South Philly Review

1. Janice said... on Jul 23, 2010 at 03:00AM

“Iraq was not being asked to prove they did not have lethal weapons, they were under obligation to allow U.N. weapons inspectors unfettered access to any sights. They were under obligation from the first Gulph War when Saddam Hussein signed a treaty to end that war. There were many conditions Saddam Hussein had agreed upon to end that war. He chose to ignore those conditions and play games with the U.S. and the U.N. He kicked the weapons inspectors out of the country on many occassions. There were 17 U.N. resolutions stating that he had to allow weapons inspectors unfettered access or their would be serious consequences. Unfortuantly the U.N. (as usual) failed to follow through on those resolutions, so the United States did. To summarize, Saddam broke the treaty many times so essentially the first Gulph War was never over.”

2. Gloria said... on Jul 23, 2010 at 07:49PM

“Hi, Janice. Unfortunately, none of the conditions you list apply to the invasion of Iraq. Fact 1) There was unfettered access to all sites in country prior to the invasion, until Bush called them off. Fact 2) Iraq was in complete compliance with resolutions at the time of the invasion. They offered a 12,000 page declarations report telling the disposition of all weapons. Inspectors had already inspected and cleared 500 sites before they were yanked. Fact 3) Only self defense is a legal reason to invade a country under UN regs. Bush had to invent the WMD to justify the invasion on self defense grounds. It was 13 years since the First Gulf War. Iraq was under crippling sanctions, had no military defense, and was not at war with us or anyone else. Fact 4) The removal of Saddam unleashed all the sectarian rivals of his regime, causing an insurgency aided by foreign terrorists. Bush dared those terrorists to kill our boys with the words "Bring 'em on!"”

3. Gloria said... on Jul 26, 2010 at 01:15AM

“PS, once the government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown and all restrictions by the Baath party removed, the following western oil companies signed no bid contracts to develop the 11 oil field in Iraq: BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total. So let's stop clinging to the notion that this war was over anything else but oil.


”

4. Janice said... on Jul 27, 2010 at 02:47AM

“Gloria- From the CRS Report- Library of Congress-
The inspections conducted in Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War verified Iraq’s violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of bacteriological or chemical weapons in warfare. From May 1991 to December 1998, UNSCOM and the IAEA’s Action Team on Iraq conducted several thousand inspections at over 1,000 facilities. The extent and scale of Iraq’s programs to develop biological weapons, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons surprised even those knowledgeable in those areas.Inspectors destroyed 38,500 munitions, 480,000 liters of chemical agents, and 1.8 million liters of precursor chemicals (but the fate of about 31,600 chemical munitions, 550 mustard gas bombs, 4,000 tons of chemical precursors and Iraq’s capabilities to produce VX agent are
still unknown). Gloria, note the statment in parentheses.”

5. Janice said... on Jul 27, 2010 at 02:52AM

“Gloria- From the CRS Report-Library of Congress
On November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council gave Iraq “a final
opportunity to comply with disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council” with the adoption of Resolution 1441. Iraq formally accepted the resolution and inspectors began their work in Iraq on November 27. On December 7, Iraq provided a 12,000-page declaration of its WMD programs and capabilities, which largely recycled old declarations and maintained that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On December 19th, the IAEA and the UNMOVIC the two organizations charged with inspecting Iraq, reported that the declaration was incomplete. UNMOVIC and the IAEA told the U.N. Security Council that Baghdad “missed an opportunity” to come clean about its arms
programs.”

6. Janice said... on Jul 27, 2010 at 02:59AM

“Oh and by the way Gloria, I guess Bush wasn' t the only one who invented the WMD. Here are some quotes for ya:
-Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
-"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
-"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998”

7. Janice said... on Jul 27, 2010 at 03:03AM

“-"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
-I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
Hey Gloria, do you recognize any of these guys?
-"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002



”

8. Janice said... on Jul 27, 2010 at 03:21AM

“So Gloria, I supplied facts with an actual resource. Could you also do the same?”

