Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 2

Coalition of the Willing — Origin of phrase

Recent edit by IP qualifies that the phrase coalition of the willing was only used by opponents of the war. This is false. The President used the term continuously throughout the first two years of the war. I will revert later unless there is objection. -asx- 11:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

already reverted. I don't know what this edit was from, probably not someone with all his senses at the moment. Rama 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

hehe, thanks. . . ;) -asx- 19:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Factual Error

I don't know if anyone brought this up, but Operation Iraqi Freedom was never referred to as Infinite Justice. That was the original title for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which was changed to Enduring Freedom after Muslim protests. It's a rather glaring mistake that shouldn't be there. Wickbam

I believe there is a date error in the section on weapons of mass destruction as a justification for war. If the Iraqi chemical attack against the Kurds refers to Halabja, it was in 1988 and not 1983.

Anti-War Comments

This is obviously an anti-war article. It is embarrassing to me and I think it should be changed. This article has comments about how bad it was that the war was not permitted by the U.N.

This article is already somewhat disputed. However, it doesn't matter if it is embarrassing you, you are obviously either a rampant republican or just stupid. Your single point about how "This article has comments about how bad it was that the war was not permitted by the U.N." doesn't prove anything if you are referring to the Opinion and Legality part. The authors of this article objectively presented other peoples' opinions at worst, or the popular view. This section presents facts about opinions, not opinions about facts.

typical of the militant left to call people who disagree with them "stupid." liberals are so defensive nowdays now that it's become clear that they are not the majority! but i digress. anyways, below contradicts your claim that the article is objective (yes, they should have said "supporters of the president" or "opponents of the administration"). the article should leave politics completely out of the article, or at least keep them concise, as limited as possible, and in their own section; the article fails to do this. no matter what side of the arguement you are on (and which side you are on you have made quite obvious), you must agree that encyclopedia entries (which this is) should simply say what happened and the official reasons for it, and let the reader go elsewhere to find opinions on why this or that happened or succeeded or failed.

How is one supposed to leave politics out of a topic which is so highly political? The best we can hope for is presenting an accurate record of the various reasons for and agains the war.

as poorly as this comment was written, the gentleman who started this topic is correct. this page is an embrassment on wikipedia. If i were a teacher (and i intend to become one), i would not allow my students to use any of this article as a source. especially sections on "Popular Opinion" and the ever famous section on the "Mission Accomplished" debacle, that is entirely not belonging in this article (not to mention that the helicopter v plane question is about as off-topic as it gets). this article needs a lot of work, and for goodness sake, wake up and help us people. i'll admit here im a Bush-suporter, but since when did the members of wikipedia give up on just giving facts?

What content in the article do you believe to be not a fact, if any? 64.179.125.66 02:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC) (I am User:Kevin_baas)

The biggest objection I have had is how this page covered "popular view" of the conflict. I like how it has now been given over to its own section, and that certantly quells a lot of my objections. The "Mission Accomplished" article is both out of place and uneccisary in my view, and should me moved to its own section as well. I have no problem with information i disagree with being presented, what i object to is information on either side being presented as neutral, the same as whats going on on the Fox News discussion. if were going to cite people, we dont say "Some People" or the ever famous "Popular View", we say "Suporters of the president claimed" and "opponents of the administration have claimed". These problems are starting to work themselves out, and i am pleased with the progress over the last few days. i will keep a eye on things, and be sure to point out any issues I have, but with this section edit last night, i am pleased with the progress -Warzybok

Any democrats out there who watch Fox? Im farely young, and i dont follow politics to much. But i heard that Fox is mostly republican. I think this needs to be adressed. But Warzybok does have a point about how we should use "supporters" and "opponents" and other labels. But I think that it would be weirder to say "oh, and by the way the anti-war view is the popular one"

If you believe bush then you are an idiot. 'nuff said

All right, I'm going to get rude, because I am tired of these insults being thrown around. Whoever made that last comment, SHUT UP. This is a discussion page, not an insult gallery. You discuss the article, not present you political views. I happen to be a Republican but I don't go about insulting liberals for their beliefs. Liberals, you should do the same. It's stupid. 'If you believe Bush then you are and idiot'. I can't get over how childish that sounds. I could get all fiery about my political views, but I'm not going to because I think rationally and I know it's pointless. I haven't heard half as many insults thrown about by conservatives as I have liberals. I'm tired of it. So, if you can't get into a discussion without insulting somebody, I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! Here is the typical nuanced republican manuover, impune the real target: call the objectivity of the text into question, then launch into a long attack on liberals, and how they are so insulting, abusive and just plain irrational thus skipping the need to actually cite any factual errors or errors in bias. Lets make a list of acutal problems and go through it. --Gregg

Could we please try to stay on the topic? I find it sad on a forum intended for objective facts that people find the need to state what the political opinions of others should be. You don't have to be "liberal" or "republican" to write accurate facts, you just have to present the information without leaping to conclusions - in fact, it would be preferable to avoid drawing conclusions. Presenting the information without implying that the reading audience should think one thing or another encourages people to make informed decisions. As of yet, the evidence I see shows that both "liberals" and "conservatives" are displaying shameful immaturity. This is not a personal power struggle, this is an encyclopedia site. Please remember, therefore, to try to stick with the facts and not to tell people what to think. By the way, if you are going to oppose someone on the grounds that they are not citing actual errors, don't then make the same mistake. This is supposed to be a site to present facts, but even the debate forums of Dream and Write seem more careful than this. -- Mithlas

I agree with you that we should not go around insulting each other, but I do object to you saying that 'Liberals should do the same". I am a liberal, and I don't go around insulting conservatives, so I find this comment sterotypical and insulting to me.

• I agree with the original comment that this article has gone to hell. Any attempt at neutrality is reverted and everytime i see a new edit its always to tack on another anti-bush "fact". I put fact in quotations because there are no sources for them, or the sources are unreliable. This article has gone over the edge. It's completelly unreliable for neutral information.--EatAlbertaBeef 00:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First off: liberalism and conservativism are equally saturated with idiocy and insults. There is no correlation between political ideology and how much of a jerk someone is. Next, it should be noted that, worldwide, the war in Iraq is generally accepted to be everything the page says it is. Wikipedia does have a bias favourable to the US, which I hope I am not too bold in saying is a right-wing country. This is considered to be a neutrality problem. See Anglo-American focus. --64.180.101.42 04:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just because something is generally accepted doesn't make it right. Hitler was Times Man of the Year and generally accepted great guy.--EatAlbertaBeef 17:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look. DO you people have nothing better to do than complain about a Wikipedia article? Come on. Whether or not the information is acurate is unimportant. The war is unpopular, and any way you phrase it will make it look anti war to you Bible-belters. Anyways, Iraq isn't all sunshine and rainbows, anyways, so you can't really make this "a nice, happy page".

hhamdy283 June 13,2005

Whether the article is accurate or not is very much important and what we are saying is all true. The vandalism, mostly by anti-Bush wackos, is out of control and we need to find some way to fix it. The vandalism has stretched to the talk pages now. I just removed a vandalism on my previous edit. I kind of laughed when you called me a Bible-belter. I go to church only on the religious holidays. Avoid stereotypes. They can get you into trouble. Anyone who thinks that war is all rainbows and butterflies is ridiculously naive. War sucks, but sometimes it is nessisary to prevent a greater tragedy befalling innocent people, or to prevent a madman (cough,Saddam,cough) from killing anymore innocent people.

(introducing commentary at inapropriate place because of highly humorous comment. Killing Iraqi civilians in the 80s with weapons from the US was ok. After the 90s it was not?)LtDoc 19:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

War is never neccessary, you fool. More people have died at the hands of the US military then the hands of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party. It annoys me greatly when you Americans always believe war is the only answer, but you only fight in wars that serve your best interests. If you look at Canada, which has participated in every peacekeeping operation, we have only brought peace, not war. The US only fights if they benefit from it. And also, speaking of stereotypes (look above), I find it ironic that an American is scolding me for stereotypes, whereas the US is the most racist "culture" on the face of the earth.

hhamdy283 July 1st (Canada Day), 2005

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some gems from (apparently) hhamdy283 taken from one paragraph:

1. "War is never neccessary, you fool."
   • Niave, but insulting.
2. "More people have died at the hands of the US military then the hands of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party."
   • Apologist denial.
3. "It annoys me greatly when you Americans always believe war is the only answer, but you only fight in wars that serve your best interests."
   • Ill-informed stereotyping.
4. "And also, speaking of stereotypes (look above), I find it ironic that an American is scolding me for stereotypes, whereas the US is the most racist "culture" on the face of the earth."
   • Hypocrisy amok! In a single sentence even!!!

--Seth (July 11, 2005)

I agree with hhamdy, despite being an american myself. And seth, look at the facts. More people have died at the hands of the us military. bob

---

I can't remember the latin phrase to define Seth's philosophical analysis, but he essentially responds with "nuhh-unhh" to every single claim. Stereotyper! Apologist! Hypocrite! Nice, real nice. I wouldn't go as far to call the US racist, though...but there is a strong undercurrent of Americentrism.

But anyway, I browsed over this and didn't really change anything...I do agree that the little jabs of subtlety, like the supposed "mission accomplished" heading that has since been replaced, are not in good taste. Other than that, this is a detailed and useful refrence. Well done Wiki-community.--24.72.227.2 05:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, seeing as this isn't a blog commentary section, I didn't want to over-expound. What I decided to do was quickly point out the fallacies in almost every one of hhamdy's sentences in that one paragraph.

• The "war is never necessary" comment is niave because I only need to demonstrate one necessary war to invalidate it, while hhamdy must show an alternative to every war that has ever occurred.

• The next sentence is denial because he doesn't even try to justify it (with bob committing the same) despite years worth of claims that up to 500,000 have died under Hussein since '91, while iraqbodycount.net or whatever claims a max of 26,000 killed. It's apologist if he forgives Hussein for the indirect deaths (which I assume he does), which are likely a large part of the suspected 500,000.

• "...you Americans always believe war is the only answer..." Come on, try to tell me that's not stereotyping!

• And I shouldn't even have to spent any unicode on why the last sentence was hypocritical. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

If you're talking about wikipedia being american-centric, perhaps you're right and that should be undone. Not, however, by leaning anti-american. I know I'll get flamed for that last, so let me just offer that if you trust our enemies' words more than our government's, you'll have a difficult time convincing me that you're pro-american...or even neutral.

If, however, your talking about Americans being american-centric (which you seem to, given the context of the statement), I'll offer a big old, "so what?" Few nations' people are guilty of any less regarding their own nationality.

--Seth (July 21, 2005)

Allow me my 2 cents. War is never necessary, that is a fact. Its sometimes the faster, "better", cheaper, easier, more justifiable way, but never the necessary one. And yes, I can show you that every single war the planet has seen was unnecessary, and I doubt you can show me one who has. Also, Im sorry to point out that this statement is not naive, nor the explanation you gave for it being naive is coherent. Perhaps a more coherent way of defending your point would be that human nature is the cause of the war, and it would be naive to presume people would rather talk it out than get it bashing on with each other. I could dispute that too, but that is beyond the point.

As for denial...perhaps, but not for the reasons you claim. Apologistic, never. Come on, WHO on their right mind would be apologetic to mass murder? No one does that. What the user problably meant, and what is well documented and verifiable, is that the US is responsible for more deaths in its history than Saddam Hussein or any other Iraqi. (Hiroshima, Nagazaki, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Native Americans, etc etc)

As for the following comment (ill-informed stereotyping) your comment falls short on the facts. Just review public polls on wheter the US should invade Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam, prior to the conflicts. You´ll come to realize the the majority (50%+) was in favor of such course of action, even in after the invasion the majority shifted to believe that invasion was not justified and should stop as soon as possible. So, no, theres no stereotyping in that sentece in the strict meaning. Perhaps you feel upset because it was supposed to be a generalization that "every" american believes that "might makes right" or that "shoot first, find WoMD later", which is obviously not the case. But it cant be disputed that lots of people who think like that show this kind of disposition in here.

And for the last statement, well, one cant be neutral to a subject were he is involved with it; thats human nature! But bickering in the discussion page will bring nothing productive to the article or to those who read it.

I must confess, however, that those last two paragraphs were highly demonstrative of why America (and thus americans) is seen as an self-centered, arrogant, prepotent, unliked nation (and thus some people) and why this is ever escalating in the world today. Your division of the world in two teams, "those who trust the US gov't words" being the right and "those who trust our enemies" being wrong is just so typical that I really dont understand how you can point fingers at someone and accusing them of stereotyping. That "youre either with me our against me" attitude leaves most of the world grindind its teeth. And "giving the old SO WHAT?" just exemplifies my point. America is disliked for a lot of things, some justifiable and others not so much, but the straw that breaks the camel´s back is that you (as a people) dont care to be viewd as self-centered, giving this superior feeling over the less fortunate sould who werent born american. LtDoc 19:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

---

hmmm...

"if you trust our enemies' words more than our government's, you'll have a difficult time convincing me that you're pro-american...or even neutral"

...since when does having faith in the government have anything to do with being American? And please tell me, what does it mean to be an American? In a country with 23508923508 different ethnic groups, religions and so on and so forth, we don't really have a national identity...nothing in common really other than an adherance to consumer culture and the ideals we carry about personal freedoms and individual rights. Now If you mean by "anti-American" that I am against the policies that are being carried out and the decisions that are being made under this Administration, I strongly encourage you to analyze the actions of this Administration and decide for yourself whether or not they are making intelligent decisions. If you come to the conclusion that they aren't, you suddenly aren't anti-American, so don't be afraid to second guess yourself.

On top of that, it doesn't necessarily make you a liberal either, nor does it dismiss you from the chance of being a republican - i'm sure you will still fit in with one of the ranks: wealthy businessmen, NRA member, white supremacist, nationalist, oil tycoon, christian, outdoor sportsman, good old boy. After all, the republicans all have so much in common, just like the athiests, feminists, hollywood, hippies, homosexuals, jews, and countless minorities that make up the democratic party (joking, just something for Wikipedians to consider when constantly polarizing the two parties and stereotyping, i.e. "typical of the militant left to call people who disagree with them "stupid." liberals are so defensive nowdays now that it's become clear that they are not the majority! but i digress.")

And no, I don't believe "few nations' people are guilty of any less regarding their own nationality", because...see: History, specifically between the periods of 1803 and 1815, and the entire chunk of history that incudes social darwinism, new imperialism, fervent nationalism, and so on, extending from towards the end of the 19th century to halfway into the next. Especially look at the First World War as well as when nationalism comes to a head in World War II. As a result, Europe was left in ruins, foreign policy aggravated situations or created problems we face today (see: Britain in the Middle East during and after WWI, Europeans in Africa and elsewhere drawing borders, colonizing, oppressing, and so on) To top it all off, humanity as we know it was almost destroyed because of self-serving national interests and agendas, driving nations to the point of developing weapons that threaten our own existance as a species. Yeah, I think most of the world has decided that nationalism is a little bit dangerous; but we're pretty new to the game, so until we lose an arm or leg (I guess Vietnam didn't count), its disregard for and polarization of the dissenting world as well as a rewriting of history that seems fit for our boastful and self-absorbant nation. No wonder nobody likes us anymore.--24.72.227.2 10:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I imagine the editors of this article would not be pleased with us mucking up the discussion page with such partisan smegma. If an authority on this page doesn't actually mind, then I'll continue posting here. In anticipation of them minding, I have copied this conversation to a forum on another website and invite those interested to go to the website instead.

As a teaser to continue, however, I'll mention the following briefly and say that my full response is posted on the other website:

• I do believe that it is largely human nature (among other animals) that makes aggression, and war by extension, sometimes necessary.

• Comparing deaths caused by Hussein in the period of 1991-2003 against deaths caused by the U.S. during it's entire 230 year history is ridiculous.

• When referring to human behavior, generalizing across a population IS stereotyping. So hhamdy was stereotyping.

• I identify with America. French people identify with France. Why am I the arrogant one?

• What does it mean to be an Italian? And is 24.72.227.2 regretting the diversity of people that have come to our country because, "...we don't really have a national identity..."?

--Seth (July 23, 2005)

I really cannot understand how you can say thing like "French people identify with France" right after saying "generalizing across a population IS stereotyping". Rama 08:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it as bad as, "...whereas the US is the most racist 'culture' on the face of the earth?"

--Seth (July 24, 2005)

Probably worse. "...whereas the US is the most racist 'culture' on the face of the earth?" is an idiotic generalisation. Your own rant was also self-contradicting, on top of that, since you allow yourself to condemn a user for making generalisations, and then start making one yourself (for the record, I know plenty of French nationals who do not "identify with France", whatever this can be supposed to mean). Why don't you go and edit this site of your and stop wasting our time and ressources here ? Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not soapboxes. Rama 16:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll accept that it would have been more accurate to say "some" or "many" or "most" _____ identify with _____. But you berate me for a benign stereotype when people here were defending the HATEFUL stereotype? Then accuse me of ranting? As for the alternate site, I'm the one that realized that this wasn't the best place to conduct this conversation. I made the effot to relocate it and invite anybody who was interested. Nobody from here has accepted the invitation. Then you reply here and berate me for conducting this conversation here? Why the hell didn't you go to where you were invited if it ticked you off so much to have this conversation here? I won't originate any new conversation here but I will still reply to anything directed at me.

--Seth (July 24, 2005)

P.S. I didn't "condemn" the user. You read a lot into what I said. I pointed out how ridiculous it was to say, paraphrasing, "it's ironic that you're accusing me of stereotyping when Americans are the most racist culture on Earth!" It was funny too, because he said it in a single sentence. --Seth

P.P.S Reinvitation to the forum topic for continuing this argument.

This has got to end. This partisan bickering is ridiculous. This discussion page shouldn't be used as such. Thanks to Seth for establishing a seperate site for this. This page should be used for discussion, that is why this is called the discussion page. It shouldn't become a screaming match. The comment "the Americans are the most racist culture on earth" is hipocritical, arrogant, and poorly thought out. It also went too far, and it was irrelivant to the conversation. I apoligize for saying this. I also apoligize to any Americans I may have offended. I wrote this in a flurry of emotion and anger. I did not plan my comments well, and I should have provided evidence, which there is not enough of to completely justify that statement.

hhamdy283, August 2nd, 2005

Iraqi Government sovereignty

zen, I would sure like to see what legal theory you can conjure to explain why the "government" of Saddam was sovereign (de jure, not de facto - although the latter also raises some interesting questions like no-fly zones and Kurdish authonomy). I am Lockean myself, but you're welcome to try a Hobbsean line of reasoning if that helps. This should be fun. ObsidianOrder 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sideway added that I believe but it's based on a U.N. definition of a country is it not? So you are claiming Iraq wasn't a country? The U.S. signed Iraq's armistace/surrender treaty after the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's regime had a seat in the U.N. General Assembly. The no-fly zones were passed by the U.N. security council. zen master T 07:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, international recognition and the seat at the UN very much settle the matter (though it's not always necessary... Taiwan has neither, yet might qualify as a "sovereign" government (?)) Rama 08:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, it seems like you guys should actually read the sovereignty article (and also [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ... heck just google [6] [7] [8] to fill in the huge amount of stuff missing from the wikipedia article). International recognition or a UN seat are not the criteria for sovereignty under any of the common legal theories (except declarative, sort of). Also zen you said "definition of a country", we are talking about the government of Iraq not the country of Iraq. ObsidianOrder 08:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this comes as a counter-arguments that Iraq was a sovereign nation. Could you be more specific ? Rama 08:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell Locke's definition is that sovereignty (i.e. supreme authority) always resides in the People as a whole, who may enter into a "social pact" granting sovereignty to a State which governs with the consent of the people, for the purpose of protecting their natural rights. Obviously a government without the consent of the people cannot have sovereignty, and neither can one which does not protect (or worse, which itself deprives them of) their natural rights. There are other theories, but a similar objection exists under most of them. Now this all may seem rather strange to you (since it doesn't mention the UN or any kind of international recognition) but this is a very influential theory, in particular in the formation of the USA, and on most views of sovereignty since. (There are two other closely related but competing views of the social contract by Rousseau and Hobbes; modern theories are essentially refinements of Locke's, in particular popular sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty)ObsidianOrder 10:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I pointed out the distinction between country and government is because they are not interchangeable: country, nation, state, and government are all quite different things. Specifically: a nation has sovereignty by definition (according to Locke); a state or government may or may not (depending on whether it governs with the consent of the people, and honors the social contract); a country is the wrong type of entity to apply the concept to. ObsidianOrder 10:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're clutching at straws OO. More specifically you're trying to argue a narrow definition of sovereignty that suits your politics; that of making the sun shine out of the U.S. government's ass. Whether the Baathist government held popular sovereignty may well be debatable, but that it held sovereignty under international law is not. As an anarchist I don't believe in the right of any group to sovereignty over others, but this doesn't mean I deny its current existence as a practical reality. —Christiaan 21:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Iraq_Liberation_Act#Collection_of_statements_relating_to_national_sovereignty_in_international_law

Argue based on any other common theory of sovereignty then, why not? ObsidianOrder 10:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This isn't going to get us anywhere. For the purposes of the UN Charter, UN recognition is what counts. If you signed up to the UN Charter (and the USA did, as did the UK) then you recognise the sovereignty of the other member states. Iraq was sovereign. Even the US and the UK recognised that--without sovereignty they wouldn't have had to bother with the UN at all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

anyone who follows current events knows that the UN is a corrupt bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing. the only things i can think of offhand that the UN has accomplished recently is placing "peacekeepers" in Africa who rape and murder local residents, placing China and Cuba on the human rights committee, and the emerging oil-for-food scandal, which kofi annan was aware of to say the least and his son was directly involved in. america does not care what the UN thinks...and the UN will never have the power it once did. the UN failed miserably as the League of Nations and was a major factor in the outbreak of WWII, and it is failing again, only this time much slower. i guess what i'm trying to say is that the current administration doesn't care what the UN says, and never will. you all can blather about locke and hobbes and al franken and rush limbaugh and even david duke if you want to, but they are all irrelevant. saddam hussein was a murdering bastard who slaughtered his own people...i dont care if we flipped a coin to justify why we invaded Iraq, we should have finished the job and killed Saddam during Desert Storm.

Importing Locke's political theory about just sovereignty into an article like this is clearly POV. Should the article on the first Gulf War be edited to note that Kuwait was not actually a sovereign state because it didn't have fair elections? In that case, Saddam's invasion of it wasn't really such a big deal, right? Of course, in the real world, Kuwait was a recognized country with a recognized government, just like Iraq, and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was an act of aggression. If you consider those governments unjust, you're welcome to hold that opinion, but it doesn't change the facts. JamesMLane 22:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James - I am not "importing" Locke's theory, it is fundamental to most of our current ideas about the role and nature of governments. The US has a document called the Declaration of Independence that you may want to read. Pay particular attention to "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ..." and the rest of the first two paragraphs. That is Locke in a nutshell. Regarding Kuwait (the state, not the country), I would say that it had no particularly strong claim to sovereignty (although for the most part it honored its part of the social contract). Saddam's invasion was an act of aggression against the people of Kuwait, and that is why it was wrong. The existence or not of sovereignty of the state of Kuwait has nothing to do with it. ObsidianOrder 10:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All this misses the point. I have no question that Iraq was and is a sovereign state. I say that the addition of the term is POV as it makes it look more like there was less and less justification to "invade" than there was. The inclusion of the term is making the article have more of left wing slant, not a more neutral one.--MONGO 06:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the alternative is letting people think that Iraq was not a sovereign country, something which you agree is wrong.

"less and less" is difficult to quantify, but we can at least be confident that if some people think that sovereign countries cannot be invaded (I doubt there will be lots of them, but anyway), they will encounter the part about the justifications for the invasion and see the arguments.

