is the first disarmament treaty negotiated within an entirely multilateral framework, leading to increased transparency and its application equally to all States Parties. The Convention was also negotiated with the active participation of the global chemical industry, thus ensuring industry’s ongoing cooperation with the CWC’s industrial verification regime. The Convention mandates the inspection of industrial facilities to ensure that toxic chemicals are used exclusively for purposes not prohibited by the Convention.

Altogether, the international community succeeded in producing a treaty that would verify the destruction of chemical weapons worldwide as well as ensure the non-proliferation of these weapons and the toxic chemicals used in their manufacture. The Convention also encourages international cooperation between States Parties in the peaceful uses of chemistry, and provides for assistance and protection to States Parties that are threatened or attacked by chemical weapons.

Before the Convention is considered in greater detail, it is useful to understand why such a treaty was necessary. Where does the threat from chemical weapons come from?
World Public Opinion Sharply Opposed To Syria Strikes

As the Obama administration seeks allies for its as-yet lonely campaign to inflict punitive missile strikes on Syria, those plans are confronting substantial distrust and resistance from citizens around the globe.

A joint report drawn from The Huffington Post's seven international editions finds striking public opposition to military intervention in Syria, with polls showing weak support for a strike in much of Europe as well as in the United States and Canada.

In the United States, only 25 percent of those surveyed in late August in a HuffPost/YouGov poll expressed support for a military strike in reaction to the lethal chemical weapons attack blamed widely on the regime of Syrian president Bashar Assad.

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and wrapped up Sept. 1 -– almost two weeks after the chemical weapons attack -– found only 29 percent in favor of a strike.

In France, where President Francois Hollande has pledged to join the United States in taking on Syria, public support for military intervention has been running at 45 percent, according to a recent CSA survey for Atlantico. Another poll conducted by Ifop for the newspaper Le Figaro found 55 percent in favor of intervention, yet only 41 percent approved of France joining in a military response.

In Britain, where polls have long shown consistent opposition to any form of intervention in Syria, neither allegations of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime nor the push for action from leaders in London and Washington has altered the opinion of a war-weary public.

A ComRes poll for the Independent newspaper published on Monday found that only 29 percent of people believe Britain should join the United States in launching air strikes against Syria to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, while 57 percent are outright opposed. Four out of five people assert that any military action against Syria requires the approval of the United Nations.

ComRes chairman Andrew Hawkins told The Huffington Post UK that he doesn’t believe a forthcoming report from the United Nations weapons inspectors will “move the dials, and neither would further chemical crimes by Assad -– at least on the scale seen so far.”

In Germany, public opinion has been running 58 percent against striking Syria, according to public television. And in Italy a recent poll by the IPR Institute found that 52 percent of the public opposed an attack on Syria even absent Italian involvement. About 57 percent of Italians opposed allowing Italian military bases to be used in assisting foreign strikes engaged in strikes.

No polls have been conducted to gauge Canadian opinion on military intervention, but fatigue from involvement in Afghanistan and a few anti-Syrian-intervention protests suggest Canadians are not eager to jump in. Canada has signaled that it will not offer military support for a potential U.S.-led strike on Syria, while lending voice to calls for action.

Signs of public opposition from around the globe resonate as a rebuke to the Obama administration as it presses to unleash weapons on Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack there blamed for the deaths of some 1,400 people.

Public resistance reflects a marked predilection against military intervention following disastrous wars involving foreign forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. This sentiment appears to run especially deep in France, which played a leading role in interventions in Libya and Mali over the past two years.


Governments in Washington, London, France and Ottawa have portrayed the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons as a threat to humanity everywhere -– the sort of cruelty and incivility that cannot be allowed with impunity. Yet despite efforts by President Barack Obama to stoke fears of chemical-weapon attacks against Americans and their allies, few people outside Syria fear for their own safety.


It appears the world does not agree with you and is not on your side.
Obama is still going to give the speech, Congress will come back to more "briefings" (propaganda), the boogyman of IRAN IS BEING PLAYED.

Don't count out the stupidity, and jingoism of the US just yet
so you REFUSE to say if chemical weapons should have been banned because it will distory your entire argument about this whole subject.

do you care about only the facts you like?
You want to get it right for our country?

then you use all the facts even the ones that make your decisions much tougher ones.

FACTS will save you
you hate Obama for nothing.

You hate him because he goes by the facts too.

that is why I often agree with him.

two people going on facts with a love of human kind.
nope Im speaking TO THE WORLD not for them.

Im championing the FACTS not one partisan side of them

You're a nobody presuming yourself speaking to the world.

WE are speaking FOR the world .. the VAST majority of which agrees with our position, not yours.