9. Gloria said... on Jul 27, 2010 at 08:53PM

“Janice, I have read all these reports and quotes before. All the quotes by those politicians followed Bush's October 2002 alarming report to Congress based on a cooked up Intelligence Estimate, because that is all you have, a bunch of estimates that were based on hearsay. Here is your quote in parentheses with my capitalization of the key words: " ...the fate of ABOUT 31,600 chemical munitions, 550 mustard gas bombs, 4,000 tons of chemical precursors and Iraq’s CAPABILITIES to produce VX agent are
still unknown." They had no idea how many weapons still existed or if they were still potent. Chemicals do have a shelf life you know, and ten years is a long time to keep any chemical. Forget germs. They were dead a long time ago. This entire statement is an exericise in semantics.
The 12,000 declarations pages presented by Iraq had no more to say because there was no more to say.”

10. Gloria said... on Jul 27, 2010 at 08:58PM

“Quotes by politicians are not facts but opinions. They are based on arguments by Bush at his October, 2002 report to Congress based on a faulty Intelligence estimate.”

11. Gloria said... on Jul 27, 2010 at 09:01PM

“I would love to respond, but do not see my comments on this board.”

12. Janice said... on Jul 28, 2010 at 01:29AM

“Gloria, I guess you have never heard of intelligence committee's that some of these politicians were actually a part of. So the way you see it, Bush and his cronies were the only ones privy to this "cooked up" intelligence. Your wrong! Congress was privy to the same intelligence and gave Bush the green light. The intelligence came from a number of sources. Defectors from Iraq as well as countries like England, France, Israel, and even Russia. I love the way you take the word of a tryanical dictator and his "12000 page declaration. A dictator who invaded another country and for 12 years played games with the U.N. and it's inspections. I also wasn't aware that you were a scientist who could predict the shelf life a chemicals and germs. Its quite clear to me you just hate Bush and it makes you feel better to just blame him then acutally deal with facts and reality.”

13. Janice said... on Jul 28, 2010 at 01:39AM

“Also Gloria, we live in a different time then we did when the U.N. made the regulation that only self defense is a legal reason to invade a country. So, as you see it, as soon as Iran gets a nuclear bomb and drops it on the U.S. or one of its allies, we can then take action. Brilliant plan. In my opinion, if a country has repeadedly made threats to annihilate another country or wipe them off the face of the earth, thats good enough for me. I choose not to wait until they have the capability to do so.”

14. Janice said... on Jul 28, 2010 at 02:04AM

“@ Gloria
Even as chemical and biological weapons have a short shelf life, your own words prove my argument. "They had no idea how many weapons still existed or if they were still potent". We might have had a better understanding on the weapons situation but when Saddam repeadedly kicked inspectors out of the country over a 12 year period, one may think he is hiding something. All he had to do was cooperate with the U.N. and the U.S. would have had no argument for invasion.”

15. Gloria said... on Jul 28, 2010 at 07:20AM

“Janice, Saddam was not the only one to call halts to inspections. Since the war resolution passed by Congress in 2002, Iraq opened its country to full UN inspections. They were in progress for months. They cleared 500 sites. It was GW who halted those inspections in April-March of 2003 in preparation for the invasion.

The Iraqi "defectors" you mention include Ahmed Chalabi who gave tons of false information to Judith Miller of the NTT which was all later debunked. Chalabi admitted he was campagning for years to get the US to overthrow the Iraqi government.

I am not a fan of Saddam Hussien, but there are lots of tyrants in the world, and he was the leader of a sovereign nation not at war with anyone at the time of the invasion. Even Bush had to admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The so-called evidence of Iraq's purchase of "uranium from Africa" was also debunked by Ambassador Joe Wilson, as a forgery. I cannot believe that you have not kept up with the news.”

16. Gloria said... on Jul 28, 2010 at 11:45AM

“OK, here is a link to the UNMOVIC inspections document that spells out what Iraq did and did not declare and how the UN wanted them to resolve each question. .... http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf.

Please note that the date on the report is March 6, 2003 before the invasion. The UN was in the process of sorting out which chemicals and biological toxins Iraq still had, as well as any missiles and warheads. They were in fact inspecting sites all over the country to determine what if any of these weapons from 12 years prior were still being developed. Remember that chemical and biological weapons need aerial delivery systems to carry them to the enemy. In other words, spraying toxic chemicals or viruses, as they had done to the Iranians and the Kurds. Without missiles or airplanes, there was no way to deliver these weapons, even if they were still viable. Iraq had neither a working airforce or missile systems. Plans on paper do not constitute a weapon.