Trying to define the "non-POV" line of the article is not feasible, and exposes us to letting notable facts aside to stay in this pre-determined line. I would much rather see the line of the article elvolve according to the reality of facts. Rama 08:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that. I said I didn't want the word here....it serves no purpose except to continue to make this article more POV.--MONGO 13:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that you did. I simply say that a fact such as this one, which is accurate, notable and informative, can be inserted into an article without bothering about the article changing its balance. Rama 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saddam's dictatorship may have been sovereign de facto (more or less) and recognized as such by other states (which simply means no other state decided to challenge its authority), but that in no way means that it had any legal basis for claiming sovereignty. So far, nobody has offered a single argument beyond international recognition or the UN charter. Obviously sovereignty does not arise out of the UN. Franky, as far as I am concerned, the UN is simply a collection of third-world tinpot dictators with delusions of grandeur [9] [10]. The UN does not have any kind of magic power to create sovereign governments just by saying it is so. I'm interested in any argument as to why Saddam's dictatorship had the right to claim sovereignty under any legal theory, Locke's or any other. However, "because the UN said so" is not an argument, it is merely an appeal to an authority which does not have the powers you try to attribute to it. ObsidianOrder 10:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, apart from our personal opinions as to what a legitimate government should be, the only stable, legally binding and internationally applicable critera is the United Nations (which, for the record, has countries as members, and includes the USA; "collection of third-world tinpot dictators with delusions of grandeur" is certainly flamboyant style, but inaccurate). Rama 10:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama - the members of the UN are states, not countries. "tinpot dictators" is accurate: of the 191 UN members, 48 are dictatorships, 54 are "partly free" and 89 are democracies [11]. "third world" is also accurate, 117 of them have lower-middle or low income per capita [12] and the median income per capita is around $2500. Oh, I forgot "tiny": the median size of UN members is 6.8 million. Hell, I live in a city which is larger than half the UN members, and I even get to elect the mayor. Why should my city not have a full UN seat? Obviously such an organization is absurd, hence "delusions of grandeur". You say "stable" and "legally binding" and so on, that's just beating around the bush, you have failed to explain how a dictatorship can have a right to sovereignty (i.e. right to absolute authority over its subjects) under any legal theory without circularly referring to a (bogus) authority composed of just such dictatorships. These are not just my "personal opinions", rather they are the foundational principles of my country (and of Western democracies in general). ObsidianOrder 11:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obsidian, you're expressing a particularly extreme opinion that may be common in one or two areas of your country. You're entitled to hold that opinion. But that isn't the same as fact. The facts are that the US and UK governments are both prominent members of the UN and are signatories to the charter of that institution. The charter upholds the sovereignty of its member states which can only be overridden in certain circumstances. It is thus significant that Iraq was such a sovereign member of the UN, even if it wasn't in good standing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still believe that the use of the term sovereign is only here to push a POV. By having this word inputed here after the page has remained the same for a while in that paragraph and to see some of those now defending that word tells me that you and those that think like you are the ones with an extreme opinion on the matter. All I have to say is the word sovereign as put into this paragraph makes the article less neutral, not more so.--MONGO 12:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony - what precisely are the criteria for being a UN member? Control of territory which is not contested by anyone with a sizeable military? If the criteria are anything else, it is not evident (e.g. Taiwan is not a UN member, but Tuvalu is). That is sovereignty de facto which is merely descriptive of the uncontested exercise of power, nothing more, and which is entirely dependent on the recognition of other powers. Establishing the right to sovereignty de jure requires a whole lot more, and incidentally does not depend on whether any third party chooses to recognize it or to contest it. You keep calling this my "opinion" but it is in fact the universally accepted legal theory of sovereignty, which I provided numerous references to earlier. ObsidianOrder 12:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To paraphrase, there are two possible meanings "sovereign", namely "recognized by world powers" or "created by the just consent of the governed". The first meaning, which is what people seem to argue based on, disappears the moment any major power effectively withdraws recognition. The second meaning is inherent, but obviously does not apply to Saddam since there is no conceivable legal basis a dictatorship. The word is there for one purpose, to further the "illegal invasion" meme. Well, I could go through and change "government of Iraq" to "Saddam dictatorship" or "regime", I suppose. "sovereign dictatorship of Saddam" just doesn't have the same flair, don't you think? ObsidianOrder 12:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with the remarks by ObsidianOrder is that many countries can have their status of "sovereign" country abritrarly debated, which can lead to ad nauseam arguments. For instance, the United States of America can be said not to be sovereign, since they can elect presidents

for whom only a minority of the people will vote. Some people will say that the very concept of government is illegitimate. Therefore, as to leave this sort of discussion outside of this article, I suggest that the UN be taken as a criteria. Rama 12:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe, as mentioned in the Iraq Liberation Act, that an attempt to tie the act to a US violation of international law is original research as no one has made this argument. I think any attempt to draw a conclusions as to the legal status of the war is POV pushing, and the term "sovereign" is an attempt to push the article one way. TDC 16:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Even Kofi Anan said the war was illegal at the time; it is hardly "original research", and certainly not POV pushing, to point out Iraq was a sovereign nation prior to the invasion. Why do the supporters of the invasion feel the need to alter the historical record like this?--csloat 16:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do those oppose the war fail to see that there are many legitimate sides to an argument? Anna's comments about the legal status of the war (and Kofi knows all about Illegal UN shenanigans doesn’t he?) are his opinions, and not the opinions of the United Nations (unless the UN passed a resolution that I am not aware of). The thing about law is that no two people agree on how to apply it and what it can be applied to. Clearly the US, Britain and the Allies found legal justification to remove Hussein and opponents to his removal by force have found legal justification against this. Its two interpretations on the same thing. Let us not put subtly POV terms in the article to add credence to one or the other.

Realistically, not mentioning long winded references to international law or historical precedent, a sovereign nation is defined by its ability to remain one. It might not be as PC as some may like, but it is the most honest definition of the term. TDC 17:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you mean that any nation susceptible of being invaded is not a sovereign nation ? Rama 17:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraq's sovereignty is not "subtly POV." It's a fact. And I don't think Kofi's opinion should be included as a fact but I mentioned that to respond to your BS argument that Iraq's sovereignty is a matter of "original research." As for your point that sovereignty means not being invaded, that is just lame. Any country can be invaded. Was Kuwait "sovereign" before Iraq invaded in August 1990?--csloat 17:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to suggest a possible solution to this impasse. Since the whole point about sovereignty is that a UN member isn't supposed to just up and invade another, we replace the term "sovereign Iraqi state" by "fellow UN-member, Iraq" when writing about the plans for regime change. We may be in dispute over use of the word "sovereign" but we can agree that the USA is bound by its treaties and both Iraq and the USA are UN members and the Saddam Hussein government was recognised diplomatically by the UN at the time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Many countries did not have normal relations with Iraq. Saddam was not recognized dipolomatically by many countries either and there was no communication directly...only through third party mediation. "fellow UN member" sounds a bit heavy. I certainly never considered Saddam to be a member in good standing...nor did the vast bulk of other member states in the UN.--MONGO 20:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saddam was internationally recognized as the leader of the sovereign country of Iraq. Your idiosyncratic view that he was not a "member in good standing" is entirely beside the point. Iraq was a sovereign country. This is not controversial. You're just toying with semantics. There was nobody else recognized as the country's leader, and it's clear that the state was sovereign, regardless of the impact of sanctions or of Saddam's murderous thuggishness. Even Rumsfeld would recognize that. Get your head out of the sand.--[[User:Commodore

Sloat|csloat]] 21:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was saying that Saddam was not recognized diplomatically by some countries in refute of Sidaway's comment, which is a fact. Are you some kind of idiotic moron or what?--MONGO 07:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, as far as I know, the Iraqi government was recognised by most (if not all) Western countries. Secondly, you can find examples of countries not recognised by other, which are no less sovereign. Most countries do not recognise Taiwan as a country, but it does not make it less inviolable. Etc.

The seat in the UN is a sufficient but not necessary criteria for a sovereign state. Rama 07:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

recap

just to re-visit this dead horse: nobody has advanced any argument for sovereignty other than "because the UN says so". those that brought up that argument have not cited a single source. anyone? the only reason i see for adding the word sovereign in that sentence is to suggest that trying to overthrow it was somehow wrong or illegal. seems like pure pov-pushing to me. if you really want to put in "sovereign", well, should I change "government" to "dictatorship"? or perhaps you'd like to argue that it wasn't? just saying. ObsidianOrder 10:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

How about "because the U.S. says so"? They do. They said that when they ratified the U.N. Charter. When you ratify a document, you are unconditionally affirming every statement within it. That's what ratification is. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:05, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Kevin - "because X says so" is never a good argument, regardless of who X is, it's a logical fallacy [13]. UN Charter - how exactly did Saddam's regime fit the membership requirements under Articles 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4 and so forth [14]? If the UN actually paid any attention to its own charter they should have withdrawn Iraq's membership a long time ago. ObsidianOrder 23:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has it's own argument for appeal to authority logical fallacy. You'll notice that it's not neccesarily a logical fallacy. There are conditions for a legitimate argument from authority. Regardless of anything, Iraq ("Saddam's Regime") was an actual member of the U.N. And your last line is also a non-sequitur. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:47, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

The UN is a sufficient criteria. What sort of arguments against sovereignty would we have, apart "right of the strongest", which does not make a legal argument, and considerations about democracy which are irrelevant in the context of international law, and would exclude most countries anyway ? Rama 10:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"UN is a sufficient criteria" - source? Arguments against - well, I only wrote about five pages of that above, but to summarize: sovereignty is either viewed as extrinsic (based on international recognition and ability to enforce) or intrinsic (based on a social contract). If sovereignty is extrinsic (or de facto), sovereignty is lost when recognition is withdrawn, and anyway it means little (basically territory you have enough force to exercise dominion over and/or other powers choose not to contest). If sovereignty is intrinsic (or de jure), then it was absent in this case. International law is a very murky thing which spans both, to a degree: extrinsic issues such as treaties, the UN charter, and security council resolutions; and intrinsic issues such as the UN definitions of genocide and the UN declaration of human rights. Nonetheless, most legal theories tend towards intrinsic sovereignty, which was completely absent in the case of Saddam's dictatorship (and yes, many countries may be in a gray area, so what?). ObsidianOrder 11:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments mean that anyone can deny the Sovereignty of virtually any country, making it essentially useless. The United Nations were founded precisely so that countries would be unable to contest the sovereignty of other nations on blury arguments like issues of minorities or disaproval of the form of government (like Germany did about Poland in 1939). The United States of America and all members of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" are members of the UN and signatories of the Charta, as was Iraq and all other parties. Therefore, the United Nations have the authority to decide on the matter. Rama 11:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

again, please, do you have a source for this supposed UN authority? membership in the UN is voluntary, and any member can do whatever they please if they are willing to suffer the consequences... which are nil, in the case of permanent members of the security council (hah!). what the heck authority is that? no, you can't deny the sovereignty of any country unless that country's government grossly abuses the powers granted to it... that's a short list, and Iraq was very close to the top of it. ObsidianOrder 11:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You are basically denying all modern internationl relations, and international law in its entirety. According to your theory, treaties are only bilateral (or n-lateral) pacts which can be broken at any moment which is seen fit by a sufficiently poweerful party. This was, for instance, the case before Second World War. The United Nations were designed to overcome to state of fact. The fact that the United States of America is a membre of the United Nations, having signed and ratified the Charta, binds them to international law. The "consequences" are not a way to buy the right to escape international law, and the fact that it might be difficult to submit the United States to some forms of sanctions (note that it is not always the case, see economical sanctions under the WTO, for instance) does not legaly grant them the right to act unilaterally in contradiction with the Charta.

Also, if you want to deny the sovereignty of Iraq on the ground that its president was not properly elected, that there were Human Right abuses, people disapearing, mass arrests on political grounds, unilateral military operations, etc., you open the door to people denyin the sovereignty of Russia, China and the United States of America, notably. Which is obviously an absurd result. Rama 13:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"deny the sovereignty of Iraq on the ground that..." - When the mountain of corpses of innocents piles high enough (100,000 or so in a decade might be a reasonable threshold) it is time to do something about it. That was definitely not the case in the US, and probably not in China or Russia either, but it was in Iraq, several times over, probably. At that point, any sane person has to conclude that, treaties be danmed, it is time to act (although you may disagree on the best course of action, naturally). How exactly are you going to draw a parralel between Saddam's genocide campaigns and anything the US has done in the same period?

Yes, treaties are n-lateral pacts which may be broken at any time by anyone willing to deal with the consequences, that should be self-evident. What else do you think they are? As you suggest, the UN was designed to prevent international action, which it does (sort of), but only at the cost of sweeping any problems within a nation - even the most appalling distasters - under the rug of "sovereignty". "signed ... binds them" until they choose not to - and who exactly has jurisdiction to try them for a violation, anyway? (Bear in mind that the ICC only has jurisdiction when all parties agree to it.) "Right" - what kind of right? Legal, moral, treaty-based, or ...? You might want to look at some other fancy pieces of paper the UN has produced but refuses to enforce, such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and see how they apply to the Anfal campaign. ObsidianOrder 19:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Here, here...I agree strongly. My argument of the use of the word is that it's placement here is a buttress of antiwar, or anti-action and helps to promote this article not as a discussion of the action, but as a statement against the action (of "invading" Iraq)....it is not our job to give opinion on whether the war was just, only to report the events as they unfolded...therefore, I fail to see that if the word "sovereign" is here in the place it is put that there can be anyway this article can be a neutral one.--MONGO 09:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony - could we agree on some kind of compromise? i can live with some variant of "sovereign" or better "UN-recognized" or "internationally-recognized" if we change the "Iraqi government" part. pick something descriptive from the Saddam Hussein article, e.g. ""repressive", "authoritarian", "regime", etc. some hybrid such as "... overthrow the repressive (but UN-recognized) regime of Saddam Hussein ..." might work? what is being overthrown is closely related to the reason why, if you say "Iraqi government" there is no apparent reason other than meddling. P.S. seems even people strongly opposed to the war are with me on the sovereignty issue ([15]). ObsidianOrder 13:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The level of aubsurdity in this thread is quite stunning. I don't know what planet some of you guys live on, but over here on the planet Earth (you'll find it just past Venus and right before Mars) nobody of any serious international standing (other than very arguably the governments involved in the actual invasion) has suggested that the Hussein regieme was not the legal government of Iraq, nor have they suggested that Iraq itself, its people or its current borders were not essentially sovereign. To suggest anything else is to be very selective and to open up barrels of worms that have no place in a discussion of the recent invasion. We'd need to work on rewriting the entire history of the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire, British Colonialism, etc. I listened to the lead up to the war very carefully and I don't once remember anybody in the US administration seriously suggesting that Iraq was not a sovereign state. The entire debate around whether or not [[16]] was valid legal pretext to invade essentially seals the fact. The text of the resolution itself refers to the Iraq, not to the "dictator in Baghdad", etc. the annexed letter from El Baradei and Blix is addressed not to "Saddam Hussein's friend and confidant Amir H. Al-Saadi" but to "H.E. General Amir H. Al-Saadi Advisor Presidential Office Baghdad Iraq". This would be more than enough justification for the Iraqi government to claim that it was acknowledged as sovereign in any legal sense. If Hussein was not legitimate, then why did the government not revert to the Hashemites or one of the previous military dictatorships?

It's offensive to think that we can be rewriting the history already to suit the victors. This is easily one of the most controversial invasions since the Vietnam War and to suggest anything else, to suggest that it was accepted by the majority of world opinion is very American-centric, very POV and very unprofessional. I absolutely want to see the American (and British) justifications for this war included in this article, but the mainline should adhere to majority world opinion and not fall victim to the systemic bias that is natural in any Internet site. This is a world encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. As has been stated before the fact that the US saw fit to go before the world to justify this war is enough to very strongly suggest that the notion of Iraq's actual soverignty (or that of it's government) was not seriously debated in the State Department. If we're going to pull the term out of the article then I'd like to see at least one quote by any senior member of the US government, on the record, stating that it was their professional opinion that Iraq was not sovereign. The Iraqi government might have had questionably legtimacy, it might have been a very interesting philosopical and political science case study, but it was most certainly the considered legal opinion of international and national bodies that Iraq, in a legal sense, was a sovereign state. Play games all you want, this is simply a fact.

Now I don't for a second support the idea that Iraq was "good" or "legitimate" in the philosophical sense, but if this is the standard we are to apply, then we're in for some pretty serious trouble in describing the actual world around us. Is the current US government legitimate without the support of the absolute majority of the population in the last election? What about the current government of Canada, a minority government? Tony Blair just got his government re-elected with something under 40% of the popular vote and far less of the absolute majority. What about Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF? The Apartheid era National Party in South Africa? Or how about the current Sharon government in Israel? They have disenfranchised an entire portion of the population that de facto lives under their control. What about Fidel Castro? Pervez Musharraf's government? Hamid Karzai's? If we're going to play this game we can't be selective. As abhorrent as it is, we're far safer allowing the internal mechanisms of a nation dicate which face is presented to the world and dealing with it. A bunch of ivory tower political theorists who occasionally write on a completely open Internet encyclopedia are not the standard that the world (or even the US government) uses when considering such issues. Let's leave the original research to the researchers and the phlosophy to the appropriate articles. Gabe 21:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"As abhorrent as it is, we're far safer allowing the internal mechanisms of a nation dicate which face is presented to the world and dealing with it." - yes, it is abhorrent, but it is not safer, and I absolutely refuse to do so. yes, the "internal mechanisms" should be given the benefit of the doubt, but egregious behaviour should get a vigorous response. "on the record" - okay: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power" [17]. That sure doesn't seem like acknowledging sovereignty, does it? The list of examples you give is easily divided into two groups, those in which the population as a whole is involved in selecting the government, pursuant to laws they as a whole have passed (US, UK, Canada, Israel, and now Afghanistan) and those in which that is not the case (Zimbabwe, Cuba, Pakistan). There is no equivalence between the two, putting them together is bogus. I am not selective, I would view any intervention in the latter group with the goal of restoring a democratic government which recognizes human rights as being legitimate. That, of course, is not a sufficient reason to say we should actually do it - but if we or anyone else did it, it would be legitimate (right/just/morally justified). ObsidianOrder

No you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that we should just curl up in a ball and pretend the rest of the world is all pink and happy, what I'm saying is that the dangers inherent in everybody drawing their own conclusions about what a sovereign nation is (or isn't) are far greater than working with the common understanding and actively pointing out its weaknesses. All the more so in the real world of diplomacy and international relations, but it still applies in a purely intellectual conversation. Words are symbols and unless we can reach a common agreement as to what those symbols mean then we're not really communicating. Do you really think that you beating me over the head and me beating you over the head with the word "sovereign" is accomplishing anything? "That sure doesn't seem like acknowledging sovereignty, does it?" No it doesn't, it sounds like bellicose posturing for the sake of making a point. I'm not suggesting that Saddam shouldn't have been removed, I'm merely questioning the mechanism and the rewriting of history that's going on. In the world of might makes right this might not seem like such a big deal, but in the world of laws (one of the great criticisms of Saddam's regieme) it is absolutely critical that we respect even that which we abhor. If Saddam was universally considered non-sovereign there would have been a very strong and well publicized movement to replace him supported by the usual suspects like the EU, the US, etc. but there wasn't. The problem is that the mistake was already made, unlike some of the less savoury characters out there we in the West did acknowledge him as sovereign back in the 1980s when it was convienient to do so... simply the fact that the United States acredited ambassadors to his government is de jure acknowledgment of the sovereignty of said government in international law. The fact that numerous treaties have been signed with his government since is further reinforcement of this point. The fact that a large number of countries continued to acredit diplomats to his government since the 1991 Persian Gulf War is further acknowledgement that in the eyes of a large part of the world, his behavior, while abhorrent, was sovereign. Look at the mandates that UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, the IAEA, etc. got, they all explicitly discuss sovereignty issues -- none of them would have gotten through the UNSC without the tacit approval of the US government. As far as the nations I mentioned in my little list go, the problem is that none of them are as clear cut as you seem to think of the first 4 only the UK could be considered to be clearly not a problem and I only included it to point out that (since you invoked Locke) it's not entirely clear what the consent of the people entails. Does 30% of the pouplar vote entail the consent of the people to be governed? The others all have substantial dissident bodies within their polity which some would say are being repressed. The latter list is a contrast becasue in the West we largely consider these to be totalitarian regiemes, but despite this fact it's hard to establish exactly what Cubans or Pakistanis want for example. So who makes that judgement? Me? You? George W. Bush's handlers? The King of Spain? No. Instead we deal with these countries, encourage them to become more pluralistic and to expand the polity to include those who are not enfranchised and wait for a better day. Are you suggesting that the Cuban government is not sovereign? Do you think you'd find much support for this view if you did? The only difference in a legal sense between the soverignty of Cuba and the sovereignty of Iraq 3 years ago, is that Iraq is now occupied by a foreign military. I would go so far as to say that in a legal sense Iraq was more sovereign in 2002 than it is in 2005, but I'm sure I won't get any support from you for this viewpoint. (As an aside, I find it very surreal debating sovereignty with somebody who's handle is Obsidian Order. ;) ) Gabe 19:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you get the joke ;) To reply to a few points: "in the world of laws" - laws are only useful when they serve as a mechanism to produce (an approximation of) justice. International law, along with the whole system of treaties, UN, acredited ambassadors, nation-states, etc etc that you talk about has (spectacularly) failed to do so, and a reasonable person would look beyond the legalities and to the underlying reality of oppression, internecine war, warlordism and genocide in much of the world. No doubt a good argument could be made that Saddam was sovereign de jure. However, that is an unjust law, and therefore void (or it should damn well be). "who makes that judgement?" Everyone makes it for themselves, it's called a conscience. Then we vote for people who implement our consensus judgement. "Are you suggesting that the Cuban government is not sovereign?" Yes, I am - if you doubt it, just ask any Cuban. "the consent of the people to be governed" is not determined by >50% vote for the current government, it is determined by a workable system for choosing a government (i.e. free, fair and self-correcting) which all of them do have, one way or another. "substantial dissident bodies ... are being repressed" - only if you don't know what repressed is. ObsidianOrder 10:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me if I sound provokative, this is not my intent; I find the debate interesting, an the questions asked by ObsidianOrder legitimate; but in the light of the last comment, I would like to ask: are the United States of America sovereign ? Rama 13:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. You haven't made an argument I can refute, so I'll just say it should be obvious if you have any first-hand experience with the opposite (i.e. a really bad government). These ratings may be helpful : as a first approximation any country that scores 6 or worse on the political scale does not have a government with any claim to sovereignty, while any country that scores a 1 has a rock-solid claim. ObsidianOrder 04:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I meant according to the main criteria which are often put forward as clues that Iraq had a bad government.

I do not mean to start a troll or wage accusation, but the sovereignty of the USA does not appeaar so "obvious" to me according to the criteria you apply on Iraq:

• The United States have used mass destruction weapons against civilians; (in the past, and not under the current government; I will only point that the people responsible for this have never been trialed)
• they are currenly using torture;
• they currently have a president whose first term was not granted according to the wish of the majority of the people, and also based on a hasty count and court decision;
• they have broken their international engagements in such basic domains as not waging war;
• there have been occurences of massive abusive arrests for political reasons.

Of course the extend has no comparison with what happened in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, but what is usually stated as a criteria is the existence of significant instances of such problems, and not quota, and in this regard, I find it difficult to dismiss these critics from the USA.

The list is of course interesting, but there is no mention of the methodology which has led to these statistics; I notice that in spite of all the above facts, the USA have the best possible ranking (1-1) (while Japan and Greece have 1-2, though none of these is true of them at present -- Iraq, on the other hand, has a (7-5) grade as for 2004, which would sort of relativise the claims that "Freedom reigns" there). One other problem is that Saudi Arabia has the worst possible grade (7-7); one of the main rationals for the Gulf War of 1991 was that the integrity of Saudi Arabia needed to be protected. Well, anyway, the discussion is interesting, but tends to lead to no particular place.

But to stick with the very article, my main concern is that I haven't yet heard of any significant institution, or personalities, making clear claims that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was not a sovereign country. On the other hand, it was recognised by the United Nations, and by its main members (including the USA, isn't it ?). So, for the article at hand, could we for example state that Iraq was a member of the United Nations, that its government was recognised by the members of the so-called "coallition of the Willing" (after double-checking of course) and mention the names of the potential parties contesting this, alongs with appropriate links ? Rama 07:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole debate is utterly absurd. Would those who have started the discussion please look up "sovereignty" and "(sovereign) state" in ANY respected modern text-book on public international law before they carry the argument any further? They may also call the Foreign Office or any Embassy of the United Stated and ask whether Iraq was regarded as a sovereign nation before and after the war. I dare to predict that the answer will be something like: "Yes, of course. Why do you ask?" [Hint: The "sovereignty" of a state in international law does not depend on the legality of its government.] --- jollyjumper, 21 May 2005, 20:01 (GMT+1)

My God, this is truly absurd. Seems to me much useful time could be saved if people had a way to simply stop responding to someone like O.O. The fact is that Iraq CLEARLY was internationally and commonly accepted as a soverign nation and the preemptive invasion is most certainly of questionable legality, and it is most certainly appropriate to point out that we're not talking about a U.S. invasion of Oregon here. It is a whole other country we're occupying in a distinctly arrogant unilateral fashion. What O.O. is asking you all to do here is prove that some argument (that he can't/won't succinctly delineate himself) disputing Iraq's soverignty (an claim that nobody made during the runup to war anyway) is wrong. Next time leave that bait on the hook. -- perplexd, 22 may

--- Its more than just the U.N.

