- Joined
- Oct 24, 2020
- Messages
- 15,681
- Reaction score
- 11,850
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What's the article about? Do you agree with putin's accusations?I can't say this article gives me any comfort. It sounds like sheer neglect has led us to the danger those labs now present. As they move into the hands of people with nefarious intent, that past neglect could be a terrible oversight.
I can't say this article gives me any comfort. It sounds like sheer neglect has led us to the danger those labs now present. As they move into the hands of people with nefarious intent, that past neglect could be a terrible oversight.
This article preys on the stupidity of those not aware of the natural presence of anthrax amongst livestock.. Nobody gave a SHIT about all the naturally occurring cases in Ukraine before the invasion but now is part of super secret bioweapons program for the gullible..
This was another article that you didn't actually read, huh?I can't say this article gives me any comfort. It sounds like sheer neglect has led us to the danger those labs now present. As they move into the hands of people with nefarious intent, that past neglect could be a terrible oversight.
The article said the US program in Ukraine has helped them secure the pathogens in a secure facility. The neglect was before 9/11. What is it that has you uncomfortable?I can't say this article gives me any comfort. It sounds like sheer neglect has led us to the danger those labs now present. As they move into the hands of people with nefarious intent, that past neglect could be a terrible oversight.
Why the wink? You buying the Russian accusation, @gbg3?Boy, how quickly this thread brought in the best of the best.
Did you miss this part?The article said the US program in Ukraine has helped them secure the pathogens in a secure facility. The neglect was before 9/11. What is it that has you uncomfortable?
Well, someone has to read your links, since you're not going to.Boy, how quickly this thread brought in the best of the best.
What does this have to do with your OP or the title of this thread? You quote a portion of the article concerning a Russian lab in an article where you proclaim discomfort about Ukranian labs?Did you miss this part?
"As part of the program, the Pentagon spent $1 billion to build the Russians a facility in Shchuchye, Siberia, to demilitarize some two million chemical weapons. By the time it was done in 2009, ties with Moscow were growing tense. The price of oil was going up, giving Russia more revenue to wean itself off foreign assistance. At the same time, Mr. Putin was consolidating power.
As a result, the Russian government became a less-willing partner to the Pentagon’s drive to secure the deadly materials, according to James Tegnelia, who served as the head of DTRA from 2005 to 2009. “They wanted our money, but they didn’t want to admit that we built the facility,” Mr. Tegnelia said. “You could see that they were getting ready to pull back.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry had in the past praised the program. But by 2012, Moscow declined to renew cooperation, saying it could pay for the work on its own.
In 2014, the year Moscow illegally annexed Crimea and began backing separatists in Ukraine’s Donbas region, the program in Russia drew to a close.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., didn’t respond to a request for comment on the Pentagon program."
Siberia isn't part of the war theater. I don't know why you view this as moving now into the hands of those with nefarious intent: it's always been Russia's. Anyway, where is the terrible neglect? Who neglected securing the labs?Did you miss this part?
"As part of the program, the Pentagon spent $1 billion to build the Russians a facility in Shchuchye, Siberia, to demilitarize some two million chemical weapons. By the time it was done in 2009, ties with Moscow were growing tense. The price of oil was going up, giving Russia more revenue to wean itself off foreign assistance. At the same time, Mr. Putin was consolidating power.
As a result, the Russian government became a less-willing partner to the Pentagon’s drive to secure the deadly materials, according to James Tegnelia, who served as the head of DTRA from 2005 to 2009. “They wanted our money, but they didn’t want to admit that we built the facility,” Mr. Tegnelia said. “You could see that they were getting ready to pull back.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry had in the past praised the program. But by 2012, Moscow declined to renew cooperation, saying it could pay for the work on its own.
In 2014, the year Moscow illegally annexed Crimea and began backing separatists in Ukraine’s Donbas region, the program in Russia drew to a close.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., didn’t respond to a request for comment on the Pentagon program."
So, a facility to destroy chemical weapons is the same as a facility to make chemical weapons?Did you miss this part?
"As part of the program, the Pentagon spent $1 billion to build the Russians a facility in Shchuchye, Siberia, to demilitarize some two million chemical weapons. By the time it was done in 2009, ties with Moscow were growing tense. The price of oil was going up, giving Russia more revenue to wean itself off foreign assistance. At the same time, Mr. Putin was consolidating power.
Boy, how quickly this thread brought in the best of the best.
Did you miss this part?
"As part of the program, the Pentagon spent $1 billion to build the Russians a facility in Shchuchye, Siberia, to demilitarize some two million chemical weapons. By the time it was done in 2009, ties with Moscow were growing tense. The price of oil was going up, giving Russia more revenue to wean itself off foreign assistance. At the same time, Mr. Putin was consolidating power.
As a result, the Russian government became a less-willing partner to the Pentagon’s drive to secure the deadly materials, according to James Tegnelia, who served as the head of DTRA from 2005 to 2009. “They wanted our money, but they didn’t want to admit that we built the facility,” Mr. Tegnelia said. “You could see that they were getting ready to pull back.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry had in the past praised the program. But by 2012, Moscow declined to renew cooperation, saying it could pay for the work on its own.
In 2014, the year Moscow illegally annexed Crimea and began backing separatists in Ukraine’s Donbas region, the program in Russia drew to a close.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., didn’t respond to a request for comment on the Pentagon program."
I really don't see the point in the word parsing game being played. Whether its a bio-weapons lab or a bio-research lab these facilities house dangerous germs. If they get released it could cause another pandemic.
Why, thank you!Boy, how quickly this thread brought in the best of the best.
"Mr. Obama himself recalled seeing in his 2005 trip to Ukraine “test tubes filled with anthrax and the plague lying virtually unlocked and unguarded.”Siberia isn't part of the war theater. I don't know why you view this as moving now into the hands of those with nefarious intent: it's always been Russia's. Anyway, where is the terrible neglect? Who neglected securing the labs?
I assume it has been properly secured in the intervening 17 years, yes. The program was proposed by Obama, passed by Congress and begun as soon as he saw the mess things were in.Are you assuming all of this (mess) has been effectively removed from the labs in Ukraine? If you are, do you wonder why Nuland recently used the term "quite concerned"?
That was in Russia, not Ukraine.To me, it sounds like $1 billion was allocated and spent - but the desired outcome of that allocation and expenditure was never adequately or fully achieved in its goal of the successful demilitarization of 2 million chemical weapons. It got complicated (Russia became a less willing and cooperative partner) and that was that
The article does not source that "quote.""Mr. Obama himself recalled seeing in his 2005 trip to Ukraine “test tubes filled with anthrax and the plague lying virtually unlocked and unguarded.”
Are you assuming all of this (mess) has been effectively removed from the labs in Ukraine? If you are, do you wonder why Nuland recently used the term "quite concerned"?
"Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of,” Nuland said. “So, we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approach.”
To me, it sounds like $1 billion was allocated and spent - but the desired outcome of that allocation and expenditure was never adequately or fully achieved in its goal of the successful demilitarization of 2 million chemical weapons. It got complicated (Russia became a less willing and cooperative partner) and that was that.
So, a facility to destroy chemical weapons is the same as a facility to make chemical weapons?