”

17. Gloria said... on Jul 28, 2010 at 12:00PM

“If you read every word of that report, you know that inspections up to that point were inconclusive. Demanding that Iraq prove it no longer had weapons was impossible, as I have already stated. They could only prove what they still had, so the UN inspectors demanded more information and more time to look things over.

But NOOOOOOO, the war had to begin.

Only after a bloody invasion and the deaths of thousands of our troops and Iraqis were the inspections completed and turned up NOTHING. Airplanes and missiles were buried in the desert. There were no working laboratories for BW and CW development. All of these questions could have been resolved without the need for one drop of blood to be shed. Iraq was not hindering the inspections and only President Bush's insistence on invading halted the inspections.

And now only the Big Oil companies and defense contractors are the winners.”

18. Janice said... on Jul 29, 2010 at 04:06AM

“Gloria stated "If you read every word of that report, you know that inspections up to that point were inconclusive. Demanding that Iraq prove it no longer had weapons was impossible, as I have already stated. They could only prove what they still had, so the UN inspectors demanded more information and more time to look things over." I stated previously what the inspectors actually said about the inspections and the 12,000 page declaration. Let me refresh "The IAEA and the UNMOVIC the two organizations charged with inspecting Iraq, reported that the declaration was incomplete. UNMOVIC and the IAEA told the U.N. Security Council that Baghdad “missed an opportunity” to come clean about its arms programs.” Inconclusive is not the same as incomplete. It was incomplete because there were weapons declared previously that were not stated in their 12,000 page report.
”

19. Janice said... on Jul 29, 2010 at 04:54AM

“Gloria also stated, " I cannot believe that you have not kept up with the news.” I certainly keep up with the news especially the Iraq War news, so I think I need to clarify. I was not stating that the "defectors" information was accurate or that the intelligence received was correct and I am quite aware that the but I don't necessarily blame the Bush administration for that as you do. Much of this information was debunked post invasion.”

20. Gloria said... on Jul 29, 2010 at 08:17AM

“Janice says: "I was not stating that the "defectors" information was accurate or that the intelligence received was correct and I am quite aware that the... but I don't necessarily blame the Bush administration for that as you do. Much of this information was debunked post invasion.” Which is precisely my point. It did not take a bloody invasion to "debunk" all that misinformation. All it took was careful investigation which was already happening before boots went on the ground. I am an ordinary citizen who kept up with all the reports prior to the war and I saw plenty of evidence that the so called intelligence and particularly the testimony of Achmed Chalabi was phony. Joe Wilson's accurate report to the CIA in the fall of 2002 was suppressed while Bush included the same misinformation about uranium sales from Africa in his SOTU address in 2003. So of course I blame Bush and his whole administration.”

21. Gloria said... on Jul 29, 2010 at 09:32AM

“Janice, since we now agree that the stated reason for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, to disarm the country of WMD, was in fact a fallacy, it seems the only point of disagreement is who is responsible?

You do not want to blame the President who ordered the attack or the Congress that gave him authorization for the attack, or the administration that dropped the intelligence football...while I BLAME THEM ALL. We have lost thousands of our young men and women, not to mention the countless Iraqis caught in the crossfire. We have spent over a trillion dollars badly needed to support our own flagging economy.

Who benefited the most? Easy answer which I already posted. 1st The four largest oil corporations in the western world obtained contracts to mine the natural resources of Iraq with the third largest oil reserves in the world. 2nd: the defense contractors making obscene profits, and 3rd, the terrorists who are stealing our money and using it to fund attacks on us.

”

22. Janice said... on Jul 30, 2010 at 10:37AM

“My issue is the fact that you were not blaming Congress. I gave you quotes from democrats in the congress and the senate and your answer was,"All the quotes by those politicians followed Bush's October 2002 alarming report to Congress based on a cooked up Intelligence Estimate". That gives the appearance that the Bush Administration is only responsible, and the poor Congressman and Senators were just duped on the sidelines. I would also like to see you place some fault to the Saddam regime but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that role. I would be interested in your take on the Iran situation and where you stand with that.”

23. Gloria said... on Jul 31, 2010 at 12:51AM

“I never said I did not blame Congress, Janice. They along with the media should have been more skeptical, but don't forget that it was just one year after the attacks of 9/11 and there was a mid term election coming up. They did not want to appear weak on terrorism. I give a lot of credit to Bob Brady who voted Nay on the war resolution.