"Obviously a government without the consent of the people cannot have sovereignty" - this is true - sort of. This is clearly a case of semantics. Theoretically, a government cannot have sovereignty under described circumstances, because if the people are unwilling, the central figure has no power or control over the social order. Such a condition essentially leaves us with anarchy. However, a regime that forces its people to act under its power is sovereign as long as the people continue to serve the government, no matter how despotic. Terror in the form of secret police and other intimidations may be carried out in order to maintain this sovereignty, BUT until the population refuses to service its leader or leaders, that leader is sovereign because of their ability to control the population and rule over their land. As far as nation-states are concerned, the only situation where there is no sovereignty would be anarchy, in which case, a nation-state cannot exist because no group or person is in control of the people within stated borders. I suppose it is debateable as to who maintained sovereignty of the Communist Bloc, since these nations were all puppet governments, but nevertheless, SOMEONE is sovereign. The same goes for Napoleonic Europe, the Holy Roman Empire, United States or United Kingdom. Someone is always sovereign.

What Locke suggests is that people OUGHT to realize that a government cannot exist without the support of its people - if they were aware of this and rid themselves of the oppressor, this ruler would no longer be sovereign - obviously. But, until an individual or group is no longer controlling affairs, he, she or it remains sovereign. What you are arguing for is POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, where the people directy choose their government, as opposed to just serve it.

So what if part of the population objects to the government in power? That does not matter. Complacency does not change terminology...based on the ideals of western democracy, I suppose you could argue over who is really "Free", but when one uses their own preferred system as a barometer, you again run into problems with semantics. --24.72.227.2 07:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

the former dictator of Iraq is "Saddam", not "Hussein"

See this footnote for details. Arabic names do not work the way Western names do, and Saddam is probably the best contraction, Saddam Hussein is also ok, but "Hussein" or "Mr. Hussein" is simply wrong, the correct version would be "Mr. al-Majid" - if you want absolutely nobody to understand who you're talking about, that is. More details: [18]. ObsidianOrder 11:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Countries supporting and opposing the war

Under this heading is notation about Korea; however it does not mention which Korea we are talking about. I think that it is safe to assume its South Korea, but assumption and fact are two seperate things. Someone needs to clarify.

{{sofixit}} Rama 08:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Conquest of Iraq"

JamesMLane added the term conquest as a description of the action. He stated that if the term liberation was to be here then so was conquest. I believe the article is already POV simply with the title of invasion, which is POV and others have also had a problem with the title alone. Why add more POV when the effort of adding liberation was an attempt to balance things out...now the addition simply makes it seem more left leaning of an article than it already is. See our own article for a definition of Conquest in which it clearly stated that: "A conquest is the act of conquering a foreign land, usually for its assimilation into a larger federation or empire". I sure don't want Iraq to be the 51st state and I am sure the other member states that participated in the "invasion" have no interest in assimilating Iraq either. If folks don't like the fact that the war occurred that is fine, but this is not the place to discuss the pros and cons...furthermore, the article continues to suffer under a neutrality and now I see an accuracy tag due in no small part to the lack of effort on some editors parts to even attempt to be neutral.--MONGO 07:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a Pacifist, and I personally believe the invasion of Iraq could legitimately be called a conquest, but I don't think enough people call it that to warrant inclusion. Googling "Invasion of Iraq" nets 1,200,000 hits. Googling "Liberation of Iraq" gets 122,000 hits. Googling "Conquest of Iraq" yeilds just 21,000 hits. ("Destruction of Iraq" nets more.) So I don't think the term is on par with the others. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:59, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Invasion" is POV? An invasion is an empirically observable phenomenon, and hence in way POV. Unless you are arguing that the American and British militaries are indigenous to Iraq, which I suspect you are not. Conquest I'll give you. Unended 00:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Conquest" expresses best the aims af the military attack, as they can be judged from the following actions of Bremer's command: privatisations and subtraction of the control of Iraqui's economy from the Iraqui people to American corporations.

prompted by repeated breaches

I am not sure that I understand this part:

although it was prompted by Iraq's repeated breaches of Security Council resolutions regarding Iraqi disarmament inter alia

could it be explained ? Rama 20:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UK Attorney General's Advice

Please read the UK General's Advice and update as neccessary.

The link you provide is a dead link.--MONGO 14:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Number Ten site is like that--URLs mysteriously move around. Very frustrating.

Several News sites (BBC, Guardian) have mirrored the document on their own website (hopefully with more permanent URLs), if needbe.

I found a note on the advice here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk

Here's the site of the media outlet that broke the story, with links to the full document, the summary, and to Resolution 1441: [19]. JamesMLane 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, Number Ten was forced to release the document when an unknown person retyped substantial parts of it (to circumvent typographical document identification techniques) and handed it to The Guardian, which broke with an exclusive on its website at 1800 UTC Wednesday 27th.

Opinion and Legality?

There is absolutly nothing in the section Opinion and Legality to show opinions that support the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

• Edit: And the section "Popular" Opinion of the war only shows negative opinions. Could somebody please show some positive opinion towards the war?--EatAlbertaBeef 05:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Which legal source do we have saying unequivocally that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was legal? If you find one, cite it there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is ONLY OPINION that the invasion was illegal, there have been no successful attempts to bring an international law case against the coalition, much less get it proven and any sanctions enforced. Until that happens the invasion was legal.--Silverback 15:06, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sb, that's because the U.S., under the Bush Administration, demanded immunity from the international criminal court. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:19, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about Opinions concerning the Iraq Wars legality i'm talking about opinions positive towards the war in general.--EatAlbertaBeef 05:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Only opinion? If the UN says its not legal, its not legal, tahts not opinion! If the US didnt have the authority to enter another sovering land, it shouldnt have, and thus is a crime in international law. If no one chooses not to prosecute, sue or whatever is bacause of reasons already stated in other parts. US power of veto in the UN, and fear of retaliation, be it economical or military.LtDoc 19:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

vote on new title

Move mess

After copy/paste moves turned this into a mess I'm hoping now that I've fixed it all. The current article name (2003 Invasion of Iraq) should not be changed without a lot of discussion - there are too many incoming links that would need to be fixed, and too many POVs to take into consideration. Personally any use of "U.S." in the title would be offensive against all the other countries that have lost troops in the war. Further, I don't know why "invasion" is being used as a proper noun in the current title.

2003 invasion of Iraq/history will have its history merged into this one, but that cannot happen until the block compression issue is fixed. violet/riga (t) 10:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this new title???

I see zero voting/concensus for this new POV title....wasn't the 2003 Invasion of Iraq POV enough? I seem to remeber quite distinctively that Tony Blair argued in favor of the "invasion" right alongside Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld...so why is it not POV to call the "invasion" now the U.S. Iraq war...in light of the fact that many other countries also joined the U.S.....furthermore, the U.K. also supported and participated the UN santioned no fly zones prior to 2003, so it isn't like the U.K. hasn't been involved all along...as well as Italy, Australia, Poland, Spain...furthermore, Bahrain has been used for logistics support and Kuwait was a start off point. Please explain this undiscussed change....--MONGO 03:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree w/MONGO. I requested a move unprotection on WP:RFP. Please see the discussion above Talk:U.S. Iraq War#terms for the war. :ooking in the what links here, one sees that this page has undergone a few title changes, but the most stable title by far was "2003 invasion of iraq". I did some google searches on previous titles and found that "us invasion of iraq" is about three times as common as "2003 invasion of iraq", but in light of my comment above re. specifity, i think "2003 u.s. invasion of iraq", or, as mongo alludes, "..u.s. led invasion of iraq" might be more appropriate. In any case, there has not been a consensus to move to "u.s. iraq war", and i would likewise like an explanation, and some discussion. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:04, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

My god, even I agree with MONGO. This is a complete neologism. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the new title is significantly less exact than the previous one; I strongly suggest coming back to "2003 Invasion of Iraq". Rama 07:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, especially since it wasn't just a US thing. I also think "2003 Invasion of Iraq" is cumbersome. The name Iraq War is widely accepted, why not call it that, with a note at the top to disambiguate it from Gulf War, Iran-Iraq War and the Anglo-Iraqi War of 1941? Grant65 (Talk) 09:02, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

terms for the war

From google:

5,940,000 for "Iraq war"
5,860,000 for "war in Iraq"
1,200,000 for "invasion of Iraq"
1,140,000 for "war on Iraq"
929,000 for "war with Iraq"
708,000 for "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
482,000 for "Iraqi war"
122,000 for "liberation of Iraq"
49,500 for "Second Gulf War"
21,400 for "conquest of Iraq"
529 for "Third Gulf War"

For what it's worth, I have never heard "conquest", and "liberation" only rarely (from Iraqi expats, actually). It appears that the article title is also far from the most common term. ObsidianOrder 07:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then lets ditch them both and call it what it really is...the 2003 Iraq War...I inserted liberation because I found the title alone to be POV and tried to at least balance things out...--MONGO 07:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there have been repeated talkings about this in the past and that "Liberation" has turned out to be understood by the majority of users as a neutral term fitting for the title (precisely like the matter about the "explicit support of the Security Council", this thing regularly comes under fire from a minority of users and wastes considerable time here). Rama 07:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well if that is the case then why did you eliminate the term liberation here:[[20]]--MONGO 08:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama, surely you mean "invasion" not "liberation" has turned out to be understood by the majority of users as a neutral term? What you said doesn't make sense, otherwise. Is there any archived discussion on this, or a requested-move vote? ObsidianOrder 10:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberation is a term for freeing something. In the context of Iraq, it would mean that Iraq or the Iraqi people were freed from Saddam Hussein and his government. This implies that the Iraqi people gained freedom from being invaded by another country, which is a matter of opinion. I also opt for the use of "invasion" because it is not disputable.

"Invasion" is a neutral term because it describes sending armed forces (or, in metaphorical uses, other agents, as in an "invasion" of Starbucks franchises) across a line of some sort, either a political boundary or a geographic one. To the extent it has a negative connotation, it's because an invasion is often, though not always, committed by an aggressor that is starting a war. Some invasions, however, are justified. I see no need to "balance" the title. My preference would be to ditch both "liberation" and "conquest" from the lead section but to note, in the body of the article, that these terms are used by proponents in an attempt to frame the argument in a way that's beneficial to their respective sides. JamesMLane 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree...the only title this page should have is Iraq War. Everything else is POV.--MONGO 06:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We also already have an appropriate page for Iraq war. —Christiaan 22:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mongo is correct. 2003 Iraq War is the best title because it is completely NPOV. As JamesMLane alludes above, invasion can have a negative connotation. Johntex 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. War can also have a negative connotation (for some reason). So can the word "Iraqi". But it is clearly an invasion by any sensible definition. The term "Iraq War" has lots of hits because there have been several Iraq wars, but only one invasion. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it received a similar level of resistance - but was this the Kuwait war? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with "war" is that it has a negative connotation both to the U.S. and Iraq: it implies that Iraq took offensive military action. This is false. Iraq's actions where purely defensive. Iraq did not exceed its international rights in any way with regard to the U.S., nor did they infringe upon the U.S.'s international rights in any way. Although actions of the former iraq government and saddam hussein may deserve appropriate titles, whether negative or positive, they do not deserve titles for that which they did not do, such as the connotation that they attacked the u.s., inherent in the title "U.S. Iraq War" Any action taken by saddam, the iraqi government, or the iraqi military, during the presence of u.s. military forces on the soveriegn territory of iraq, was taken in defense of self and soveriegnty, not in aggresion. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:12, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

I second this. Also, "Iraq War" has more hits because it is slang. that is, it is more concise, just like "war in iraq" or "war on iraq". there have been multiple wars, including multiple military actions involving the u.s. the slang terms are ambiguous - they don't specify which military action is being refered to. It is assumed in the writting where these terms are used that the military action is specified by the context, hence the slang is used, in a similiar manner to how pronouns and abbreviations are used. (example "maura went to the store. she bought a loaf of bread." or "the environmental protection agency(EPA) was founded in xxxx. It is responsible for .... In 200x, the Bush Administration excised scientific information from the EPA's State of the Environment report..."). I'm sure that if you do a search for "EPA" and one for "Environmental Protection Agency", you'll get a lot more matches for EPA, as well. However, even though "EPA" has more matches, "Environmental Protection Agency" is the official name, and you'll notice that EPA redirects to it. Same holds true for a military action: the official title which specifies the specific action. (and i'm sure that many of the "iraq war" and "war in iraq" mathces refer to the first gulf war.) We all know what this invasion has been called for the past four years. Let's not make wikipedia a forum for revisionist history. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:24, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

More from google:

5,940,000 for "Iraq war"
5,860,000 for "war in Iraq"
1,200,000 for "invasion of Iraq"
    639,000 for "the invasion of Iraq"
    248,700 for "[other] invasion of Iraq"
    153,000 for "u.s. invasion of Iraq"
    105,000 for "u.s. led invasion of Iraq"
     54,300 for "2003 invasion of Iraq"
1,140,000 for "war on Iraq"
  929,000 for "war with Iraq"
  708,000 for "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
  482,000 for "Iraqi war"
  122,000 for "liberation of Iraq"
   49,500 for "Second Gulf War"
   33,200 for "U.S. Iraq War"
   21,400 for "conquest of Iraq"

notice the bold title, compare with the italic title. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:14, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Wow, I was only gone for a day, and look at this move craziness ;) I'm in favor of "2003 Iraq war" myself - 2003 for specificity, and the rest because that's what everybody calls it. I should mention that there are some important differences between the different possibilities... in particular "war with or on Iraq" strongly implies that one party to the conflict was the (nation of) Iraq, which just ain't true... compare with "war in Iraq" or "Iraq war" which does not imply that Iraq as a whole was a party to the conflict. There is a reason why those are the most common terms by a factor of five, they are also the most neutral. "Invasion" is technically correct but has somewhat of a negative connotation by itself. Including "US" in the name is very wrong, since although the US contributed a majority of the troops, many other countries also contributed a lot relative to their size and the size of their militaries. In short, "Iraq war" is probably the best, with a 2003 added to distinguish it from other wars. ObsidianOrder 08:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

U.S.

As I've stated in other places it would be grossly offensive to imply that this was a U.S. war with Iraq. No chosen title should contains U.S. whatsoever. violet/riga (t) 09:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The originator of the move, Stevertigo, also created some related categories and populated them with just one article:

• Category:U.S. War against Al-Qaeda
• Category:U.S. War on Terrorism
• Category:U.S. Iraq War

I nominated them for deletion. violet/riga (t) 09:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

violetriga, I concur. In a similar vein, it would be grossly offensive to imply this was a war with Iraq (as opposed to war on Saddam's regime). ObsidianOrder 09:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It was the U.S.'s idea, and the U.S.'s misinformation campaign that sold the war, it was the U.S. who choose to go to war in violation of the U.N. Charter, even if it meant going at it completely alone. It's the U.S.'s war insofar as they fought for it and declared it. It's their idea. It's their responsibility. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:26, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Ah, but did Tony Blair not also address in favor of the war. Did Russia not also, along with a number of other countries inform Bush of great potentiality of terrorist activity originating from Iraq? If we can't even agree on a title, how the heck are we going to agree with the substance of the article?--MONGO 09:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, call that a meta-commentary, but I think that the title is probably the most difficult part to set up. Most will go downhill from there ! :D Rama 09:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that, for all the reasons you state, "U.S.-led" is an accurate statement of fact about the subject of the article. But we don't have to try to pack all the relevant facts about the subject into the title. The purpose of the title is to tell the reader, unambiguously, what the article's about. The current title does so. It would be accurate to call it "2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq" or "2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam" or "2003 U.S.-led coalition invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam" but all those facts belong in the body, not the title. JamesMLane 00:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In lead section?

"Liberation" and "conquest" should be mentioned, because each summarizes a significant POV about the war. If we've reached stability on mentioning them both, though, what about moving them down? I don't think they need to be mentioned in the lead section. The elaboration of the grounds for support of and opposition to the war should come in the body of the article. I confess I was the one who added "conquest", but that's only because someone else had added "liberation". JamesMLane 05:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I added Liberation...but that was because I had a beef with the title of the article having "invasion" in it...which I considered POV....so my attempts to add balance were countered by your addition...it isn't that big a deal....we can dump all of the titles if we could agree to one NPOV title...As you have mentioned in another article...this one will probably remain with a neutrality tag on it as long as there is still a "war" going on....at some point the issue of the action will subside...some...maybe...I hope.--MONGO 06:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Why invasion, anyway?

It seems a lot of people feel that "invasion" is preferable to "war". I'm not sure why, so I'd like to hear from everyone why they feel that way. I assume there is no question that it was a war? Is it because "invasion" is more asymmetrical-sounding and you think that is appropriate? Or...? ObsidianOrder 09:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The invasion was the initial phase of the war. Although this article drifts into a few post-invasion points, it's basically about the invasion. The invasion is over but the war isn't. In terms of keeping our articles to a manageable length, and breaking up large subjects so that readers can zero in on what they want, it makes sense to have an article that's confined to the invasion phase (including the diplomatic run-up to it). JamesMLane 10:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. The invasion begins when and ends when...I mean for instance the invasion of Normandy lasted only as long as the beachheads were secured and some forward areas of control were established. If this article is simply to be about the first week or so of the conflict in Iraq, is another one needed to discuss the week between then and the end of major combat operations....because what has been going on since that time, though it may appear as a war, is actually more of rebellion or insurgency organized to operate primarily as terrorists groups would...furthermore, the war is over and has been since the capture of Saddam or earlier...--MONGO 12:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

If we had a Normandy-type situation, then I'd agree that one article shouldn't try to cover the invasion and the succeeding eleven months of warfare. In this instance, however, I think it's most logical and most efficient for this article to extend to the end of major combat operations. The coalition forces never really lost the momentum of the initial invasion; it was pretty much all one operation. Furthermore, the amount of material in this article that relates to events after the first week isn't huge, so there's no compelling reason to break it out. I agree with you to the extent that there's some material in this article about the occupation that probably should be moved to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. JamesMLane 22:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought of that. arguably the war is over (it's an insurgency, now) but the invasion continues (troops still there), no? ObsidianOrder 10:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be the occupation stage. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:19, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Btw, here is what the dictionary says...

in·va·sion (American Heritage Dictionary)
  1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
  2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
  3. An intrusion or encroachment.

in·vade (American Heritage Dictionary)
  1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
  2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without 
trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith).
  3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San 
Francisco” (Rachel Carson).
  4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

in·va·sion (Merriam Webster)
  1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
  2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

in·vade (Merriam Webster)
  1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
  2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
  3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect 
injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue> synonym see TRESPASS

wow, this sure sounds POV, doesn't it? the literal meaning may be "to enter", but the connotations are conquest, plunder and harm or disease. ObsidianOrder 10:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The invasion of Nromandy in 1944 is also refered to as an "invasion" in this very wiki. We have come through this several times already. Rama 10:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "invasion of Normandy", that is counterbalanced by the fact that most people know who the good guys were ;) also "d-day" and "normandy landing" are nearly as common as "invasion of normandy". I don't have a huge problem with invasion here either, I just don't see any reason to prefer it, hence my original question. ObsidianOrder 11:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Haha, I can't believe you even wrote that. I have a question for you. Do you or do you not believe Iraq was invaded by the U.S., and that it was a notable world event? —Christiaan 11:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Iraq was entered by US troops, hence the situation fits one of the more obscure meanings of invade (="enter"). The common meaning of invade is "conquest and plunder", and no, I don't think that is the case in Iraq. ObsidianOrder 12:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It "entered". Oh dear, not only is that laughable, but the invasion of Iraq is also believed by many in the world to be an invasion of conquest and plunder. So not only does it fit one definition of invasion but it fits the other as far as many people are concerned too. You've really got a cheek OO, I must admit, next thing you'll be running around attempting to delete any mention of the invasion of Iraq as if it never happened. —Christiaan 14:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a correction here: the definition is not conquest and plunder, but conquest or plunder. The original idea of taking over the oil fields "to pay for the war" didn't fly, probably because it was exactly "plunder". The invasion of Iraq, in any case, is clearly conquest insofar as it is the overthrow of a government, and the acuqisition of military control over the territory. What happens after the conquest; whether one gives the territory away or what have you, does not make the conquest any less a conquest: one still acquired the power to do whatever one choose to do with the territory, by way of military force. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:19, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

When exactly was there a "plan" to take over oilfields to pay for the war? I also fail to see how Christiaan can compare the events in Iraq to those of what constitutes the rational definition of conquest such as German and Japanese actions in WWII.--MONGO 07:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added this link: [21]. I reverted it because that edit wiped out someone's user name, but I'm adding it here in an attempt to act in good faith. Cheers, PhilipR 20:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

vote

2003 invasion of Iraq (current) (or derivative thereof)

1. Jmabel | Talk 03:52, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
2. JamesMLane 04:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC) - let's stop moving it around and expend that energy on substantive improvements. Addendum: Because others have raised the point about capitalization, I'll mention that I also prefer lower-case "invasion" if that's doable. JamesMLane 04:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
3. "Invasion" shouldn't be capitalized, but we can't fix that now because of these moronic page moves. Neutrality^talk 05:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
4. Concur with Neutrality. What on earth has been going on these past couple of days? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Rama 07:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
6. Lower case "invasion". violet/riga (t) 08:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
7. Frankie Roberto 11:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC) I don't see a huge difference in neutrality/connotations between 'war' and 'invasion', but invasion is more descriptive, implying foreign troops entering the country, whereas war could also mean Iraq troops invading other countries.
8. I dislike this name, but "Iraq War" is POV for presumption of U.S./UK perspective and "U.S.-Iraq War" is inaccurate. 119 03:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
9. With lowercase invasion as per WP standard. zen master T 09:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
10. Lowercase invasion ChrisChiason {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} UTC
    • User does not exist. 119 23:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
11. lowercase csloat 20:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
12. lowercase for me too, please. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
13. lc BrandonYusufToropov 23:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
14. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:26, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC) -In point of fact presented by csloat, below.

2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (a derivative of "2003 invasion of Iraq")

1. Christiaan 23:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
2. --EatAlbertaBeef 03:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Iraq War (or derivative thereof)

1. Jmabel | Talk 03:52, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
2. --MONGO 06:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
3. ObsidianOrder 07:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC) - either this or "2003 Iraq war" for specificity
4. violet/riga (t) 09:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Canoeguy81 04:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC) perhaps "Iraq War (2003)"?
6. --Twikit 19:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Twikit 12:48, May 2, 2005.
7. Kevin Myers 06:21, May 3, 2005 (UTC) The most widely used name in English, which makes it the correct title for Wikipedia purposes. "Iraq War, 2003" is the Library of Congress subject heading, btw.
8. Rangeley Correct name
9. Kenyon 19:21, May 14, 2005 (UTC) - what ObsidianOrder said above.
10. Themissinglint 21:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
11. Unended 00:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

COMMENTS

How will these votes be counted? I think there should be a vote between the current title and "Iraq War"; then after picking one we can add "US-led invasion" and "US-Iraq War" to the mix. A majority (at least right now) clearly prefer the current title, but I think it's clear the majority would be even bigger if we added those who suggest "2003 US-led invasion" (who obviously would not prefer either of the "IRaq War" titles). --csloat 22:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Another unilateral move

So, while the above discussion and vote are in progress, someone else has come along and done a unilateral move -- this time to a title that hasn't even been proposed in the poll but is fairly close to an alternative that's clearly trailing. The user doing the move apparently hasn't even commented here. The move can't be reversed because the former page has an edit history. I'm leaving a message on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard asking that the move be undone pending completion of the poll. JamesMLane 03:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. violet/riga (t) 08:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

accessory vote

For those supporting "invasion" in the title, should "invasion" be capitalized?

2003 Invasion of Iraq (yes)

2003 invasion of Iraq (no)

1. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 08:32, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
2. violet/riga (t) 08:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
3. JamesMLane 08:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
4. Frankie Roberto 09:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
5. preferably no. Rama 10:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
6. No. Naming convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne, but Computer game). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

End

Can we call an end to all this random moving now? Timwi just came along and moved it to 2003 invasion of Iraq and managed to separate this talk page too. I hope everyone is happy with what we've ended up with. violet/riga (t) 21:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Sovereignty

Zen said in an edit summary "under the U.N. charter's definition Iraq prior to 2003 was a soverign nation, you can add what the U.S. claims separately" The U.S. ratified the U.N. Charter, and therefore claims that Iraq was soveriegn. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:02, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

I meant that whoever was against "soverign" could add what the U.S. is claiming now about the legality of the invasion. zen master T 04:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well in any case, the U.S. legally recognized the soverignity of Iraq, up to and including the time of the attack. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:08, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Why don't we say "Fellow UN member", in fact ? I think that it is more directly relevant to the article than the issue of sovereignty, and might have the notable side effect of easing the fussing around this particular point. Rama 04:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well the question arose as to whether the U.S. invaded a soverign country or not. Insofar as this article refers to a military action, soverignty is the relevant issue, not the involvement of any participant in any given international body. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:39, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Several things... first, this paragraph is specifically talking about the Iraq Liberation Act, which if you actually read it does not say government of Iraq. It says instead: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Given the way the act is worded, it will not apply to any government of Iraq other than the Saddam Hussein one (if a change of government happened spontaneously, for example). Second, the act specifically describes its goal as "To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq" and "It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals ..." and so forth. To describe all this as "groups trying to overthrow the sovereign Iraqi government" is highly inaccurate and POV, since it omits both the reasons (Saddam) and the goals (democracy), instead making it appear that the US is maliciously interfering in the affairs of an ordinary foreign government. I think that the best way to handle this is just to quote a bit from the act and let the reader decide whether that is a good or a bad thing, rather than trying to slant the issue with references to "sovereign". I think everyone knows Saddam's government had a UN seat, for what it's worth. ObsidianOrder 05:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

to omit those may be POV, but to say that the government is not being overthrown by military force would be simply false. it does'nt matter how it sounds, clinically, it's precisely true. the leaders were systematically deposed or killed by way of military force, until the government in question was no longer operative. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 05:57, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

true, but that is not what the ILA was about. we are here discussing the paragraph dealing with the ILA. the pro-democracy organizations that received assistance under the ILA did not do any overthrowing, by force or otherwise, in fact they probably didn't do very much. ObsidianOrder

Kevin, you say "The U.S. ratified the U.N. Charter, and therefore claims that Iraq was soveriegn". I have a problem with that "therefore". Such a simple word, but it glosses over such a large number of assumptions. Sovereignty comes from the UN Charter? Says who? The UN again? Isn't that a bit circular? This is not the view commonly held by political scientists/historians/lawyers/philosphers, who have written tons of books on the subject of what sovereignty is, from Plato through Hobbes, Locke, Russeau, Hegel to the modern writers such as de Jouvenel. Really, please read up on this [22] before continuing to argue that sovereignty comes from the UN. There is far too much written on this for me to summarize, but believe me, sovereignty is not usually thought to come from the recognition of any organzation. ObsidianOrder 06:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Do we actually have indications that the US government contests the sovereignty of the pre-invasion Iraqi government ? if there are none (if), it would certainly be a strong clue that the US authorities were sticking to the UN-implied sovereignty, and in such a case, certainly a good clue that the Iraqi sovereignty could not reeasonably be contested. Rama 07:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Rama, obviously if the US legislature passed a law that would seem to interfere in the internal matters of Iraq, they are not recognizing the sovereignty (=authority) of Saddam's government. The consistent use of the word "regime" to refer to it might be a further clue (along with its eventual forcible removal).

Conversely, I might ask whether there is a reason to refer to sovereignty in the paragraph about the Iraq Liberation Act in a way that implies that it was (oh, to pick at random) against the UN charter, or against international law? There is no argument there, and no source, just innuendo. To put it plainly: has anyone made an argument that the ILA was in fact inconsistent with treaty obligations of the US under the UN Charter, such as the obligation to respect the (supposed) sovereignty of Saddam's government? If yes, cite it. If not, remove the word sovereign as being irrelevant to the subject of that paragraph. I don't have to justify the removal of the word, you have to justify why it should be there. Whether it is a fact or not does not matter (I don't think it is, but that's a separate subject), the question is why it should be there of all places. Obviously by being there it implies that the ILA was a violation of sovereignty/wrong/illegal/etc, which seems like original research, and that's why it should go. But, if anyone actually made that argument, then by all means footnote it (briefly). ObsidianOrder 07:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we assume that the declaration of intentions of the US government is describing a legal plan, and that Iraq is indeed sovereign, it certainly is remarkable, and worth mentionning, that such a plan can be drafted against a sovereign country. If we assume that the plan is illegal, the sovereignty of Iraq is an important part. So either way, it is very notable that Iraq should be sovereign.

Now we still have the question of whether Iraq is indeed sovereign; for now ObsidianOrder seems to be the only one contesting this, and I must say that his argument, yet very interesting, have not convinced me for now, but there might be other interesting arguments about this. Rama 08:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Rama - thank you. The use of the word here is really a small issue, but it irked me because of the implicit argument it tries to sneak in. I have no problem with that argument being brought up if it is explicitly stated and sourced. I've looked, but so far haven't found a good legal analysis of the issue, it gets mentioned in passing in the likes of Mother Jones (sovereignty-gasp-everyone-knows-it's-wrong-to-interfere) but that's about it. The sovereignty of any government can by no means be taken as an established fact merely because of UN membership, however, especially since there are many different kinds/meanings of sovereignty (de jure/de facto, popular, declarative, ...) and it is unclear which one we're talking about. Incidentally, the US has a bit of a recent history of screw-you laws aimed at various bad guys in addition to the Iraq Liberation Act, such as the Iran Democracy Act and the North Korea Human Rights Act. Basically all of them have the same structure, a findings section of "you're a bad government for the following reasons..." and a policy section of "we'd like to see you replaced with a democratic government". This may seem awfully heavy-handed, but on the other hand you could say it simply tries to restore sovereignty to the people of those nations by supporting their right to self-determination, and to restore their essential human rights, which sounds a lot like what the UN Charter says in some of its oft-ignored parts (in articles 1.2 and 1.3 for example). I agree that the question of sovereignty is highly relevant for the reasons you describe, but it deserves more than a one-word mention, and that should probably go in the articles about the ILA and the rest of these laws. ObsidianOrder 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Could someone please explain why the neutrality of this article is disputed? the_strategy_freak 23:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Secret document leak

Should we add info about the documents that were apparently leaked about the secret agreement to go to war, between Brits and America (see main page) or wait for the story to develop further

I think it should be added asap. zen master T 06:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I added a short reference to the George W. Bush article. The only reason I didn't add it here and in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was that I thought a more detailed treatment would be appropriate for those articles, and I didn't have the time. The full text of the memo is available here: [23]. JamesMLane 06:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Significant fragments:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:59, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Is the use of War accurate?

Just a technical point, but as far as I know there was no formal declaration of war delivered to any Iraqi official/ambassador etc. and therefore it was not a 'War' in the legal sense. 'Conflict' would be more accurate but still NPOV. --Cynical 13:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A declaration of war is only the formal start of a war. Looking at the dictionary, "war" does not need a declaration to count as a war. "War" includes according to the dictionary:

1)"a situation in which two or more countries or groups of people fight against each other over a period of time" (this applies here)
2)"a situation in which there is aggressive competition between groups, companies, countries etc." (this applies here too)
3)"a fight or an effort over a period of time to get rid of or stop sth unpleasant" (e.g. terrorism if you like)
Even if only one of these three fitted, "war" would apply. It is perfectly NPOV.

"Conflict", by contrast, sounds pretty euphemistical (which would be POV), don't you think so too?NightBeAsT 20:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"declaration of War" is an obsolete term, not been in use the last 50 years. From a semantic point of view it's correct to use the term "war", from a legal point of view it is also correct; it applies when the rules of war come into force (look up the Geneva Conventions art. 2), and the United States have even acknowledged the application of these conventions in Iraq; e.g. Saddam Hussain was given POW-status. That this was a war by all meanings of the word is not really controversial, regardless on political stance. --Cybbe 20:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly an ibsolete practice, but obsolete term ? Rama 21:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But the U.S. has disputed that their captives had protection under the Geneva conventions. they were calling them instead "unlawful combatants", which, in any case, if the Geneva Conventions don't apply, means that they were not "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." So logically, given that we are talking about "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves....in the hands of a Party...or...Power of which they are not nationals.", it neccessarily follows that the U.S. did not recognize the invasion of Iraq as either a "conflict" or "occupation". Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 17:55, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

IT MAY BE OBSOLETE BUT IT DOES REPRESENT THE TORMENT THAT WAR IS.

"fight against eachother" Iraq was not fighting against the u.s.; they were defending themselves. They were blocking, not extending. If someone tries to hit me, and i put my arm out in front of me, and keep it steady, and they hit my arm, and they get hurt, I am not fighting against them. I did not invade their personal space, and I did not endanger them physically, or threaten them physically. As to my body, so to Iraq.

2nd definition: aggression, competition: there was no competition. and Iraq was not aggresive. Iraq was defensive. At best, assertive. To be aggressive is to exceed, by force, your de facto entitlement, and to infringe upon another's. This was one-sided. Iraq did not engage in aggression. Self-defense is not aggression.

3rd defition: this definition clearly does not apply at all. Iraq was not doing anything unpleasant to the U.S, and the U.S. government had no evidence that it had or was developing any means to. They had no evidence that iraq had any WMDs, and no evidence that the government of iraq had any connection with terrorism. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:24, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with calling this a "war" for a different reason--this was just the final act of a war that had been going on since 1991. There was a cease-fire after the liberation of Kuwait, but hostilities continued as evidenced by the embargo, the no-fly zone, and operation Desert Fox.

didn't you just call it war yourself? sounds like your complaint is not with the word "war", but rather which war. SaltyPig 22:40, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Regarding whether the lack of a formal declaration of war means there was no 'war' in the legal sense: Maybe. But in the linguistic sense? See: the Vietnam War, not very well known as the "Vietnam Conflict." Unended 00:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

deciphering Weapons of Mass Destruction

I've tried to clarify the summary but am stumped here. What does this section summarising the 'Interim Progress Report' on 2003 October 3 mean?

Most topics concerning biological agents are discussed as "BW-applicable" or "BW-capable"; the report mentions nothing that was being used in such a context.

Does it mean this?

The report categorized most biological agents as "BW-applicable" or "BW-capable"; the report does not mention any agent being used in Biological Warfare.

If so it doesn't seem correct, so I'm still puzzled. In any case the section needs clarifying and better English. Any ideas? -Wikibob | Talk 14:09, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Rational

The rationale list starts "the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were to:", but includes "secure Iraq's oil fields and resources". That doesn't seem like something Rumsfeld would list as a "goal of the invasion," even if he later made it an objective of the operation. Can this be confirmed anywhere? "goals of the invasion" might not be the best label, either. Themissinglint 21:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yellowcake forgery

An edit inserted the statement "although no direct proof has ever been presented that President Bush knew the doccuments were foregeries before his 2003 State of the Union address". This seems weaselly, and I don't think we need to lard every article with statements of what isn't known. Because this is in a section presenting the views of opponents of the invasion, I changed it to state that the critics find fault with Bush either way, but without presupposing whether he knew or not (I agree that whether he knew is an open question). JamesMLane 01:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Good call. --Kenyon 02:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

As a critic, i concur: if he did know, he was just plain lying, and if he did not know, then he was not performing the most basic as well as the most important responsibilities of his job. (actually this is true in either case, because telling the truth is a basic and important responsibility of his job.) In either case, he was being dangerously irresponsible. And I stress dangerously. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:10, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

My objection was only that the insinuation in your articles present form was that the president knowingly had those doccuments foreged, thats why i put the extra line in. in truth, it still looks like that in its present form, but im not gunna fight you on this. --Brandon Warzybok 21:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Bold Question

What's it going to take to get the PNPOV tag removed? Who's got the beef? What is the beef? Can we come to some sort of accomodation where we can all accept the article as factual and unbiased? What's it going to take? --JonGwynne 05:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is just to hot as it stands to take away the alert, until the war is finally "resolved", i think this article will be a magnate to POV edits, and political snipes. I’d like to see it taken off, but only if we can be assured that responsible members of both political sides will keep a eye on this article 24/7 --Brandon Warzybok 16:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be taken off. I think there are enough people to keep an eye on this to put a tag up when its called for. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 19:24, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

---

"Many staff and supporters within the Bush administration had other, more ambitious goals for the war as well. Many propagated the claim that the war could act as a catalyst for democracy and peace in the Middle East, and that once Iraq became democratic and prosperous other nations would quickly follow suit, and thus the social environment that allowed terrorism to flourish would be eliminated. However, for diplomatic, bureaucratic reasons these goals were played down in favor of justifications that Iraq represented a specific threat to the United States and to international law. Little evidence was presented actually linking the government of Iraq to al-Qaeda (see below)."

Surely it is fairly widely believed that the most important goal, among these "other, more ambitious goals", was to provide stability for a pipeline south from the Black Sea related fields? I mean, isn't that why the Taleban was negotiating in Washington until the Bush Administration told them they'd invade if they didn't come to terms -- before the "9/11" attacks? Now, its unknown whether this goal was Bush' primary goal, but as far as "other, more ambitious goals", it seems an obvious "other" and obviously "ambitious" goal :)

---

Individuals should be given the right of "assumption of innocence" on Wikipedia. You do not have enough evidence to back these claims up, and to be frank, it is proposals like this that make me very leery of ending the PNPOV. Also, how the hell do the Taliban tie into Iraq?--Brandon Warzybok 20:27, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

"SFOD-D, SAS, SASR, Navy SEALs and Combat Controllers played vital roles--their missions however were never documented in any way. "

Removed the above text from the Opening Attack section. Undocumented "facts" should never be in the Wikipedia. Until the above statement can be verified by an authorative source, it should be left out. I've also edited the last paragraph of that section for grammar and remove any hard to verify "facts". Comatose51 21:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Why this article is execrable

This article is truly execrable. The reason: it spends over twice as long (18 screenfuls by my count) discussing the causes of the invasion than the actual invasion itself (7 screenfuls). It explains the minutae of trivial justifications (or non-justifications) of the war, and completely fails to answer a central question, how did the US/UK so overwhelmingly defeat the Iraqi army. Ultimately there is no "right" answer as to whether it was justified or unjustified, so why bother screenful after screenful of trivial attempts of description! Tell us how many tanks the Iraqis or the coalition deployed and how many were destroyed!203.217.69.80

Wars in itself have always lacked significance. The causes and effects are important, not the weapons, soldiers or anything history books will certainly make only litte, if any, mention of.NightBeAsT 11:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You speak absolute and unmitigated nonsense. Pick any book of military history, and there will be a real focus on the battle plans, deployment, weapons, soldiery, and materiel. See Six day war and Normandy invasion to pick two random examples. Buy a copy of any war history and read it. 203.217.67.254 15:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't need my mind filled with trivial information on how exactly someone fought, thank you. Such redundant information are only used to fill the books and provide entertainment for the kids/gun nuts. When the invasion of Iraq will go in history, you will not read "the Iraqi forces were mysteriously defeated", but something like "In March/April 2003 the US and Great-Britain attacked Iraq after allegations of WMDs and removed Saddam's regime in a war hotly disputed pertaining to international law". Articles should not be a brainless accumulation of information but go into detail of such a proportion mention above (translated from a history book). Soldiers, operations, weapons, tanks - these are irrelevant distractions that should NEVER dominate an article, but rather ethicality, causes and consequences. The distractions are blind oversimplifications that focus on how to avoid focusing on why concerning a war. They're unworthy of a wikipedia article. What do you think was wrong about WW2? The Germans should have used more anti-tank mines in the battle of El-Alemein?! That's what I call enlightenment! What a farce the debate is! I'm off.NightBeAsT 17:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably the answer lies somewhere in between, with lots of justifications and context. Probably, yes, eventually, History will judge as to whether it was legitimate or not. As for the "how did the US/UK so overwhelmingly defeat the Iraqi army", I'm afraid that a quick look at the numbers of forces in presence is self-explanatory, it's not like the Iraqi army had any sort of chance in a direct confrontation to begin with. Rama 12:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're endowed with powers of perception that mere mortals like myself struggle to reach. Compare the (second) battle of El-Alemein; Montgomery had double the troops and tanks, substantially diminished supply of the Germans, and still it was a very close run thing, with the Commonwealth troops suffering 12,000 casualties. At the time conventional wisdom said you needed an overwhelming (e.g. 4-5:1) ratio of attackers to defenders to win. Air superiority alone does not explain this either. Now the coalition attacks with roughly the same number of troops, a slight superiority in tanks, air superiority, against well-defended entrenched positions. This (alongside the 1991 deployment) have been the biggest massed tank battles since WWII - and really the only such battles since WWII, excepting possibly some battles in the arab-israeli conflict. In WWII, both the Russians and on the western front such assaults were hard grind, taking months or years of terrible sacrifice. Here they took days (or even hours) to overwhelm the Iraqis, with practically no casualties on the one side. WHY?

What has changed? *Why* did the Iraqi army have no chance? What precisely is it about US/Western power which makes it so overwhelming? This article cannot hope to answer the question of whether the war was "correct" - hence the NPOV tag. It can go some distance to answering these questions above. And personally, I find the question of "why is US power overwhelming" much more interesting (and if not interesting, at least ANSWERABLE) than tedious thrashing over the maybe right, maybe wrong, but ultimately today UNANSWERABLE question of whether the war was justified under international law. 203.217.67.254 15:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Intuitively, I would say that it is easily understandable since the equipement of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" was 20 to 30 years more recent that the Iraqi one, and by the massive use of missiles and aviation, a feature almost or totally absent on the other side. So there is no great surprise at this, it's close to the invasion of Poland by German forces in 1939.

But if you have more details which you can share, by all means to include them in the article. Rama 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I say create an entirely new article called Dispute over 2003 US Led invasion of Iraq or somesuch and leave this article to the actual act of invasion. It'd be alot easier that way...--EatAlbertaBeef 04:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think separating it that way, with a paragraph on this page to summarize the dispute, would be a good approach. -- John Callender 12:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is an option, but keep in mind the drawbacks of creating spin-off pages. Usually, they are discouraged. Rama 14:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's actually execrable is that the article takes up 35 screenfuls. It needs to be pared down considerably and stop repeating itself so much. If that's done, there's no need to split off a new article. Also, I disagree with the IP dude entirely. Obviously cause is much more important than what got bombed. Graft 15:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually the IP dude thinks you've got it exactly right - but I'd phrase it as saying that if you're to have n screenfuls on the causes, you should have n screenfuls on the outcome. Note I consider the details "a central question", not "the central question". Another real irritation is the POV inherent in 95% of the article discussing the behaviour of the Coalition, and next to nothing discussing the behaviour of the Iraqis. Even if they weren't saying anything (beyond the announcements of the information minister!) we could at least estimate the numbers and models of tank they deployed. 203.206.251.38 13:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The actual circumstances of fighting can in many instances be of great importance. For instance, the comparatively poor training and/or depleted ranks of the US troops deployed in the Ardennes in December 1944 enabled the Germans to make much more progress than they could have if faced with crack divisions with plenty of equipment. As a result, the Allies might not have reversed their earlier assumption that the war was almost over, and therefore would not have resumed their full-scale bombing of Germany, which led to the destruction of Dresden. Tell me that isn't important. It is a specific case in which the numbers of troops and how and where and when they fought directly had an impact on the political equation, directly dictating the flow of events and resulting in massive social upheavals that may otherwise not have happened.

More generally, military actions are expressions of the political equation and therefore attention to their details is important. Battles are often the bottlenecks through which politics must pass, and sometimes their results are surprising and impact the political climate accordingly. The details of warfare are not for the "kids" or the "gun nuts"--that's like saying that studying women's movements is for "lesbians." War is an activity in which a great number of people engage and have engaged, and is therefore worthy of serious, detailed study, regardless of what anyone thinks about a specific conflict. Warfare, reprehensible as it is, is a central feature of human civilization and one of the primary functions carried out by states. Whatever you think morally about this statement, it is incontrovertibly true, repeatedly demonstrated by practical example.

Aufregende June 1, 2005 11.45 am Eastern US

I would like to second 203.217.67.254 and Aufregende. Both raise excellent points. The "nuts and bolts" of the conflict are important, not least because they provide an insight into the parties to the conflict. The outcome was by no means certain, and how it came about is indeed quite interesting. ObsidianOrder 00:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I understand that spin-off articles are discouraged, but this isn't an article about the dispute over Tomatoes being a fruit or a vegetable. This would be a spin-off of an issue that has divided the nations opinion of their president and has become a bone of contention for anti-americanism around the world. I think that without creating a spin-off we are being detrimental to the factuality of this article and the legitemacy of Wikipedia. We don't need spin-offs over every single little topic, but a general division between the war itself and the dispute over it would be greatly beneficial.--EatAlbertaBeef 01:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the proposal roughly to have a few screenfuls (3-4)? at the beginning of the article stating the leadup to the war, starting with a conspicuous phrase that the reasons and justifications of the war are uncertain, linking to the Dispute article? This would work very well I think. 203.206.59.96 04:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

US legality

i believe these facts should be included together in the article:

• president bush initiated war against iraq.
• under the supreme law of the land, which all relevant US officials must swear to support, only congress has the authority to declare war.
• under the supreme law of the land (which cannot be overruled via any law except amendment to itself), congress does not have authority to delegate to any other branch or party its authority to declare war.

if legality is to be discussed, surely the law of the US shouldn't be ignored -- at least not by wikipedia. SaltyPig 12:22, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• Did they ever actually sign for peace after the first Gulf War? I don't think so, and if they didn't then then Iraqis were violating their ceasefire agreements. Plus the Iraqi Liberation Act. Plus UNSC Resolution 1205. I don't think the debate on legality is that one-sided and I don't think wikipedia should make a premature judgement on the debate on war legality until its resolved in congress.--EatAlbertaBeef 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

are you referring to what i wrote? if you are, i'm puzzled. the same situation applies to the first gulf war. there's no "premature judgement" on the facts i've outlined above; they exist now, and they existed both in 2003 and 1991. not that it's relevant to the article (since no judgment on legality is required to state the above facts), but it is not for congress to rule on the legality of its own actions. the more i read what you wrote, the less i think you wrote in response to my note. however, it's in the same section. please explain or put into a separate section. thanks. SaltyPig 04:20, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

• Then let me put it into simpler words for you. The debate over legality has not been concluded. Wikipedia should not make premature judgements for either side. Adding the facts you mentioned in your first comment would just add more POV when we're trying to reform this page to a NPOV.--EatAlbertaBeef 19:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

government's opinion with regard to how it violated or didn't violate the constitution is irrelevant to the truth and applicability of the facts listed in my proposal. you state that "The debate over legality has not been concluded." what debate? the US government does not and cannot write/edit wikipedia articles. what the supreme law of the land states with regard to war could not be more appropriate for inclusion in this article, especially under the heading of "legality", and what some government body says about the legality of its own actions with regard to that cannot possibly fall under NPOV -- now or 20 years from now. the constitution was in place, and the relevant actions have been taken. legality of those past actions is analyzed by the reader when weighing them objectively against the law that was in place at the time, not by listening to the "conclusion" of some government committee. however, the law (summarized or explicit) should be in the article for the reader to do his thing. BTW, where is this debate you refer to being held, and by whom? when will it be concluded?

with regard to the US constitution (supreme law of the land) and prior, overt actions of the US government, there is no information which we are awaiting. the facts are extant, and they do not depend on a mythical "debate". the claim of "premature judgements" is a dodge. when will the "debate over legality" of the iraq invasion be "concluded"? never. what does that have to do with the inclusion of immutable, relevant truths in this article? nothing. SaltyPig 21:27, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

There are current investigations going on right now trying to conclude whether the iraq war was legal or not. If you want to add your "facts" go right ahead, I won't revert them.--EatAlbertaBeef 21:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thank you. if not inconvenient, could you steer me toward those investigations for my own edification? if you're referring to USG investigations, i haven't heard anything about it. would surprise me if such a thing were happening. SaltyPig 21:43, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I'm only concerned about people adding more facts to the article that could be POV in nature that could be worsening the situation over the dispute of NPOV. I heard about numerous commitees and investigations on the legality of the war, but not a thing about them since. I wish to look into this.--EatAlbertaBeef 01:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I noticed your recent changes, do you think you could add an off-site source?--EatAlbertaBeef 15:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sure! i've been dying to use off-site sources, but somehow i got the impression they were frowned on within the articles. should i do a fancy ref thing (will take me a little to get up to speed), or just link out the text? SaltyPig 00:55, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

[24]Like this. Just stick it at the end of your facts.--EatAlbertaBeef 03:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i thought i'd read somewhere on a wikipedia style page that that was the least desirable way to include a source. but i'll look into it and have ready in a day or two. any particular facts you'd like an external source for, out of what i wrote? SaltyPig 03:17, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute?