Saddam was a blowhard and nasty to his people, but he was never a threat to us. How could he be? There was an embargo and other sanctions against his country.. He had nothing to defend Iraq from aerial attacks and bombs.

About Iran. Saddam was once our lead deterrant to Iranian expansion. We supported Iraq in their war with Iran, even though Reagan sold arms to Iran behind the Senate's back, so he could fund the Contra insurgency in Nicaragua. Some have argued that we should have left Saddam to be a continued deterrant. Now Iran is free to produce a nuclear weapon. We must convince Iran that a nuclear arms race is not in their interest.”

24. Janice said... on Aug 1, 2010 at 10:05AM

“Gloria, your answer on Iran is very simplistic. Diplomacy has not worked. Obama extended his hand and Iran smacked it down. Sanctions have not worked. Does the international community act before Iran gets a nuclear weapon? Does the international community act after Iran gets a nuclear weapon, or should we do nothing?”

25. Gloria said... on Aug 1, 2010 at 05:40PM

“Janice, I hope you are not suggesting another war on top of the two already in progress? While we are at it, why not strike at North Korea which is already rattling sabres at us? Perpetual war is not the solution.We won't have to wait for an attack, as we will have bankrupted ourselves entirely.

Besides, Iran has its nuclear plants hidden within residential cities. Maybe they already have a bomb. If so, they will join Pakistan, India and Israel as nuclear powers in the region.

The worry is that an arms race will ensue. The only way to handle it is through very delicate negotiations, the way Reagan negotiated an arms treaty with the Soviets. It can be done. Meanwhile, we can employ sanctions and fossil fuel independence to starve them of the capital needed to pursue these dangerous weapons. This is the time when we need statesmen not chickenhawks.”

26. Janice said... on Aug 3, 2010 at 01:44AM

“Gloria, I am not suggesting anything, I was just curious as to your stance on the Iranian situation. We are already on our way to bankruptcy with the social and domestic programs that have been enacted. We won't need another war to do that. I have concluded from your comments that if Iran gets a nuke you are ok with having them join the nuclear powers in the region. I don't think your President agrees with you. What you are talking about is delicate netgotiations with someone who is insane. Iran doesn't have a nuke yet and we have failed at negotiations to this point. Do you think once they get the nuke they will be looking to negotiate? As I said earlier, sanctions have not worked and they don't look like they are going to.”

27. Gloria said... on Aug 3, 2010 at 09:47AM

“So, Janice, what do you suggest? I already told you that Iran is the big winner in the Iraq War since we removed their chief antagonist, Saddam Hussein and they now have a government there that is friendly to them and their fundamentalist Islamist religion. Of course, I am not OK with them being a nuclear power. I am not in favor of any nation having such lethal weapons, including us. Then it becomes a race to see who can be top dog. As for insane, they may have a couple of nutjob leaders, but they are not suicidal. (Besides, we negotiated with the "evil empire" the Soviets who are just as nuts.) My personal best solution is to become energy independent, stop buying their oil which they are using to fund terrorism and let them drown in the surplus. I would treat the whole ME the same way. They have been nothing but trouble for us.”

28. Janice said... on Aug 5, 2010 at 05:31AM

“Gloria, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. Ahmadinejad said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. He actively seeks to bring about an apocalyptic struggle between the righteous and the wicked to accelerate the return of the mahdi or Hidden Imam. So, I disagree with you on the notion he is not suicidal. According to him the only way to bring about the chosen one is for the apocalypse to occur. I recommend to you a book called "THE APOCALYPSE OF AHMADINEJAD" by Mark Hitchcock. However, I do agree with you about energy independence. The United States should have been working on energy independence for the last 30 years. Not only to alleviate our energy independence but for the environment as well.We have really dropped the ball.
”

29. Gloria said... on Aug 5, 2010 at 05:16PM

“Well, no matter what Imadinnerjacket says, he can't do it without money. If we stick to our resolve not to buy his oil or trade with his country, we starve the beast. I am glad we agree on one thing.....getting out from the yoke of energy dependence for all the reasons you stated. I have enjoyed this exchange with you. Keep the faith.”

30. Janice said... on Aug 9, 2010 at 09:22AM

“Gloria, I have enjoyed the exchange as well. Take care”