• Could somebody please make a short list of the reasons why this articles neutrality is disputed? It's discouraging to viewers of this article who wish to learn about the 2003 invasion of iraq and find that the neutrality of the article is disputed and what they're reading is polarised. Also, if we can create a list of reasons the neutrality of the article is disputed we can work through them and eliminate the dispute. --EatAlbertaBeef 00:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's my take on stuff that seems to be advocacy, rather than neutral. I've only got time right now to cover the first third of so of the article, but here's what I see. Second paragraph of the introduction:

The invasion began without the explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council, but most legal authorities take the view that the action violated the U.N. Charter. The Bush Administration has cited Security Council resolutions from early 1990s as legal justification, though there is no clear support in any of them for military action against Iraq.

To me, this is advancing a POV. All of these statements might be true, though if so, they certainly are not universally acknowledged to be true. I'm suspicious of the "most legal authorities" line from a POV standpoint: I'm not aware of any objective poll that has been conducted of the universe of legal authorities on this question. It might be true, but even if so, I don't think it's very relevant; legal systems do not arrive at determinations of truth by polls of the universe of legal authorities. Basically, this paragraph is editorializing.

The whole introduction is too long, and is confusing in terms of organization; it jumps from a point before the war to the war and the aftermath of the war, then jumps back into the war, then back to a time before the war, then finishes with a discussion of what the military operations were called. This isn't relevant to the NPOV dispute, but it would be nice if we could clean that up at the same time the POV stuff was being addressed.

The Prelude section is, again, somewhat disjointed, but at least to my mind avoids an excessive POV.

I think the Rationale section has some POV trouble, with some anti-war editorializing evident in the following paragraph:

Many staff and supporters within the Bush administration had other, more ambitious goals for the war as well. Many propagated the claim that the war could act as a catalyst for democracy and peace in the Middle East, and that once Iraq became democratic and prosperous other nations would quickly follow suit due to this demonstration effect, and thus the social environment that allowed terrorism to flourish would be eliminated. However, for diplomatic, bureaucratic reasons these goals were played down in favor of justifications that Iraq represented a specific threat to the United States and to international law. Little evidence was presented actually linking the government of Iraq to al-Qaeda (see below). (emphasis added)

The words I've bolded in that paragraph all seem questionable from a neutrality standpoint. Some of the assertions (especially the last one, about the paucity of evidence linking al Qaeda and the Iraqi government) might well be technically true, but there is a fairly clear editorial judgement coming through in those words. The paragraph would be stronger as a neutral encyclopedia article if that language was toned down, and the reader left to form his or her own conclusions on what the significance of the information is.

I don't have time to continue through the whole article at the moment, but a quick glance shows me some more language issues like the ones I've mentioned above. There's also a sense I get that the article spends too much time on the fine points of the justification for war, and that the overall balance would be improved with that sumarized somewhat, to leave more room for discussion of the war itself. I understand that the justification is an important issue, and that a lot of people (myself included, as a matter of fact) are outraged at a lot of what the Bush administration did in bringing the war about. But that's a separate issue from the question of achieving NPOV in this article. And as it stands, the biggest POV problems I see (at least in the first part of the article) are an excess of editorializing from the anti-war side of the issue. -- John Callender 04:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Continuing through the rest of the article, here are some other POV problems I see:

In fact, most of the international community, including the US/UK intelligence community, came to some form of this conclusion ["absolutely convinced that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction"] or at least were ambivalent. The Bush administration, though, said they had additional, secret intelligence they could not yet make public which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq had such weapons.

Again, this sounds like editorializing to me. I think it overstates the degree of support in the intelligence community for the "no WMD" position, and that the "In fact" and "or at least" phrases betray a non-neutral approach to the issue. The "beyond a shadow of a doubt" line sounds like someone is setting up a strawman to be knocked down; yes, I agree that in the last 12 months before the start of the war senior Bush administration officials made many statements that tended to overstate the case against Saddam as it was currently being made in their own intelligence reporting, and that that intelligence reporting itself had undergone a suspicious massaging in the direction of heightening the threat represented by Iraq. But the reality of what the administration did, when looked at from a neutral point of view, was more ambiguous than this sentence indicates.

No weapons of mass destruction were found by the Iraq Survey Group, headed by inspector David Kay. Kay, who resigned as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, said U.S. intelligence services owed President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. [12] However, the team claims to have found evidence of low-level WMD programs — a claim hotly disputed by many, with the Biosecurity Journal referring to the Biological Warfare (BW) claims as a "worst case analysis" [13].

This paragraph is a good example of something that's going on throughout the article: warring POV. It reads very much like a slightly biased statement from one side of the issue, followed by a balancing statement from the other side of the issue, which is itself further "balanced" back in the original direction by an addition from the first side. The end result is better in terms of NPOV than something created solely by one side or the other, but better still would be a rewritten version of the paragraph that integrates the relevant information into a single, neutral presentation acknowleding the controversy.

With that said, though, this whole section ("Weapons of Mass Destruction") is too long; I think it should be summarized more aggressively, with the removed information incorporated into the linked-to page at the beginning of the section, if it's not already represented there.

The lengthy "dueling Dr. Kay" section, in which people from the pro- and anti-war side offer up competing characterizations of Kay's statements, is well-sourced, but again, betrays its development as the accretion of slightly non-neutral statements attempting to balance each other. I think the article as a whole would be stronger if some of that could be distilled down and summarized. The fact is, there's a lot of ambiguity in terms of what the various actors in the WMD controversy have said at various times. I think it would be best to summarize and characterize that ambiguity, and illustrate it with whatever strictly factual information is available and beyond dispute (of which there's actually a fair amount at this point, if you can navigate through the minefield of advocacy-based characterizations from both sides).

The following paragraph is actually really good NPOV, I think. I'm offering it here as an example of the tone I'd like to see through the whole article:

The current situation concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction seems similar to that portrayed by Hussein Kamel in 1995 and that of Imad Khadduri [22], that Iraq had almost completely destroyed its programs, but sought to retain as much knowledge and information that, should sanctions ever end, the programs would not have to start over from scratch.

The following has a slight anti-war bias that I'd like to see fixed:

As of May 2005, small quantities of chemically degraded mustard gas had been found in old munitions. However, these are generally regarded as left-overs from the pre-sanction era before the 1991 Gulf War, and in November 2005 David Kay, the head of the Iraq Suvery Group charged with finding Saddam Hussein's WMDs stated that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion and that the likelihood of any WMDs having been sent to neighboring nations like Syria was so small that it was not a viable explanation for what happened to the weapons.

I think "generally regarded" is probably a little strong, given the amount of strong rhetoric still being voiced by the pro-war side. If the Iraq Survey Group's findings support that characterization (which I believe they do) then a more-specifically sourced reference to that support would probably be better. Same thing for the last sentence about weapons having been sent to Syria: given the strong advocacy on both sides of the issue, I'd be more comfortable with a characterization that quotes Kay directly on that point, perhaps preceded by a characterization of who it is who is advocating the "WMD went to Syria" position, and what it is, specifically, that they are charging (to the extent they actually are charging anything specific).

Continuing in that same paragraph, I see a stronger bias that goes the other way (that is, that supports the pro-war position). I assume this is more of the "balancing" being done by the respective sides in their efforts to rebut the advocacy statements being placed in the article by their opponents. But again, I think it would be better to rewrite the whole thing into a neutral presentation that summarizes both side's positions, rather than swinging back and forth between anti- and pro-war POV. The article can describe the controversy in a neutral fashion; it shouldn't be used by those engaged in the controversy to argue with each other. Anyway, here's the rest of the paragraph:

The general consesus is that the intelligence community, including the CIA and other foreign services, failed to provide an accurate picture of the WMD program in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government and the Bush administration have not yet taken official stances on the intelligence failures, but Congressional investigations, primarily under Democratic leadership, were either underway or forming in the spring of 2005.

The last part there is just factually wrong; both houses of Congress, and all the relevant committees, have been under Republican leadership since before the war started, and that Republican control has certainly played a role in determining the pace and output of the investigations. And the "general consensus" part is factually correct but misleading; there's a consensus that the intelligence was inaccurate, yes, but there's also a position being voiced by the Democrats that the intelligence became significantly more inaccurate, and always in the direction of enhancing the threat represented by Iraq, as it worked its way up the chain from analyst's reporting, through the vetting process, to the production of classified summaries, to the production of public summaries, and finally to its characterization by senior administration officials.

The discussion of purported ties between Iraq and terrorist organizations is mostly really good from a NPOV standpoint, but it seems out of place in this article. I'd think a paragraph or so of summary, and a link to another article that specifically examines the question in the level of detail given here, would be better. The section already links to such an article; I think the information given here should be included there (if it isn't already) and this section aggressively summarized.

Similarly, the "Opinion and legality" section already has a subarticle that it links to; what remains on this page should be aggressively summarized, with the removed information being incorporated into that article if it isn't already. The tone in this section seems pretty good to me, for the most part. The extensive quotation from the Downing Street memo should just be summarized, though, with a link to that document's own article for those who want more detail.

The section that covers the events of the war itself are really good from a NPOV standpoint. I'd like to see that expanded by a section that summarizes events since the end of "major combat operations", with linking to the relevant articles at Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 and Iraqi insurgency.

However, the coverage itself was intrinsically biased by the fact that Internet penetration in Iraq was already very weak (with an estimate of 12,000 users in Iraq in 2002). Further, the deliberate destruction of Iraqi telecommunication facilities by US forces made Internet communication even more difficult. Different versions of truth by people who have equal ignorance of first-hand, raw data are by definition a very biased substitute for original, first-hand reports from people living locally. The World Wide Web did deliver some first-hand reports from bloggers such as Salam Pax. Additional information was available on soldier blogs. (emphasis added)

The editorial voice in the line I've bolded, above, is inappropriate POV, to my mind. It may or may not be factually correct in the argument it is trying to advance, but I think the article would be stronger from a NPOV standpoint if it didn't make the argument.

The following paragraph on Peter Arnett in the "Media coverage" section is pretty weird:

Peter Arnett, who had won the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in 1966 for his coverage of the war in Vietnam was fired by MSNBC and National Geographic after he had declared in an interview with the Iraqi information ministry that he believed the U.S. strategy of "shock and awe" had failed. He also went on to tell Iraqi State TV that he had told "Americans about the determination of the Iraqi forces, the determination of the government, and the willingness to fight for their country", and that reports from Baghdad about civilian deaths had helped antiwar protesters undermine the Bush administration's strategy. The interview was given 10 days before the fall of Baghdad, more than 500 US soldiers have since been killed, in addition to over 18,000 medical evacuations for 11,700 patients [77].

The last sentence, in particular, is pretty clearly editorializing about something, though I can't quite tell what. In any event, the numbers in it aren't really relevant to what comes before it, and are very much out of date at this point anyway. My assumption is that this was added by a person from the pro-war camp who wants to balance the discussion of the treasonous (at least in the view of the more-zealous in the pro-war camp) Arnett. A better approach to doing that, though, would be to make the presentation of Arnett's actions more neutral (do we really need to introduce him by citing his 1966 Pulitzer? because to me, that seems like editorializing), and let readers form their own judgements about what he did.

In general, I think the "Media coverage" section should be pulled into a subarticle, and summarized down to a couple of paragraphs in this article.

That pretty much covers the POV problems I see in the article as of now. Summarizing those problems, in descending order of significance (that is, biggest problem to smaller ones), I see:

1. an inappropriate amount of material (material which, in and of itself, is fairly neutral for the most part) in the "Rationale" and "Opinion and legality" sections,
2. a number of places where light to moderate anti-war bias has been countered by light to moderate pro-war bias, where the biased statements should just be edited into a neutral presentation of the elements of the controversy, and
3. a few places (specified above) where there are some fairly obvious weasel words and editorializing going on.

Anyway, I failed in terms of your request to make "a short list" of POV problems, but if you want to throw out all the forgoing specifics and just look at the above list, that's what I see as problematic. I look forward to reading what other people think the article's problems are. -- John Callender 15:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Much much better then I could have asked for. I believe that the entire article should be alot more summarized. People keep wanting to add every little fact about the dispute over the war and it has gotten to the point where it has made the article confusing and more like a forum for debate then an encyclopedia article. I understand there are alot of personal feelings involving the war (I support bush btw) but I don't feel it should get in the way of the NPOV. I hope someone starts on putting your recommendations into action ASAP. I'm sure if we managed to summarize, stop the point-for point-against bickering and generalisations we can get this article Featured.--EatAlbertaBeef 19:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I started cutting down the introduction, eliminating the POV and making it alot more coherent. I don't know what to do with the section at the bottom about George Bush's statements on March 17th. I don't feel they have any relevance but I left them anyways.--EatAlbertaBeef 20:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you label "cutting down POV" is actually removing facts. zen master T 20:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, do you agree with the NPOV dispute? If so do you have any suggestions towards the NPOV of this article? I feel that there are a number of generalisations made within this article that can be changed.--EatAlbertaBeef 01:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Resolving POV disputes generally doesn't mean completely removing information. For example, why did you remove the infobox? "coalition of their allies" can be worded better and more accurately, for an "ally" to support the invasion half heartedly with a token force doesn't really mean much. Justification for the why something happened is perfectly acceptable in an article. John Callender suggested "aggresive summarization" which I generally am in favor of, but there is a high degree of risk someone will "accidentally" remove highly relevant information while labeling it an "aggresive summarization". zen master T 08:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realise I had removed the infobox. Well we still have to rewrite or reword the article to put it all in context. Currently the introduction goes from one event to another. Facts themselves are fine its just how you use them, how the article is currently just looks like a big list of anti-war facts. (To me) We have to start working on making this article alot more coherent and less scattered.--EatAlbertaBeef 15:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the formulation "... between the armed forces of the United States, Britain and a coalition of their allies against Iraq" sound a little bit weird ? It looks like the Armed Forces of several Western countries went out of control and started a war by themselves, without orders, against a nation. Couldn't it read something like "between the United States, Britain and a coalition of their allies against Iraq" ? Rama 15:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change it. I was just trying to rewrite when it singled out Poland and Australia.--EatAlbertaBeef 22:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish to protest the fact that the war was commenced under the guise of finding the weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) that we were all told that Sadam had stockpiled. There is no reference to this in the introduction to the article, it is the biggest farce of our lifetime and already history is being changed by people attempting to be 'patriotic'. Jachin 22:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

July 15th, 7:20am EST: This entire article needs to be rewritten based on the term "conflict" not invasion. The term invasion inherently contains reference to perspective and point of view. Therefore while it may be factually correct to call it an invasion, it is not a universally held opinion. I highly doubt the Bush administration has actually referred to it as that. There is debate as to whether it is a Police Action, a War, an Invasion, etc... so call it a conflict which simply indicates there is a problem between the two government actors. It is very disturbing that this is how the article is titled and constructed. Come on, get it together.

This has been discussed several times already, please read the previous talks and don't say nonsense. The landing of Allied troops in Normandy on the 6th of June 1944 is called "Invasion". Rama 11:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, he's right. Another example is mathamatics, which inherently contains reference to perspective and point of view as well. 1+1=2 is just an agreement hold by some people. While it may be factually correct to call the result "two", it is not an universally held opinion. I highly doubt all the people who haven't received any education have actually referred to the result as "two". This is underscored by the fact that people in other countries refer to the number two with other words, such as "deux", "dos", "zwei", etc, so let's call it "1+1=conflict" instead. Conflict?! What a nice euphemism! Really NPOV to replace accurate facts with 'facts' playing themselves down.

Now everybody stop it. Rama 11:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have in fact scanned the previous NPOV related comments, and most are more specific than this general complaint. It is briefly addressed but not to my satisfaction. Furthermore, the vote does not include a comprehensive or appropriate title choice. The discussion was nonexhaustive, and does not consider the Vietnam-esque scenario that seems present in the country. The legality of the situation, the conduct of government and individual actors before the conflict, as well as a whole slew of related issues are still in question and unresolved. Maybe the history books will coin it as such, but it is inappropriate to do so now. There is a definitional element as well I will get to shortly.

First, Rama, your parallel does not hold for D-Day, the territory was "invaded" as a counterstrike and what is referred to in that use is a much more isolated assault. It is a single event within a much larger conflict called World War II. We do not refer to all of World War II as an invasion. It was a war. We do not refer to the Vietnam Conflict as an invasion. Don't make irrelevant comparisons.

Secondly, the "fact" that the U.S. violated/invaded/intruded into Iraqi territory is factually undeniable, classification of the specific event under loose definitions (simple intrusion). However, the cateogrization of the content of this article as an Invasion IS STILL contestable. The connotation suggested in this use of the word invasion suggests an incendiery, harsh, unnecessary, and unaccepted breach of Iraq's sovereignty, is pre-emptively indicative of a commonly held intellectual if not also international and liberal perspective regarding this latest "war in iraq." The title alone suggests an opinion regarding the, yes, CONFLICT, how it arose, and what resulted. Let us not forget that this does not exist in a vacuum. Invasion suggests looting, plunder, continued occupation of territory, possession, and a million other things that were not outlined as part of the U.S. goals for military action (the primary claim was self-defense and removal of criminal governors/actors, misguided or not). As I said before, this non-neutral point of view is not shared by all, particularly that of the current U.S. government which ordered the ongoing U.S. military involvement. While I happen to whole heartedly agree with this liberal perspective and abhor the actions of my government, it does not help to write an article of fairly high importance to the current international political climate with such an obvious bias and the existance of this laughes in the face of any concept of free exchange of accurate information. Someone change it, or I will go through the article and rewrite it as I see fit. I will continue to flag it as NPOV until someone at least discusses why they believe a multi-year engagement can be referred to as an invasion. This article appears on lists of past and present military conflicts throughout history, and given its in current status, among the countless other points I have made, IS NOT A MILITARY INVASION. This is not the Mongol Hordes, the Romans, or the Visigoths, the U.S. isn't keeping it. The information needs to be restructured from its current invasion/post-invasion structure.

And to the moron who so brilliantly to decided to ignore the spirit of my comment, I can't really tell if you're being sarcastic and got what I was saying, or are just really too stupid to figure out that I'm right and need it to be explained to you. If the above didn't make it clear.: Words. Have. Meaning. But not directly referential 1:1 representational meaning you ignorant (insert whatever name you want here). Words have power, they have emotional content. They flare, imbue, and transform our sentences into thoughts, communicating qualia in ways nonabstract elements such as a zero or a one cannot. But you knew that, right? Anyway, I won't keep stating this unless someone would like to alter my opinion on it, so hopefully there will be some responses, but if not I'll just keep flagging the article for an NPOV violation. Anyway, can't we just change it to "operation iraqi freedom" or something? And keep invasion limited to the parts where it applies? Call the general action a conflict for the most part? Thanks,

I was addressing what I thought was concern about the negative connotation of the word "invasion". If you need proofs that the term "invasion" can be applied to a war-sized conquest of a country, I advise you to check Invasion of Poland.

I would also like to point you to WP:NPA. Rama 13:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To the first post, I disagree. The term invasion is limited by scope. Simply, it is not applicable here and that the parallels to both D-Day and the Polish Campaign are not tenable Apple's to Apple's comparisons. They both occur in the context of World War II. I am not placing a limit of timeframe or geographical scale of an event to classify it as an "invasion" or other, rather terminology should be decided by significance in the overall structure of the conflict. (Please note, things like invasions of mongol hordes also don't count because the intent or historical outcome adheres to and in fact, created the negative connotations such as looting, etc). In this instance, the "invasion" IS the formal conflict. It could be subdivided into aistrikes/manned incursion, followed by an occupation with the intent of liberation and regime change, but this is parallel to any other military campaign or war, except that it is the whole "military" event and appears in lists of conflicts/wars. If a different article were on those lists that structurally encompasses this, the occupation, the conditions leading up to the conflict, etc... then, only then, might invasion become debatable. But it isn't, and the whole conflict is treated as an invasion which is problematic. If the consolidation project is attempting to rectify this, good! Also, the German's intent was territorial gain, something to do with "liebensraum" and this addresses my greater concern attributing particular intents to the connotation of the word, which do not seem appropriate from a neutral perspective. The U.S. has not kept the territory and never expressed the goal of doing so, and is not raping or pillaging. Granted it is true our modern era where government actors serve a reduced or at least severely altered role blurs the actual intent of "liberating" Iraq and suggests the involvement of some U.S. interest other than self-defense. This is problematic and in a future, revised understanding of the word, invasion may become applicable. In the court of public opinion and understanding, it is decidedly POV, only serves to polarize the right and the left, and should be abused.

To the NPA comment, assumedly in response to the guy antagonizing me in an ambiguous fashion and calling him a "moron", look, I'm smarter, better looking, and have a much bigger.... I also have 6 fingers on each hand (which is awesome), speak 42 languages, and have ascended to a higher plane of existence. But seriously, he got his passive agressive shot, I got mine. It's all good.

Finally, thanks to whomever altered the title to crisis, much more NPOV and of course the rest of the article will follow suit eventually I'd hope. I'd help out myself but I've been rather busy recently and wanted to see if there was some agreement on this perspective. At least in recent general discourse with my friends, I have found there is quite a bit.

Just a general question about dates

I've read elsewhere on wiki that apparently British grammatical and stylistic rules are to supersede other versions of English style and grammar, e.g. American English, et al. If so does this mean we should change all the dates to the form # Month Year?

I'm not a wikipedia expert, but it looks like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) might have the information you're looking for. John Callender 07:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if you've read elsewhere here that "British grammatical and stylistic rules are to supersede other versions of English style and grammar", i'd very much like to know where that was. to the contrary, the wikipedia Manual of Style states (my bold): "Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people may have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions, and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English."

good rule of thumb from the manual: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)" SaltyPig 06:02, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

UN and US

There are some interesting discussions here, including some humorous ad hominem attacks. Thanks for the entertaining spectacle. I myself tend to agree with some of the insulting opponents; for example, I would tend to agree that the UN and the US are both corrupt oligarchies which pretend to democracy, and are filled with power-hungry beaucrats who wish to grab money and oil. In fact, they are not only similar, but in fact overlapping, as most UN operations are primarily US staffed. :)

I did notice that the article about the failures of the occupation focussed mostly on the looting of the museum; for purposes of current events, it would make sense (so I think) to speak of the looting of the arsenals and weapons of mass destruction. It was hardly surprising that the occupiers did not secure museums; it was more surprising that they did not secure, and apparently ignored, most arsenals and locations of weapons of mass destruction. Not only was it ironic (as being contrary to the propaganda of the time), but more importantly, it was of large consequence, as it has heavily influenced the subsequent descent of Iraq into emerging civil war, and the concommitent deteriorating standard of living across most of the country.

Leaning a little left of neutral

After reading just the second paragraph (regarding the UN), I have to say the facts are clearly one sided. Isn't it true that the "Oil for Food" scandal would/has clearly influenced the members on the Security Council? That the Members on the Security Council had very large economic interests in Iraq and would loose them if there was a war, and now the clearly vocal SG of the UN now being implicated in influence in the "Oil for Food" scandal. These facts would clearly give the reader a better understanding of a possible reason why the UN acted the way it did.

The last and final resolution did warn Iraq of possible military solutions, if it did not comply.

One could clearly argue whether this is relevant or not, but just declaring that the Security Council was against the war without the above mentioned is avoiding reality.

---

I stand corrected this whole passage leaves out many important facts. It also includes many unsubstantiated facts, such as Iraqi civilian deaths, that just go beyond the pale.

This passage clearly needs a complete top to bottom rewrite.

i agree that the part you cite isn't neutral, but i strongly disagree with the characterization of its leaning as "left". anyway, it looks like you're new here at wikipedia. that's no reason you can't jump in and be bold. go to it, and good luck. (you'll need it. heh heh.) SaltyPig 14:10, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• I agree with you completelly. I'm glad you mentioned this on the talk page ahead of time as somebody who does lean a little left of center would certainly change your edits. This article needs to be rewritten.--EatAlbertaBeef 01:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, pick out a chunk that is the worst example of the POV you're objecting to, and either fix it, or, if you want to increase the odds that it will survive for a while, hammer out a suggested alternative here on the talk page. -- John Callender 16:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absence of declaration of war: police action

This article is titled 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is perfectly fine and NPOV, but to claim in the opening paragraph that it is a war is to miss the essential fact that there was and has been no such declaration of war. If it is a war then it is illegal, however if it is considered as a police action falling within the executive authority, then it may be given some legitimacy under emergency powers. Even so, insofar as we would commonly refer to the invasion as a war (like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc.) this was a preventive war, not a pre-emptive war, and this should also be stated. Whig 20:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

some quick points: the police action article is weak, and basically serves as a setup for somebody to call any undeclared war a "police action". that's euphemistic government-speak. whether a war is declared has no bearing on whether its a war. that's simple logic. if the distinction is important to you at the article outset, then simply call it what you appear to be claiming: an "undeclared war". however, then the problem is that it was declared, but by the president and informally, not by congress in any fashion. while "undeclared war" is a stretch, it's not nearly as much as "police action". further, the iraq war does not meet a rough criterion ("local") of the wiki-linked police action article. a war against an entire country is not "local". "police action" is a government term, invented by presidential administrations and sycophants to pretend they hadn't violated the US constitution.

calling this a "preventive" war is about as POV as it gets. if you think "preemptive" is POV, then please remove that, rather than calling it something even more POV. and i'd caution against using phrases like "more precisely" as in the edits i reverted. that phrase, in both cases, was incorrect. SaltyPig 21:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the president doesn't have constitutional authority to declare war, he cannot have declared it unless illegally. So you are saying it would be more NPOV to call this an "illegal war" than to call it a police action? I agree that undeclared war doesn't make sense. However, in common usage, it is a war, and most people won't immediately understand unless we say it is "more precisely" a police action. That is not POV, that is just clarification.

straw man alert! and most people won't immediately understand what? no idea where you get the need to bring in this term "police action". it's nothing but a term that claims "wasn't no war, holmes," while bodies are lying everywhere. SaltyPig 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you misconstrue my meaning in the opposite direction. I propose to say it is a war in common parlance, but strictly speaking a police action, not to justify it as legitimate, but to make the distinction plain: this military action did not arise out of any declaration of war by the congress (at least so far as the US military's involvement is concerned) but as a personal action of the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Furthermore, and separately, the inclusion of the national guards forces arises purely out of a presidential declaration of national emergency, as such forces are otherwise under the control of state governors. I could be POV and say the "war" is purely illegal, but to do so would be a stretch and would impute criminal intention (mens rea) to the irregular actions of the administration, whereas a fair portrayal putting the best light on the actions of the administration must still acknowledge that this is not a constitutionally authorized war. Do you understand my point? Whig 11:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for preemptive/preventive, there was no actual and imminent threat of invasion BY IRAQ against the "coalition" nor against any of his neighbors, so this cannot have actually been a preemptive war. The justification for the invasion was quasi-preemptive in claiming that Saddam possessed WMDs (which has proven false, and according to the Downing Street disclosures was known to be false at the time). In all fairness, we can say that it was advertised as a preemptive war, but in fact it was preventive. Whig 21:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what did it prevent? SaltyPig 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Preventive wars need not actually prevent anything, which is why they are considered violations of the just war theory. The idea of a preventive war is that it is an action without any specific provocation by the other side, on the theory that the other side might otherwise at some uncertain point in the future pose a hypothetical threat to the interests of the invading power. In this sense, a preventive war against Iraq might be said to have prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining, IN THE FUTURE, nuclear, biological or chemical weapons which he might then have used against his neighbors or other US/"coalition" interests. He did not have such weapons at the time of invasion, so we were not "preempting" any imminent attack. To give a paraphrase in more normal terms, a person who did not like you and knew you did not like him could "preventively" attack you on the grounds that you might someday obtain a gun and pose a threat to you at that future time, even though you possessed no gun at the time of his attack. Legally his attack against you is improper, but as Wikipedians I think it would be a bridge too far for us to say that the US/"coalition" attack on Iraq was illegal, for the same reasons as stated under my defense of police action.

In effect, by protesting the use of "police action" and "preventive war" you are not so much enforcing NPOV as protecting the POV of the administration's spin-doctors who want to say that this was a constitutional and preemptive war. It was not, factually. I could find cites (and probably will do so in order to support my point if no one else does so first) to back my point, but it isn't strictly necessary since there isn't really a factual dispute. Whig 11:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

these are theories (nonsense in most cases, IMO), and should be outlined in the article as such if the words are going to be used. remember, i'm not defending the use of "preemptive". toss it along with "preventive". factually, this was not a constitutional war; therefore, it was illegal. i have no problem at all with wikipedia saying that, though i doubt it will last for 3 minutes w/o a revert. i put hard facts in the US legality section, and readers may draw logical conclusions from them. we shouldn't present as facts the theories of the same fools who pulled the strings to the present mess. the article should say what they said (attributed) and what they did.

a bit of reductio ad absurdum, if you don't mind: i state that in order to prevent my car from getting rained on, i will immerse it permanently in a pool of hypoid oil (ruining it, but keeping rain off it). now should you call that a preventive measure in a wikipedia article about what i did? a psycho measure? or should wikipedia simply say what i said, what i did, and what the actual result was? the answer is obvious to me, and i don't see a line separating one absurdity from another. by presenting facts, we allow the readers to judge for themselves as much as possible. it is someone's point of view that the recent iraq war was launched to prevent something; simply say so, and move on. arguing that not identifying the claimer of such a theory amounts to POV... well, that's making me chuckle. identify, attribute, and do so with respect for the reader. nothing is harmed by saying who claimed it's a preventive (or whatever other adjective) war. still can't believe we're having this argument over some wanting to not attribute an opinion to parties that tried to sell it. claiming it's a police action? i've honestly not heard that claim made of the iraq war until this week, on this page. i certainly don't agree that it's true. i think it's opinion, and a dastardly one at that. even most of the knee-jerkers who clamored for the war call it a war. SaltyPig 19:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that you are stating a legal opinion which may or may not be shared by others. In particular, stating that because it isn't a "constitutional war" it is therefore "illegal" you are claiming that the War Powers Clause prohibits military action by the executive without a congressional declaration of war. You might even be right as a matter of principle, and I might even agree with you, but that doesn't give us the authority to declare our opinion as fact. If the invasion of Iraq is illegal because an undeclared war, so was Korea and Vietnam, so was Somalia and Serbia, and so was every other "war" since the second world war, because no wars have been declared by the congress since that time. However, the congress delegated authority to the president to deploy armed forces as commander-in-chief and their legislative enactment (constitutional or not) is the basis for calling this invasion a police action. NPOV requires that we at least give a reasonable basis for the invasion being a legal exercise of executive power rather than asserting it as illegal, though you reasonably might give some attributed statement to the effect that it is illegal. Whig 01:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i am not going to revert the latest squeeze to get "police action" into the article. however, i strongly oppose it on grounds that "police action" is a government euphemism which should never have been allowed to be defined as "an undeclared war". it's a sloppy term with radically POV/dishonest origins, and has no place on wikipedia except in a manner which recognizes and communicates its real nature. there is a good term to describe undeclared war; it's "undeclared war". i am puzzled by the effort expended to put this ridiculous term "police action" into the article when "undeclared war" is what's really intended. even that is disputable. the iraq war was declared by george bush, and perhaps the best factual term for such action is "illegal". tired of arguing about it though. SaltyPig 18:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I don't think any great purpose is served by reiterating our arguments needlessly, I'd suggest that you might want to make constructive edits to the police action article itself. Whig 18:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Preventive War

I definitely think it is accurate and NPOV to state that this was a preventive war by definition rather than a preemptive one.--csloat 21:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it was a "preventive" war only by claim of the bush administration and his pals and supporters. looks like a classic "prefer the disease to the cure" situation to me (now as it did then). as i asked in the previous section, what did it prevent? you're talking about somebody's supposed intentions, not what really happened (and perhaps not what the real intentions were either). if you want to write that it was claimed as a preventive war, and who claimed it, please do so. calling it NPOV is laughable. "preventive" is tainted with bias. and please don't misunderstand me as defending "preemptive". i think it's clear from the previous section that i agree that should be stricken, unless it's given the same "claimed and by who" treatment as "preventive". SaltyPig 22:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See self-defence. Is it preventative killing if I shot you before you even pull a gun on me, or is it murder? Is the ethical nature more or less severe when the scope and extent of the act is greatly increased? Is there such thing as "preventive killing", insofar as it remains to be demonstrated that anything was prevented? To the contrary, would not a death have been prevented were one to not engage in "preventative killing"? Does not the same apply to war? This is the logic of the law of self-defence, and in light of it, I don't see how "preventative war" can be considered a meaningful phrase. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:58, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

It's not "preventative" war; it's preventive war, which is different from preemptive war. Bush and his cronies called it a preemptive war, a phrase used to describe a first strike initiated against a nation that is on the verge of attack. Israel initiated a preemptive attack in 1967 against Egypt. The Bush admin called this war "preemptive" but many scholars have noted that he was using the phrase inaccurately, since there was no evidence of any imminent attack by Saddam. A "preventive" war, on the other hand, is launched against a country that is not on the verge of attack, in order to prevent them from being able to attack in the future. The Bush war against Iraq is a classic case of preventive war (as is even indicated on the relevant wikipedia page). And no I don't think it is unnecessarily POV to make this claim, as it is a claim that is generally accepted by most military analysts who write about this issue. To Saltypig -- Bush claimed it was preemptive, not preventive. You may be right that it didn't prevent anything, but that doesn't matter -- a "preventive" war is defined by the claims and perceptions of the nation that initiates the first strike, not by the "reality," however that is determined. And as the wikipedia entry indicates, "preventive war" is generally held to be a violation of international law.--csloat 01:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that the area is so controversial, we can minimize edit wars by doing as SaltyPig suggested: Don't assert, as a fact, that it was preventive or preventative or preemptive or pre-emptive, but use these terms only when attributed to someone, with a citation. JamesMLane 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV means completely refusing to make judgments of fact or definition when clearly warranted by the evidence. I don't think this is a big deal but it seems to me that wikipedia could (and should) state that even though the bush admin has used the term "preemptive war", this war is in fact a classic case of "preventive war." I don't really think that would be a controversial statement at all in an encyclopedia, and I don't see any evidence that it would cause an edit war, but who knows (I've certainly seen them over less). --csloat 02:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...a "preventive" war is defined by the claims and perceptions of the nation that initiates the first strike, not by the "reality," however that is determined.

if you believe government should write wikipedia, please go ahead. i won't revert, but do expect that somebody else will. you're making an argument that opinion/perception should be expressed as fact, merely because it's a) widely accepted (according to you), or b) the opinion of a government ("nation", in your words). "preventive" is a subjective term in this context, and i only ask that you attribute the opinion to a source when putting it in the article. re "preventative", please don't get hung up on that; you know what JamesMLane meant. that's a whole safire-style argument that could go on for weeks. SaltyPig 04:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, no. You're interpreting this all wrong. My point is that the definition of "preventive" means the attacking nation believes that a war will prevent a future attack. The point is not to affirm or even judge that belief. The thing is, the Bush admin would not admit to fighting a "preventive" war, because such a war is basically a war of aggression. As you rightly point out, the Bush perception that they are preventing a future attack is based on sheer fantasy at best and on a pack of lies at worst. But either way, Bush claims to have fought a preemptive war; a war based on the perception that an attack is imminent. I think it is reasonable for wikipedia to point out that the bush admin is wrong about this. Does this make more sense? I don't mean to nitpick; I do think the distinction between preventive and preemptive war is important because the latter is considered more justified, and can even be legal, while the former is rarely considered justified and is a clear violation of international law. Anyway, if I do change this I will definitely look for sources first, but I wanted to hash this out on talk first. --csloat 10:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that csloat might have been mistaken for a supporter of the official US governmental excuse for the invasion, which he clearly is not (" a "preventive" war (...) is basically a war of aggression").

That being said, I think that saying "preventive war" still might be confusing for someone not familiar with the subtlies of the terminology. For instance, I wonder what would be the reactions if one flatly stated that the attack against Pearl Harbour in 1941 was an act of "preventive war" (which was both the explanation and the intent of the Japanese government of the time). Rama 11:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bush has to some extent admitted fighting a "preventive" war. From a Washington Post report of a Bush speech to the U.N. in 2004:

Despite the inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the stated reason for the attack -- Bush also said: "We're determined to prevent proliferation and to enforce the demands of the world, and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator." [25]

Even if it's deemed "pre-emptive" it's been criticized; for example, the article "Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War" in The American Conservative. [26] JamesMLane 11:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rama - that is correct; the attack on pearl harbor is another example of preventive war. I agree that people seem to have interpreted me as saying that a preventive war is a just war or good war in some way; that is not my contention at all.--csloat 12:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

csloat, it is true that the definition of "preventive" means the attacking nation believes that a war will prevent a future attack. What is not established as fact, however, is that the United States actually believed that it was in danger of any future attack, and hence whether it actually believed the war was preventive. In other words, you are taking U.S. assertions of its intentions at face value, without any good reason to do so. I strongly urge the assertion to be sourced to the Bush administration, and only as a claim. That is established fact. That the war was preventive or even that the U.S. sincerely believed it to be is not even close. Unended 01:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The Bush Admin called it a preemptive war, not a preventive war; it is not possible to source this to the bush admin because the bush admin is at odds with the reality. My claim is that we should include info refuting the bush admin claim, because the war was not even close to preemptive. A preventive war is not to stop an imminent attack - I agree with you there is strong cause to doubt any bush claim that any such attack was imminent - but rather to prevent an attack or other threat from a country at some time down the road in the future. This is a simple matter of definition. The bush admin may not have believed it but the point is that is the public reason they stated. Like the japanese attack on pearl harbor. Which was also a preventive war. The whole point of preventive war is to strike before an adversary becomes a threat, when they are not ready for it. Again it doesn't matter if Bush lied about this. What matters is that the reasons that were cited were reasons that define it as a preventive war rather than a preemptive war. Sorry that this is so confusing -- in military and political science literature this distinction is actually quite clear, and not very controversial at all.--csloat 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any objections whatsoever to using the adjective "preventive" so long as it is phrased accurately. If you want to say that prevention of an attack or other threat from a country down the road was "the public reason [the Bush Administration] stated" for war, as you did here, then I am fine with that because it's accurate as phrased. But if you say that the war was in fact a preventive war, then you will get disagreement I think, because it is nowhere near established that the U.S. government acted in fact to avert any perceived future danger. (I for one don't believe it acted for that purpose; I believe the U.S. government invaded to secure control over Iraq's natural resources, but I won't be adding language that it was an "imperial war.") The bottom line is that it is impossible to prove motive. In lieu of that, we need to recite facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. I think labeling the war as preventive, preemptive, or imperial is not a statement of fact but a conclusion. Asserting that this or that person claims that the war is preventive, preemptive, or imperial is a statement of fact. Unended 03:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'd heard the term 'preventive war' applied to the Iraq war in the narrow sense csloat is applying it, but I think the reactions here show that a general encyclopedia reader might well be unfamiliar with the specific meaning of the term, and take it the way SaltyPig did, as somehow excusing the invasion. It probably could use a sentence or so of explanation if the phrase is going to be included in the article, so readers don't get the wrong impression (and so zealous opponents of the war don't cite it as POV). -- John Callender 16:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Csloat's argument is sound but preemptive is more common. I mean, if we wanted to present the reader with the truth, we would offend the supporters of the war whose opinions are irrelevant to reality. So, for the page, preemptive seems most NPOV... (note: I have not made any attempt to seek NPOV on my talk comments ;)) --Tothebarricades 18:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Preemptive may be "more common" but it is plainly inaccurate therefore not NPOV. Whig 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The following are also accurate: (1) George W. Bush and the rest of his cabinet are guilty of war crimes. (2) The invasion was illegal. (3) All of the stated motives are lies. Yet it would not be in accordance with NPOV to state these things outright. Meh. --Tothebarricades 01:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

i think this sharp distinction between "preventive" and "preemptive" (where one's considered POV and the other NPOV) is pure artifice. i'm not buying it, and i don't care what the view of the person proposing the term is. again, i ask: what was prevented (or preempted)? these terms, including "police action" are so vague and loaded with intentions that you can make the same arguments and apply them to pretty much every armed mass conflict in history. was the american revolution a police action? was pol pot fighting a preventive something or other? i'm not buying that these are appropriate terms for the encyclopedic voice, and i haven't seen any plausible explanation for the delineation. it was a war. no need to even argue about these adjectives, let alone fight for their use in the article (except as claims clearly attributed to specific parties). when in doubt, stick to plain facts and let the reader figure out the nuance from those facts. analysis is so easily overdone here. funny how politicians and proponents can use "war" for the slightest perverted domestic program (war on this, war on that), but when hundreds of thousands of people are actually killed or maimed by gun-toting, flag-waving, uniformed soldiers (using "weapons of mass destruction", no less), it becomes some tidy euphemism. let's stop playing games with the english language, regardless of the direction. war is war, and it's not a mystery when it's happened. in this context, "preventive", "preemptive", and "police action" need to head for the disposal, except when almost accompanied by a banner announcing, "this is an interested party speaking." SaltyPig 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "war" is often used as artifice, indeed, "war on drugs", "war on terrorism" and so forth being quite nonsensical propaganda. This sort of reductio ad absurdum reasoning would suggest we can never use the term with precision, but there exists a very real legal meaning to the term which ought not to be obscured by propagandistic usages. With that said, I would not be opposed to clarifying language in respect to the revolutionary war as being a successful rebellion. Whig 19:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The importance of making such distinctions is to provide necessary context. Simply saying that it is a "war" divorced from its manner of declaration and prosecution leaves vital facts out of the picture. NPOV does not mean we sanitize the record, nor that we make legal conclusions ("it is an illegal war") — saying that it was preemptive is plainly false, your objection to it being called "preventive" seems to require that we prove what it did or did not prevent, rather it is more to the point that it was justified on preventive grounds, i.e. to prevent Saddam Hussein from using WMDs and/or otherwise becoming a threat at some point in the future — there was no claim that an actual attack by Iraq was imminent. Whig 19:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you're fighting awfully hard to keep from attributing views to those who hold them. why? it's a simple enough thing to do. why the fight? just say who claims such a thing, and have done with it. seems pretty clear to me that you want to have wikipedia say the things in the encyclopedic voice. why? i don't agree with it. i don't think it's a fact that it's a "preventive" war just because somebody claims it was so. any war can be claimed to be preventive. washing my clothes is a preventive action. however, i don't go around telling people i'm going to do a preventive clothes washing; to do so would make it sound exceptional. you're selling something, and it's quite obvious. if this was a "preventive" war, then what is not a preventive war? nothing. in which case, why use the word at all? the intent is to make this war seem like an exception, which it was not. it was a bunch of power-hungry apes who don't give a damn about the destruction they caused. in other words, it was a standard government war. "preventive" is an ameliorative dodge that has no place in an encyclopedia, except when clearly attributed to the specific parties brazen enough to try it. is that party you in this case? will you be quoting yourself? SaltyPig 20:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with saltypig's argument is that these are precise terms, with precise definitions, and they are used in all of the literature you can find on war in political science or military strategy. If the aggressive government claims the war is preventive, that is what makes it preventive -- not whether it actually prevents anything (since nobody can look into the future). It's true that the term might confuse the layman but that is easily remedied with a link to the article on the term, as well as a link to preemptive war. This is not a wishy washy term with vague definition - it's easy to figure out if a war should be considered preemptive or preventive based on a look at the discourse produced by the aggressive party in the lead-up to war. As Whig points out, the bush administration did not argue that an attack was imminent but rather that they were going to prevent a future harm. It doesn't matter that none of us believe the future harm existed or did not exist; the important thing is that it is very clear the bush administration believed (or at least publicly stated) that it did. Again, this is not an opinion -- it is a simple matter of definition. --csloat 20:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think what SaltyPig sees as a disagreement is really just a misunderstanding. My personal POV and presumably that of csloat and SaltyPig is that the invasion was illegal, immoral and unproductive. Okay? That's what I think, but it is improper for me to inject that POV into the article. What strokes me the wrong way is the fact that the article currently refers to this as a preemptive war when it was clearly not. Whether and how words like "war" get twisted around to mean different things for propagandistic purposes is not on-point, except to make all the more important that we clarify what we do mean when we use the word. Here we have a war (in common parlance) without a declared state of war (in law) and it is important to disambiguate with appropriate reference to the executive authority which commenced it — the military term for this is a police action. Secondly, we need to not let the claimed "preemption" doctrine override our need to distinguish preemptive war from preventive war. The latter does not legitimate the invasion and occupation; it tends to discredit them in customary terms without being a matter of simple opinion, but fact. As an encyclopedia, we report the facts neutrally, those who feel that preventive war is sometimes or ever justified can continue to think so. We have no place saying otherwise, but reasonable readers who observe the distinction may be more inclined to draw their own negative inferences. Whig 21:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To further respond to SaltyPig's question: "if this was a "preventive" war, then what is not a preventive war? nothing." Wars are of several types, including but not limited to:

• Defensive war
• Civil war
• Rebellion
• Preemptive war
• Preventive war

Strictly speaking, the invasion of Iraq was a preventive war, the current ongoing war in Iraq is a rebellion. Whig 21:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the invasion of Iraq was claimed to be a preventive war by those who waged it. Whether or not the U.S. actually invaded Iraq to head off any future threat (as opposed to, say, to secure control over valuable natural resources) is simply not an established fact. You are trying to establish the motivation of the U.S. government. That is not known. We only know what the U.S. government publicly declared its motivation to be. Unended 03:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong, unended, that is not true. The invasion was claimed to be preemptive, not preventive. That is the crux of the issue here. The issue is not motivation at all; it is declared intention, and these are terms with precise meanings. The fact is the US did NOT claim to be waging preventive war, because a preventive war is a war of aggression (as is, for example, a war to control natural resources). You seem to not understand that we all are agreeing about that point; it is just a terminology issue, and you are confusing the two terms.--csloat 07:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not confusing the terminology at all. Bush did. You said yourself (correctly) that the war was publicly justified by the need to prevent a future threat, and you said (correctly) that such a war is a preventive war. Hence, the war was claimed as a preventive war, whether or not the Bush administration used that term or some other term. You said that "it is not possible to source this to the bush admin because the bush admin is at odds with the reality." That's not true, if you just follow the preceeding simple logic. A parenthetical could be added about Bush's confusion over the terminology. How the war was justified (i.e., as a preventive war) does not change just because Bush (or anybody else) used the wrong word to describe what they were doing. (As if it's unusual for Bush to use the wrong word to describe something.) But the terminology does not control. The facts do.

Unended, you make a good point, and it is primarily to correct the confusion over terminology that we need to make clear that the claimed justification was for preventive war, even though it was asserted as a doctrine of preemption. I don't think "preemption" was a malapropism, in this case, as it served a very substantial purpose of (false) justification. Whig 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was calling for when I started this. We should point out both that bush used the term preemptive war but that the more accurate term in context is preventive. The term bush used was no accident - it was repeated by members of his cabinet not so given to misstatements. The reason they used that word rather than the more accurate "preventive war" is that a preemptive war can be considered defensive, whereas a preventive war is always considered aggressive. I think we're reaching a consensus here, but now the question is how to put that in the article.--csloat 16:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Couple relevant quotes

• "All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." [1]
• "A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility. I don't believe there is such a thing, and frankly I wouldn?'t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." [2]
• "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -[1]
  • -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, [1] Unknown [2] Press conference 1953 [3] Farewell Address January 17, 1961 -~~

Context for above quotes from anon user -- Eisenhower was under pressure from some particularly hawkish Air Force generals who wanted the US to pursue a first strike capability against the Soviets so we could wage preventive war. He was pointing out what a bad idea that was here. He was not saying that the term has no meaning.--csloat

I agree with some of what you say, csloat, but the problem is your assumption that a particular precise understanding of the meaning of "preventive" and "pre-emptive" is as common and as clear-cut as the difference between red and blue. The discussion here should show you that it isn't. Our focus should be on accurately presenting the facts so that the readers will understand them, not on trying to fit our narrative into a Procrustean bed of a particular set of definitions (even if you think it's clearly the correct set of definitions). One example: You wrote above, "The fact is the US did NOT claim to be waging preventive war, because a preventive war is a war of aggression." Let me repeat one of my comments above: Bush has to some extent admitted fighting a "preventive" war. From a Washington Post report of a Bush speech to the U.N. in 2004:

Despite the inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the stated reason for the attack -- Bush also said: "We're determined to prevent proliferation and to enforce the demands of the world, and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator." [27]

To the extent that Bush and his spokespeople addressed the imminence of the alleged threat from Iraq, we could certainly present what they said, along with criticisms of it, and the facts cited by each side to bolster its case. We can do all that without getting hung up on particular words. JamesMLane 2 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that; the distinction is crystal clear once you look at it with precision. And I don't think there is disagreement about the distinction itself; just about which one is appropriate in the circumstances. Your quote from Bush supports my view that the war is more accurately called a preventive war but he did not in that sentence say "we are waging a preventive war." I agree it amounts to the same thing - that was my point originally - but when the Bush folks talked strategy and categorized the Iraq war they used "preemptive" and they did it for a reason -- the political fallout from declaring a preventive war was not something they wanted to deal with. Now, you may be right that the terminology here is just not that important, but I don't think it's irrelevant or imprecise. --csloat 2 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

The "political fallout" would have arisen because huge numbers of voters would have applied this fairly technical distinction that you're harping on? and would have considered international law to be primary in their evaluation of Bush's conduct, i.e., they would have supported a pre-emptive war but opposed a preventive one? Well, absent any polling data, I'm just guessing, but my guess is: No way. We're talking about an electorate where something like 40% of the people still think Saddam had a significant role in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks. I don't think they're paying attention at the minute level you assume. Even if some are, millions aren't. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't phrase our article in such a way that the reader gets a correct picture only if s/he is already familiar with this particular usage of the terms or takes the trouble to click on the links to the articles explaining them. We can just say that Bush defended the invasion on the basis that, otherwise, Iraq might pose a danger to the U.S., and that others criticized it because the danger wasn't of the imminent type that justifies an armed action that would otherwise be aggression. Isn't that an accurate statement of the positions? It could be fleshed out a little on both sides but that's the gist of it. JamesMLane 2 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

political fallout - no; most voters wouldn't know the difference, but organizations like UCS, CDI, etc. would have known and certainly military experts would have known, and military experts and political leaders in other countries would have known and this audience of elites would cause trouble. Hell even Colin Powell would have gotten his feathers ruffled by that phrase and you can bet the distinction was discussed. Plus the newshounds who follow military affairs at NYT WP BG etc. would have made it into a bigger deal too. But I agree with you to just explain the positions; I think the term preventive war should be brought up somewhere, if we are going to mention the "preemption" doctrine... but who knows; it's 4 am here and I should go to bed.--csloat 2 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Iraq War consolidation project

Goals: 1) To create an infobox for all related articles by a quasi-heirarchical order, perhaps. 2) to rename articles according to proper, less cumbersome titles. -SV|t 22:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Whig 29 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

here, here! Good plan. --csloat 29 June 2005 06:26 (UTC)

That sounds good, but be careful with #2. Note the case of September 11, 2001 attacks. That article went through many names, including 9/11, September 11 attacks, September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and even September 11, 2001, attacks with an extra comma. The title is more cumbersome than "9/11", but it's worth it; it was worked out over years of agonizing compromises. Because of this, all related pages have names like Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks, not "Background history of 9/11" and "Organizers of 9/11", for consistency. This case seems similar.

I would ethusiastically support better organization and consistency, but related pages should be called things like Casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Background history of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in my opinion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} June 29, 2005 13:41 (UTC)

By the way, I want to join this project. Where should we discuss it? Here? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} June 29, 2005 14:42 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

The article on the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" is in need of a criticism section. I invite all who have seen it, particular those of a neo-conservative leaning, to visit and contribute. (The documentary is widely available for download on filesharing networks) Seabhcán 28 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that documentary out, I loved it. It was right on the money.

Elements of the War in Iraq

The invasion by allied forces is just one part of the larger Iraq War. It would be absurd to say that when Saddam's forces fought back, resisting "Operation Iraqi Freedom", they were invading Iraq. They were already in the country. One might say they were "opposing the invasion". So we need to distinguish between "the invasion" and "the war".

The Normandy Invasion is the best known example, probably. Allied forces stormed the beaches, and then rampaged around the French countryside. The invasion itself was part of the Allied campaign, and properly only refers to the movement of troops and material into the country. The "invasion" this was one-sided. The ensuing battles were two-sided.

World War II was two-sided. America did not start or lead WWII. It entered the war - which had already begun - on one side.

In the Iraq War (2003) - which began in 2003 - US and British troops invaded the country. They followed up with a two-prong campaign heading toward Baghdad, which they conquered (or at least entered) shortly thereafter.

I would say (as a former military man), that the war between Iraqi forces and Allied forces is not identical to "the invasion of Iraq". The invasion was just part of the war. This leaves us with the question of what to call the war.

Well, how do we usually go about naming things in the English-language part of Wikipedia? What is the most common name in English for this war?

• Gulf War
• Gulf War II
• Persion Gulf War
• Iraq War
• Iraq War of 2003

We need to distinguish this war from the previous one a decade before, which was pretty much fought between the same sides. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the term World War II does not imply that France Iraq took offensive military action. As I recall, Germany invaded and conquered France. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 20:38 (UTC)

the invasion of iraq, just as with the normandy invasion, is something which was not a single-party action. whether they wanted to be or not, iraqis were a part of the invasion (on the defensive side), and acted in it. i see somewhat where you're headed trying to make the distinction, but i think it's one that's artificial and impractical. an argument can be made that the invasion of iraq persists today. i do not accept the notion that an invasion can be so cleanly isolated from the war of which it is a part. i don't think "invasion" is the word to use when trying to be surgical about time and parties involved. if someone launches an invasion of my home while i'm there, i'm involved any way you slice it, and i don't consider the invasion over until he's dead (or at least wishing he were). SaltyPig 7 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Arguments: justified vs. unauthorized

Cut from the 3rd or 4th paragraph:

The Bush Administration has cited Security Council resolutions from early 1990s as legal justification, though there is no clear position in any of them with regard to the use of military action against Iraq.

Let's divide this into the two main points of view (see Wikipedia:POV):

1. Bush claims UN resolutions as one kind of justification for using force.
2. Bush opponents say NO!, those UN resoultions did NOT authorize the use of force.

Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 20:52 (UTC)

What's in the resolutions?

Can we say authoritatively that Bush was wrong about the resolutions justifying his decision to use force? Is it, in another words, beyond dispute that none of them "clearly" took a position endorsing the use of military action against Iraq?

Or should we cast this as a dispute between (1) Bush and his supporters, on one side, and (2) Bush opponents?

• Bush cited the resolutions as supporting his decision. Opponents say the resolutions didn't recommend using military force.

That's how I would put it, but being on the Mediation Committee and all, I think I'll wait for other contributors to respond.

See Wikipedia:Be timid. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 21:24 (UTC)

Well, the old resolutions were clear about force against Iraq then. Nobody ever disputed that. Whether Bush in 2003 was right is different from whether he was clearly right - i.e. whether there was justification is not the same as clear justification. I think it quite fair for Wikipedia to say that there was no clear justification from the old resolutions - after all, they were old resolutions not specifically intended to be applicable to the situation 12 years later. I am not sure that even Bush and the State Department ever said that their interpretation was clearly correct. The presence of a controversy, where many. probably the majority of international law experts say that this interpretation is wrong seems to make it clear that the justification could not logically be called "clear". So the present wording was already qualified enough. --John Z 7 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

I prefer the majority of international law experts say that this interpretation is wrong to he was wrong. Gives Wikipedia a bit of distance from it, instead of taking a side. It's more dignified that way. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 23:12 (UTC)

Especially since the Bush POV is, "Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction." [28]

So this gives a choice. We can either say (a) Bush is wrong, or (b) Bush claimed UN Resolutions authorized force to disarm Iraq of WMD, but certain international law experts said that Bush misinterpreted the resolutions. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 00:21 (UTC)

Or, more accurately, (c) Bush claimed the UN resolutions authorized the use of force but nearly all international law experts -- including the UN General Secretary -- found that his interpretation was not only incorrect but also self serving and even mendacious. Perhaps I'm taking it too far but that claim is certainly supported by the evidence. The conclusion of most experts -- nearly all, I think, outside of the neocon inner circle -- seems to be that Bush willfully violated international law. (Though I agree with whoever will object that the "willful" part is not something we can conclude in an encyclopedia, so I'm ok leaving the "self serving and mendacious" part out of the wikipedia entry :).

We should also be clear on this that there are two questions of legal interpretation at work here -- (1) the question of whether 678 and 687 authorize the use of force, and (2) the question of whether international law permits the near-unilateral use of force in the manner that it was used (i.e. a preventive attack without international approval). These are independent questions, so it is possible that Bush is right and wrong at the same time - in other words, that the UN resolutions authorize the use of force but that the way Bush went about using force was illegal. --csloat 8 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

I agree that the questions can be taken up separately. If I recall correctly, Bush provided 4 or 5 distinct justifications for his invasion. One was that he was enforcing a UN resolution (as authorized) - which as you point out, everyone outside of the Bush camp says was not authorized. Two was that it was a legitimate pre-emptive act of self-defense (grab the WMD before he uses them on us) - vs. the POV that (a) this requires international approval, which he didn't have and (b) it turns out Saddam didn't have any WMD.

So at this point my only question is, do we mention all this stuff here in the 2003 invasion of Iraq article, or stuff it into some other article which discusses whether the invasion was justified (as Bushies say) or not (as everyone else says). Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 02:43 (UTC)

The rationales offered for war are already in the article under 4.Rationale.--csloat 8 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Did Ari Fleischer rescind Bush?

cut from article:

The following day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer rescinded Bush's previous statement, saying that the U.S. would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or not [29].

I'm not sure who wrote that, or why they even thought that. Let's take a look at what Fleischer and Bush actually said.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President addressed that last night. And the President made clear that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave, beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time last night. The President also made plain to the American people that if Saddam were to leave, the American forces, coalition forces would still enter Iraq, hopefully this time peacefully, because Iraqi military would not be under orders to attack or fire back. And that way Iraq could be disarmed from possession of weapons of mass destruction. [30]

Some regard Ari Fleischer's statement as 'correcting' or 'updating' what Bush said before. These advocates interpreted the president's earlier remarks as meaning that if Saddam left Iraq within the 48 hour deadline, then there would be no invasion. Fleischer apparently is contradicting those advocates, by maintaining that it was "plain" that the coaliton would "still enter" Iraq - the only difference being that there wouldn't be hostilities.

I'm not sure what rhetorical point the advocates are trying to score, by painting Fleischer's remarks as some sort of reversal or correction. Are they trying to portray Bush as being unfair in some way? Like, "First you said he had to leave, now you say you're going in anyway."

... messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. [31]

I see no contradiction between this formulation and what Fleischer said afterwards:

1. Leave Iraq, and we'll come in peacefully and get the WMD.
2. Stay there, and we'll use force to disarm you.

There was no mention of the US military staying out of Iraq. Either way, they were going in, Bush said. The only choice was the hostility level. No Saddam, no hostilities. Saddam stays, war starts. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 00:12 (UTC)

First, why does it matter, since the point being made is that Bush was set on invading regardless of the facts on the ground. Second, you are wrong, and the quote you pulled provides no support for your position. It is not enough that there by "no contradiction." You must show us how it was "made plain" that the U.S. would invade Iraq regardless. Please point out where in that quote Bush "plainly" asserts that the U.S. military will enter the country "so that disarmament can proceed peacefully"? He doesn't. It's an obvious reference to UN-guided disarmament, and every sensible person would understand it as such, since it was the U.N. which had been overseeing "peaceful disarmament" for the last decade. Try again. Unended July 8, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Iraq's Chemical Weapons

The article states that US intelligence knew about Iraq's chemical attacks against the Kurds in 1983 when Rumsfeld visited Saddam as a special envoy of the Reagan administration. However, the source cited says nothing about the Kurds. The source, from the Guardian ([32]), writes only about the use of chemical weapons against the Iranians, and specifically it seems the Iranian military, not civillians. Also, the Wikipedia article about the Al-Anfal campaign ([33]), which was Saddam's attempt to ethnically cleanse Kurds from Iraq, states that it began in 1986, three years after the visit of Mr. Rumsfeld to Iraq.

Also, I think the article is extremely light on the facts of Saddam's past use of chemical weapons against his neighbors and nationals, as well as his history of thwarting UN weapons inspectors, although better information can be found elsewhere at Wikipedia ([34]). The article also doesn't mention the beliefs of such prominent "opposition" members as the Clintons ([35] & [36])and John Kerry ([37]) about Saddam's probable possession of WMD's, and these were people who received classified briefings from US intelligence and the State Department.

By the way, I believe this is a fantastic project and thank you for all your time devoted to it. I appreciate it a great deal. - SLM@8 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

Shahab is a liar (TDC's edits & my rv)

I have a copy of the Financial Times article from lexis/nexis if you want to see the full text. I also linked another article there. In general I think it is bad form to simply delete things that don't have links. If you suspect forgery, get yourself a library card and go look it up yourself. But don't just assume forgery -- that seems a huge violation of the "assume good faith" norm on wikipedia. Otherwise we can never have citations from books or other non-internet resources. In any case, I think the purported links between al Qaeda and Saddam are pretty thoroughly debunked in this article; the article on the invasion should not become a source of misinformation that is refuted elsewhere.--csloat 00:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't 99% of Wars involve Invasions?

I have had an issue with the title of this page since I first saw it. It should be titled, "Gulf War 2", not "2003 invasion of Iraq". 99% of wars involve an invasion and they had it coming from the United States because they were involved in terrorism against us. I find the title very offensive...it makes it look like Americans are a bunch of bullies who invaded Iraq for no reason. Saddam Hussein sponsering terrorism against the United States is what caused it. I would very much like to see the title changed to "Gulf War 2". It is also a slap in the face of all of the soldiers from all countries who fought to make Iraq free.

--Phatcat68 09:08, 18 July 2005 (US ET)

Iraq was not invaded because of "Saddam Hussein sponsoring terrorism against the United States", but because some governments displayed suspicions about weapons of Mass Destructions. You might want to re-read pre-war talks by Georges Bush and Tony Blair, notably.

Generalising to all wars saying "they had it coming from the United States because they were involved in terrorism against us" is one piece of bold statement...

As for the rest, I have trouble understanding what you find offensive, or how you infer from the title that there were no acceptable reasons for the aggression against Iraq; this might be actually be true, but the information, if any, is not contained in the title.

Finally, your suggesting of "Gulf War 2" leads to many issues; beside the fact that it sounds like a computer game title, there are many possibilities to begin the numbering, not to speak of the people who will argue that the war never stopped between 1991 and 2001. Rama 13:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Civil wars generally don't involve "invasions", but yes, generally wars between nations would have to involve some sort of invasion. I think simply calling it a war makes more sense.--Daveswagon 18:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Fatcat, arent they? Enlighten us.

"Generalising to all wars saying "they had it coming from the United States because they were involved in terrorism against us" is one piece of bold statement..." I am troubled by the fact that I never said the above statement that is quoted by [[[User:Rama|Rama]]. I never said that "they had it coming". I guess I inferred that but I never actually said that statement, so it should not be quoted as such. What I said was that they caused it. Actions have consequences. If somebody sponsors terrorists who attempt to blow up the World Trade Center (in 1993...Saddam was a sponsor of this act but the American liberal press did not want to report it), then any retaliation by that country's government is the consequence. Too many people today do not believe that their actions have consequences and therefore do whatever it is that they want to with no regard to consequences. Saddam thought he could hide behind al-Qaeda and stay secretive about his involvement. Thankfully, conservatives in the United States found out and told about his involvement. Yes, the press conferences said it was due to weapons of mass destruction, but I sincerely hope that everybody does not believe everything that the press reports. They do not report all of the facts all of the time and people (such as President Bush) do not always reveal all of their reasons. Why would he say that it was due to Saddam's involvement in terrorism against the U.S. when his own country's press refuses to report it?!? He wouldn't. Nobody would believe him because unfortunately, the press has the most power in this country. I still say it should be titled Gulf War 2. Gulf War 1 technically ended when Saddam surrendered Kuwait back. If we argue that Gulf War 1 never ended, we could do the same about WW1. Germany quietly re-armed for another attempt to dominate the world in between those wars. Saddam did not believe we would come back, so that is further evidence that Gulf War 1 was over. Please rename this article Gulf War 2 in honor of those brave men and women who fought to make Iraq free!

--- Phatcat68 08:13, 23 July 2005 (US ET)

Very nice that "Thankfully, conservatives in the United States found out and told about his involvement"; too bad, however, that they are not able to produce convincing evidences for this; curious, also, that intelligence professionals are sceptics. Troubling, finally, that Iraq was invaded on the basis of accusations that we now know were false; this, unfortunately, makes it difficult for us now to these terrorism theories for granted without more proofs.

As for honouring the "brave men and women who fought to make Iraq free", I am very afraid that this is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. For this endeavour, you might want to find, or start, some other wiki or blog on which you could write. Rama 12:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Dude, Saddam has not sponsored any terrorism against the U.S. What's more, this isn't even controversial. Hussein did not have anything to do with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or 9/11. I, of course, cannot prove a negative by showing you everywhere the evidence does not exist, but you can certainly attempt to prove a positive. Unended 14:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

My views are very similiar to those of Rama. Im glad to know that there are some people that have not been brainwashed yet.LtDoc 21:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Brainwashed. Formed an opinion from the facts presented to them. Same thing right? It would be just as easy for me to claim you have been brainwashed by Michael Moore. Not that I would, I assume that everyone here has the right to their own opinion and if you believe them to be wrong prove them wrong with facts. --EatAlbertaBeef 05:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

most regard as illegal

When we change from "most regard it as illegal" to "some regard it as illegal" aren't we distorting the reality? The only legal authorities I can think of who justify its legality work for the white house. It's not my area of expertise so I don't plan to meddle, but it seems to be a question easily answered by counting how many consider it illegal -- it's certainly the majority opinion outside the US, and it is backed up of course by the opinion of the secretary general. Does someone have a more authoritative analysis of this question? --csloat 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are both former lawyers who supported the war ([38], [39]). I doubt they had any qualms about its legality. Do they work for the White House? SLM@25 April 2024 22:28

Both have said they were very disappointed with the way the war was started without international support, and that they would have gone through the UN had they been president. To my knowledge neither has directly addressed the legality of the war but such statements about the need for international support through UN indicate that they did in fact have qualms about its legality. In any case if you look worldwide rather than just in the US it becomes very clear that most regard this war as illegal. csloat 16:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well if you can find a survey of everyone on earth about the legality of the War in Iraq which has results to that effect, then we can definatly change it from some to most. Until then that is considered a generalisation and should be avoided in the context of an encylopedic article. --EatAlbertaBeef 04:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, if an opinion poll included everyone on earth, it would no longer be a poll or a survey but a census. But even a scientific poll with a randomly selected sample isn't necessary to make that claim justifiable, I don't think. If, for example, you found that a huge proponderence of countries in the world had large newspapers with editorials condemning the war as illegal, with no countervailing expression of an opposing view', I think that would be substantiation enough even though it might not be scientific proof that 50% + 1 person holds that view. I suspect that "most" is probably accurate, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to produce the substantiation. I do believe it can be gotten, though, and it doesn't mean commissioning a poll of every nation on earth. -- PhilipR 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

If its easier for you to believe that the world is cheering on as Bush stampedes Afghanistan and Iraq (just to pick random 2 countries) go ahead and cheer on. Now if you want to actually discuss something, drop the atitude and try to broaden your preceptions by acknoledging that there is intelligent life outside north americaLtDoc 01:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it wasn't just US anti-war activists (whose side I've gradually come to) who distinguished between Afghanistan and Iraq as being very different questions. Am I just being insular here? I truly thought that world opinion generally though not exclusively leaned toward seeing Afghanistan as a just war of self-defense given the indisputable al-Qaeda presence there, and it wasn't until GWB's misadventures in Iraq that he lost world opinion. Please advise; this isn't just snark on my part. - PhilipR 02:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Since some people seem to think that only "some" of the world regards the 2nd Iraq invasion as illegal. Here is a link from Gallup; one of the most respected names in polling up there with ICM and MORI. http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10 From that link: "In general, a war against Iraq declared unilaterally by the US and its allies does not receive much public support." The exact number of "not much public support" is less than 10% according to the accompanying documents. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq did not have the support of the UN it was a unilateral invasion. Therefore, according to the Gallup poll it is More than fair to say that "most regard it as illegal". Enough evidence for AlbertaBeef and everyone else? 68.199.46.6 07:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you should edit it to give that specific detail as fact: A Gallup poll on such-and-such date showed that only 10% of...". But before you edit, you should probably register or log in; my intuition is that an edit with a registered account will probably be given more credence than an IP, even if one could debate whether that should be so or not. - PhilipR 15:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That Gallup poll asked nothing about legality. The questions were phrased about whether military action was appropriate. Does "inappropriate" really = "illegal"? - Sethery 16:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Where the Czech government stands

"The Czech government still stands by its assessment that Al-Ani had indeed met with Atta in Prague. [42]"

I've read the link given, and I see nothing about the Czech government insisting that the meeting actually happened. The closest it comes to affirming the meeting is asserting uncertainty: "This meeting is simply not proven one way or the other." --Mr. Billion 19:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Atta in Prague and TDC's Bad Edits

Sorry TDC, this discussion (as you are well aware) has already taken place on the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda page and the evidence is crystal clear that Atta was never in Prague. The Czech intel report you cite was based on a single unreliable eyewitness from Prague's Arab community who saw Atta on TV after 911 and thought he remembered seeing him in Prague. The Czechs backed off their report.[40] The New York Times report was described as "a fabrication" by Ladislav Spacek, a spokesman for Czech president Vaclav Havel. But Spacek also "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat."(Peter S. Green, "Havel Denies Telephoning U.S. On Iraq Meeting," New York Times (23 October 2002) p. A11.)

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has claimed that "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S. at the time he was supposed to be in Prague. ... We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts."[41]

Even further doubt was cast on rumors of such a meeting in December 2003 when Al-Ani, who is in U.S. custody, denied having ever met Atta ([42], [43]). According to Newsweek, it was "a denial that officials tend to believe given that they have not unearthed a scintilla of evidence that Atta was even in Prague at the time of the alleged rendezvous."[44] It is also notable that Atta's own religious and political convictions made him violently opposed to the Saddam regime; according to the 911 Commission Report, "In his interactions with other students, Atta voiced virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American opinions, ranging from condemnations of what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City that supposedly controlled the financial world and the media, to polemics against governments of the Arab world. To him, Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East." (p. 161)

All of the above is on the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda page. I can reproduce it here again if we really want that redundance, or I can revert to the simple statement of conclusion that we had before, and people can look at the other page if they want more information. But I do not think we should have inconsistent statements on the two pages when it is obvious one is just disinformation that you are spreading in order to bolster your little conspiracy theory.

I'm going to revert again; please do not revert back -- either include all the above information or leave it alone. But do not just cherry pick the information that supports your POV. --csloat 21:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

update: I erased "faith" from the title of this section as I mean to assume good faith; I will assume that TDC is spreading disinformation unknowingly rather than in bad faith, even though he is an active participant on the other page where this conspiracy theory is being discussed. TDC all of the information above plus even more is on the timeline on that page under April 2001. The Czechs do not exactly stand by their report -- they wanted to avoid embarrassing the official who believed the story so they attacked the NYT, but it was just posturing; hence the admission by Ladislav Spacek that Havel was still certain there was no such meeting. Interesting how there has been no discussion of this supposed meeting by Czech officials since that statement, no? My guess is it is still considered a big embarrassment to Czech intel. Anyway I apologize for saying your edits are in bad faith, but they are wrong wrong wrong. If you disagree, you will need to provide evidence refuting these specifics rather than simply reverting to general conclusions.--csloat 21:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In other words TDC is right and you are wrong, but that doesn't matter because you "guess" that any information contrary to your opinion is a lie?! Unbelievable.--198.93.113.49 15:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, in other words, look at the damn page. If you don't like Wikilinks, there's also this article (accessible with Bugmenot) that says that one of Havel's spokesmen announced that Havel was "certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat." It also corrects an article from the previous day, when the Times had erroneously reported he had made a call to Bush about it. And chapter 7 of the 9/11 Commission Report, which points out that no evidence indicates that Atta was in Prague other than the one unreliable report, there is evidence that he was in Florida, and that Ani wasn't in Prague at the time that the meeting supposedly took place. All this stuff is right in front of you, presented several times. Don't be obtuse. Mr. Billion 15:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:193.x.x.x -- Pot, kettle, black. How is "guessing information contrary to your opinion" is incorrect different than what you are doing? Are you aware that the FBI looked into Atta's cell phone records and his ATM withdrawals during the time the Czech report put him in Prague? His cell phone remained in use, in the USA, throughout the time Cheney said he was in Prague. And a picture was taken of him, when he made a routine ATM withdrawal, a day before, or a day after this infamous non-meeting. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider your support of Mr Cheney's repetitions of this claim, until you have done more homework. -- Geo Swan 16:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up the bad faith allegation; now, onto the substance of the issue. I think the issue is slightly more complicated than is presented. I really do not know what to make of the Times report and later retractions of Havel’s statements. I don’t know if you are correct in your assessment that the Czech’s were simply embarrassed by bad intle from the BIS, or if we have another Jason Blair on our hands.

As far as what was in the BIS report, no one know. There have been reports that it was just one lone eye witness; some have claimed that Atta (or someone looking like him) was caught on surveillance footage. The 9/11 Commission did not specifically mention the Czech BIS report (unless I am mistaken, but I have read the entire report).

As for the Czech BIS, and the Havel backing off the Atta in Prague claim, I doubt that if Havel had doubts as serious as has been reported would have allowed Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, to submit this statement on February 24, 2003, many months after the Times broo ha ha stating that he“'can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta ... there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was on 22 April, 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities not compatible with his diplomatic status”. [45] [46]

I think there is much we don’t know here, and in this instance, there is definitely enough contradictory evidence to preclude a disposition one way or the other.

On a side note I neither can nor will explain away the ATM record, or the ticket, or the car rental. Although these types of people do use aliases, and Atta did not himself have a DL (which makes it pretty implausible that he rented a car). And BTW, the ATM picture was taken of him on 9/10, not in April. TDC 21:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong about these things, or at least I have seen no evidence to back up your claims of what might have happened. Everyone agrees the Czech BIS report is based on a single unreliable eyewitness. I have never heard any information like you suggest that there is video surveillance of Atta in Prague. If you have information to the contrary you are welcome to present it. The phone, ATM, and driving records are all on record; what makes you think Atta had no drivers license? I believe it was under a different name but that does not mean he did not rent a car. There is no evidence of him leaving the country in April 2001. There is also a court case in Florida with another terrorism suspect where the FBI presented evidence of Atta in florida at the time (I will have to hunt around for details on this one but I have seen the records and it is reported on in several books). As for the Czechs, are you suggesting that Havel did not say what the NYT says he did? Again, after the Czechs complained about the NYT report they went on to back up Havel's assertion that he did not believe the evidence was there to support a meeting. Again it is just my guess that the flip flop was a means of covering up an embarrassing mistake; the conclusion of Havel does not seem to have changed. The records of Al-Ani are also pretty clear - he was nowhere near where he was supposed to have met Atta on the 8th, and he is now in custody and everyone agrees he is probably telling the truth when he claims never to have met Atta. You cite Hynek Kmonicek but it is clear that he is the only one in Czechoslovakia who seems to believe this meeting actually took place. Certainly it is no longer the conclusion of Czech intel, or, for that matter, of any other intelligence agency on earth!

Some claim this is a matter of me (and others) believing only the information that supports my point but that is incorrect. I am looking at specific refutations of these claims and at other specific claims that make such a meeting impossible. Everything we know about Atta's movements suggest he was in Florida at the time, and everything we know about Al-Ani suggest he never met Atta. The fact that Atta considered Saddam an "American stooge" (911 Report) also bolsters this conclusion. Again, if there are specific facts that refute these conclusions, I am open to hearing them, but muttering "we may have another Jayson Blair on our hands" doesn't cut it. Nobody has suggested with any credibility that there was any reason for the NYT to fabricate such stories nor offered any evidence that they have. By that logic we can't trust anything printed anywhere. I think the preponderence of evidence in this case comes out pretty clearly against the conspiracy theory, and the only reason this theory has any legs at all is that certain people (especially Stephen Hayes) have been promoting it constantly like a mantra, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.--csloat 22:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Real quick, Atta never recieved a DL until May of 2001 [47]. All we know about Atta's movements during the time in question was that someone (perhaps Atta, perhaps someone else) was using his ATM card and his phone during the time in question. Although Atta was pulled over, during that time, I could fake bieng my brother if I were pulled over. I will get to the rest later. Perhaps the BIS thinks it was Atta in April of 2001, because he had met with (allegedly) Al-Ani and cased the RFE building (this was btw, caught on tape) in May of 2000. But once again, please provide a recent link with a direct non-anon statement, if you are going to convince me that the BIS, has distanced itself from the report. TDC 22:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

At least according to Daniel Hopsicker's book, Atta had a DL under another name prior to that and was very familiar with driving around that part of Florida. I don't know - the book is based on exclusive interviews with people at the flight school and others in Atta's circle in Florida so it's hard to verify, but I haven't seen any evidence to dispute any of it. But in any case there has never been any shred of evidence presented to substantiate the fantasy that someone else was impersonating Atta at the time he was pulled over (this is certainly something that could be checked in police records anyway, and many traffic stops are videotaped. If it wasn't Atta, his mug was certainly pretty well known after 9/11, the cop who stopped him could tell you right away). You say you could fake being your brother -- is there evidence Atta even has a brother that would have been in Florida at the time? Is there any evidence that Atta had a reason to have a "brother" impersonate him? It doesn't even make sense -- why would Atta go to such great lengths to pretend he was in Florida? I don't even know of anyone else speculating that this might have been the case other than you, right here.

As for Al-Ani - a couple of things. First, he was seen photographing RFE -- not Atta. You ask for later sources confirming that the Czechs backed off their claim -- look at Washington Post July 8 2003 or Sept 28 2003. From the first one: "After months of further investigation, Czech officials determined last year that they could no longer confirm that a meeting took place, telling the Bush administration that al-Ani might have met with someone other than Atta." The second article has similar statements (and is written by different writers). The Boston Globe on September 19 2004 suggests that there was another man named Mohammed Atta (spelling his first name differently from our Mohamed) from Pakistan who flew to Prague in 2000 and thereby confused Czech intelligence. (The Globe cites a Chicago Tribune story on the name confusion). The Globe article also points out that opposition leaders in Czechoslovakia are calling this a failure of intelligence on the part of the Czech government -- again substantiating my theory that Czech intel is just embarrassed by the whole thing. But in any case we have a non-anon statement on the issue from Ladislav Spacek, the same guy who thought the NYT report was a "fabrication," admitting that Havel's office now did not believe the meeting occurred (I quoted that above in this discussion). By the way, if you still don't believe any of this, I encourage you to pick up the phone and call Havel's office (or even the BIS) yourself. It's not like we can't confirm this stuff. I'd be very interested in their answer.

Look, this is all a fantasy that grew out of a mistaken eyewitness report and then was consistently repeated by "true believers" like Stephen Hayes, Doug Feith, Richard Perle. The problem is that they start from their conclusions (e.g. "the meeting did occur") and then reason backwards. And, in classic conspiracy theory reasoning, they shift the burden of proof -- saying it is now the burden of those who don't believe the conspiracy to prove such a meeting didn't happen. The problem is that you can never completely prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof is typically on those who assert a positive (e.g. "the meeting did occur") to prove it. In this case, the conspiracy theorists cannot prove it, so they rely on faulty reasoning such as this.--csloat 00:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: for your theory to be true, you need to do more than suspect that we may have another Jayson Blair at NYT. You need to demonstrate that we have several of them at NYT, at WP. at BG, at CT, at AP, and the dozens of other news agencies who have reported on this. To be right you have to assume that the assertions of Stephen Hayes, Richard Perle and Doug Feith, as well as a Czech politician, based on their own analysis of raw intel data that had not been properly vetted by the relevant agencies (CIA and DIA here, BIS there), over the conclusions of those agencies as well as of every mainstream reporter I'm aware of, not to mention the conclusions of the 911 Commission. The NYT October 2002 pieces were based on months of research and interviews and the articles from 2003 and 2004 report the analysis and study of BIS of its own data. Once you sort through all the evidence and statements it takes some pretty bizarre logical leaps to get to your conclusions about this meeting. --csloat 01:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Time for an archive

This page is too long to be practical. Anyone object to archiving those sections that haven't had activity since, say, May 2005 (to pick an arbitrary cutoff)? - PhilipR 16:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is a joke

A note should be placed at the top challenging the neutrality of this article. It would take me a week to edit out all the hearsay and opinion.

As I have noted here, I am in the process of reviewing this article in its entirety. It will take some time as I have a real job too. I imagine the partisans out there will back out my edits, but no intellectually honest person could read this article and think it is without POV.

12.25.1.161 (sig added by Rama)

Such as ? Rama 14:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's start with the Paul O'Neil comment. I don't think any encyclopedia article on any given subject should be laced with accusations and innuendo. Yes, people came out of the woodwork making all sorts of outlandish accusations. Does that qualify them to be included on an article about the Invasion of Iraq? Especially when there has been no corroboration, and denials by the accused? I bet if I remove the O'Neil comment it will reappear. Anyone want to take that bet?

Please sign your comments with four tilds (~~~~)

I do not understand what is not encyclopedic about this statement by Mr O'Neil. It was formuled by an important personality, deals precisely with this subject, and is factual (it can be tracked down easily). Why would you like to remove it ? Rama 15:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You know that it is meant to cast aspersions on the Bush Administration. I notice that there is no mention of Scott Ritter's pedophilia arrests in this article as there shouldn't be. Just like there shouldn't be a thousand unproven allegations against the Bush Administration.

12.25.1.161 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This page does not unproven make allegations against anyone. It merely reports what significant personalities say. You realise, of course, that if "there shouldn't be a thousand unproven allegations" on this page, by your standards, mostly all the reasons for the invasion, which revolved around alledged Iraqi waepons of mass destruction, should be removed. What do you think the article would look like then ? Rama 07:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL!! And yet with your overt POV you think you are qualified to judge neutrality. The POV tag will remain for quite some time. 12.25.1.161 14:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Moronic page move request

Someone put this page on requested-page-moves to rename it as "liberation of iraq". I see nothing on the talk page justifying such a move or indicating a vote is in progress. Obviously that title is flamingly POV and would lose any vote, and it's telling that the person who put up the notice didn't bother to defend it or start a voting page here. Can we just delete the tag from here and from WP:Requested moves? Or do we now have to go through a vote on this now? Also I would note that Liberation of Iraq currently redirects to a different page, so such a move should be announced and discussed on that page too.--csloat 03:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just drop a note on the "Requested moves" page. Rama 07:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the move. I guess time will tell if there is "liberation", but I can't find a definition of the word "invasion" that disagrees with events. "2003 invasion of Iraq" seems appropriate. Squashed sultana 08:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

While I don't think Liberation is neutral, I don't think "invasion" is neutral either. Invasion implies an unwelcome encroachment for conquest. But then again, I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the majority of the users applying edits to this article were against the war. Am I right? 12.25.1.161 14:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Serious consequences

MONGO says:It is stated that "serious consequences" in UN resolution 1441 was not "generally understood by Security Council members to include the use of force." That is a lie.

This is categorically incorrect. The original draft of the resolution had authorized "all necessary means", the traditional Security Council authorization for war. This was taken out because it could not have passed in that form. IN earlier discussion on this Talk, you'll find the results of my research on what the UN delegates for the US and the UK said at the time--that there would be no automaticity and that they understood that no invasion could be carried out on the basis of that resolution without consulting the Security Council again. After 1441 passed, Powell himself put it this way on November 10, 2002: "I can assure you if he doesn't comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means".

The US did not do this, in the event, for two reasons:

1. The inspectors reported that Iraq was complying with 1441.
2. The Security Council believed the inspectors and would not have given authorization for war to a timetable that suited the invasion plans.

MONGO, you are being misled by your news media, or whoever else it was who told you that 1441 authorized war. -Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I am not...you are. Did all your sourcing come from typically pervasive left wing periodicals such as Salon, et al? The article states serious consequences, not the French later rewording of the words they signed in accordance with 1441....what you are advocating is the delusional backstepping the french did after they signed and then saw that it was really going to happen...The security council did not disagree with the inspectors, but also felt that they would never be able to complete their missions due to Iraqi obstruction of those efforts....this was shared by the U.S., Britian and several other temporary memebers of the Security Council. Use of terminology such as "not generally understood" suggests that the members signed this ultimatum known as UN resolution 1441, but failed to see it as such when the time came to ante up...baloney. That's revisionist.--MONGO 21:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listen, MONGO, it was the US and UK's own ambassadors to the UN, and Colin Powell, that told the UN and the rest of the world, at the time in November 2002, that 1441 did not provide an automatic trigger to war and they would have to come back to the Security Council to get authorization for war--and I've proven this by quoting the very words of those ambassadors, sourcing them to contemporary UN transcripts and wire reports. Your politicians, and mine, then proceeded to lie about this when they saw that the inspectors were giving evidence enough to convince the Security Council that, for now at least, in March, 2003, Iraq was cooperating and thus the conditions for war did not exist. France didn't lie, nor Russia or Germany. They just took the words of the US and the UK, as of November, 2002, seriously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listen, Tony...that is not the entire story and I have never said that 1441 was the only catalyst for the "Liberation" nor that the ambassadors or representatives of the U.S. and U.K. ever said that it was on a formal note. However, without being explicit, the term 'serious consequences" was "generally understood" to mean that more consequences were in store for Iraq if they didn't comply...the only thing this could mean was war...though it is not explicitly stated as such.--MONGO 20:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly it was 2 years ago to this day that the inspectors filed a report which was going to move them onto the next step, containment. Not surprisingly the invasion was announced just hours after this. —Christiaan 21:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Res1441 did NOT authorize war, its a very simple matter of legal analysis. The political aspects are a completely different matter, but legally speaking, the wording in 1441 does not authorize the use of force (as it explicitly would have to do). Here's a short legal analysis. [48] --Cybbe 23:04, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I never said it authorized war...I only said that it stated serious consequences and the only thing more serious than what the international community was doing was to declare war...--MONGO 12:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Declaration of War"? What declaration of war? The last time the USA declared war was World War II. -- Geo Swan 17:55, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Short of a true declaration but military engagement authorized in 2002Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. My point was that little more serious could be done, aside from GOING to war, than what was already in place.--MONGO 10:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Usually, the process involves consultation of the Security Council of the United Nations, of formal decision to engage in violent actions under the aegis of the UN, and then usage of the force. Rama 10:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Consultation did occur....lengthy ones at that...FOR MORE THAN A DECADE! That is why there were repeated UN resolutions passed against Saddam...by the UN...--MONGO 10:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

but, as was stated by U.S. and U.K. officials themselves (like Colin Powell), and later confirmed by Kofi Annan, none authorised war as for 2003. Rama 10:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MONGO: The arguments you are putting forward are not valid legal arguments. One cant make up a different interpretation of "serious consequences" just because the UNSC doesnt want to go to war. And you argue as if the resolution calls for _more_ serious consequences, it doesnt, it calls for serious consequences which doesnt mean war. And no resolution was passed by the SC saying Iraq was in breach of res 1441, this is for the SC to decide, not the US. --Cybbe 14:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

They aren't valid leagl arguments is correct...but they are not vague either...that the French et al balked at the meaning of the terminology when the time came to implement serious consequences is a fact...so what do you postualte as more "serious consequences" than what was already in place beyond the sanctions, and international ostricism of Saddam and his government? It sounds to me that you are playing the same game that the Frenmch did et al and as was the case for the U.S. government and the "coalition of the willing", I don't buy it. As far as who made up the different interpretation, I fail to see how it can be reasoned that it was the U.S. that changed the meaning of the implementation of serious consequences.--MONGO 04:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I do not understand here, then, if indeed "serious consequences" means "invasion", as you seem to imply, is why US and UK officials explicitely stated the opposite. Rama 06:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the US expected a rubber stamp. The game plan was that the inspectors would go ahead, Saddam would refuse to cooperate, and the inspectors would say so. Then the UN Security Council would say "okay, no question, we must authorize any means necessary." Only the game didn't go according to plan. Saddam reluctantly cooperated, the inspectors reported that, and few on the Security Council were interested in supporting a headlong rush to war when it looked as if the verification system set up by 1441 was working. In short, the US was caught with its pants down and its todger out, and had no alternative but to brazen it out with a full scale illegal invasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it is pretty clear that the US felt it had all the authorization it needed to go into Iraq, based on the reluctant aspects of his "cooperation", the inspectors admitted that there were still "unresolved issues", and lack of cooperation but strangely concluded it wasn't preventing their work. The US was ready to invade and only put up with another try at the security council to satisfy Tony Blair's political needs. There is already a good legal discussion later in the article. If one wants a internationally legit reason to go to war, the breaking of the terms of the truce, such as targeting planes in the no-fly zone was enough. Saddam's "cooperation" came with troops on his border, if he had wanted to demonstrate good faith he should have cooperated earlier, perhaps he overestimated the power of his friends on the security council. He surely could not believe a true deliberative body would decide in his favor.--Silverback 10:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is quite clear that there are sufficient arguments both for and against the term 'serious consequences' implying imminent use of force, to merit the toning down of the initial paragraph's assertion that 'use of force was not Security Council authorized'. The British and US Governments firmly believe that the authorization for use of force was implicit in resolution 1441, ang hinged on the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with previous resolutions, and the fact that the First Gulf War was put on hold not rescinded in Resolution 687, which enabled that resolution to be recalled and retain its merit in 2003. Although the legal basis for this is debatable, the fact that it is clearly upheld by these two main proponents of the Iraq war, means that there should be less emphasis on the assertion that the war was illegal, scale illegal invasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it is pretty clear that the US felt it had all the authorization it needed to go into Iraq, based on the reluctant aspects of his "cooperation", the inspectors admitted that there were still "unresolved issues", and lack of cooperation but strangely concluded it wasn't preventing their work. The US was ready to invade and only put up with another try at the security council to satisfy Tony Blair's political needs. There is already a good legal discussion later in the article. If one wants a internationally legit reason to go to war, the breaking of the terms of the truce, such as targeting planes in the no-fly zone was enough. Saddam's "cooperation" came with troops on his border, if he had wanted to demonstrate good faith he should have cooperated earlier, perhaps he overestimated the power of his friends on the security council. He surely could not believe a true deliberative body would decide in his favor.--Silverback 10:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is quite clear that there are sufficient arguments both for and against the term 'serious consequences' implying imminent use of force, to merit the toning down of the initial paragraph's assertion that 'use of force was not Security Council authorized'. The British and US Governments firmly believe that the authorization for use of force was implicit in resolution 1441, ang hinged on the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with previous resolutions, and the fact that the First Gulf War was put on hold not rescinded in Resolution 687, which enabled that resolution to be recalled and retain its merit in 2003. Although the legal basis for this is debatable, the fact that it is clearly upheld by these two main proponents of the Iraq war, means that there should be less emphasis on the assertion that the war was illegal, as to do so implies inherent bias. (Anon 17:13 GMT, 01 April 2005)

Perhaps a few words from Hans Blix may clarify the "intent" of 1441-A couple of excerpts from one of his interim reports on their "progress". In this case he is giving his background to the council, explaining how he got to this point- sure it's for show, but he's quite clear about explaining what his purpose is.

"Speech of chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to the U.N. Security Council Monday, January 27, 2003; 11:57 AM"

"While the fundamental aim of inspections in Iraq has always been to verify disarmament, the successive resolutions adopted by the council over the years had varied somewhat in emphasis and approach. In 1991, Resolution 687 adopted unanimously as a part of the cease-fire after the Gulf War had five major elements; the three first related to disarmament. They called for declarations by Iraq of its programs of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles; verification of the declarations through UNSCOM and the IAEA; supervision by these organizations of the destruction or the elimination of proscribed programs and items.After the completion of the disarmament, the council would have the authority to proceed to a lifting of the sanctions and the inspecting organizations would move to long-term, ongoing monitoring and verification.

Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verify in declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations."

(That passage is important because it shows the intent of the inspections. Many of us wonder in a country so large , how was the world to know how we could be sure there were no WMD? Well we weren't EVER supposed to have scoured every corner of Iraq. Saddam was supposed to have fostered trust from day 1 that if HE in the future said "I have no WMD-" we could believe him) Now on 1441:

"For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the secretary general and Arab states and pressure by the United States and other member states that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions. Resolution 1441 was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection."

"A last opportunity for peaceful disarmament" doesn't leave much doubt about what the Security Council intended. See also the terems for co-operation. Was it an "automatic trigger" for invasion? I don't think so, but I feel it's clear that France and others were not willing to back up what they signed, period. What ARE "serious consequences" when you're already allowing 100,000 of your children to die by sanctions? Now strangely enough in that report Hans gives his "mixed signals" routine, which shows he's a world politician in grooming by his wordcraft, and more importantly, not willing to push himself off either side of the fence. He describes cooperation "by process" yet gives lenghthy anecdotal descriptions of Saddams's threats to shoot down U-2 surveillance aircraft requested by the UN, and personal intimidation of his staff by Saddam. What we have here is a UN official who is in the enjoyable position of having the entire world media falling at his feet, in anticipation of his every word. The most important man in the whole world, if you will..... and not too far from a book deal and a position on the Time's best seller list. Morally I believe not only were we correct but we'd have been chumps to keep waiting, with the Iraqi summer looming for our troops with their full plastic chem suits. Saddam knew this and was buying time, only giving the co-operation he needed to prevent Blix's calling him in breach of 1441. Don't forget that right around this time frame, Saddam, who is supposed to be cooperating fully and unconditionally, was found to be in possession of out of range missiles, with VX dispersion warheads, and refused to destroy them until minutes before a 2 week deadline imposed by Blix. I believe Bush took it upon himself to enforce the law which the Security council wrote but blatantly refused to enforce.

John, San Diego 0300 4/19/2005

John...I appreciate your contributions here and am in agreement...recommend you adopt a username as it is easier to identify you and then sign with 4 tildes (signature with timestamp...--MONGO 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Meddling

This is one of my favourite kind of news stories at the moment:

• http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7938792

It's propaganda with a thinly veiled purpose but it gets a giggle out of me everytime some U.S. invader complains about Arab's meddling in Arab affairs. —Christiaan 09:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problem is that Iranians are not Arabs either...they are Persians...even a large number of ethnic Syrians are of Turkish extract...besides, the story isn't anything new..the U.S. and the other forces there to liberate Iraq from the oppressors known as the Baath Party have long held the belief (based on facts) that persons hostile to democracy have been attempting to enter Iraq from a neighboring country...instead, we should have just stayed out of there, I mean, who cares if they live under Saddam, right?--MONGO 05:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saddam's regime were notorious meddlers in Iraqi affairs. The overall meddling index in the lives of the individual Iraqi's is probably way down due to coalition assistance.--Silverback 06:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree 100%.--MONGO 12:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I should have said Muslim, which pushes the point home even clearer. Here you have a prodominantly white Christian and Jewish executive which has just invaded a prodominantly brown Muslim country and is now complaining that their Muslim brothers in neighbouring countries are "meddling". I'm not surprised the hilarity in this seems to evade you. —Christiaan 15:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"brown"? Iraqi's are caucasian. "Muslim brothers"? al Zarqari's (presumably wahabi) organization is trying to start a sectarian war with the shia. "attempt to privatize Iraqi oil fields"? It would have been much easier for the coalition to have just secured the unpopulated oil fields and left the people to their own devices if oil was the goal. And there certainly would have been no moral prohibition against taking it, after all, Saddam had gotten it by force too. --Silverback 07:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

caucasian? try telling that to U.S. military pawns who refer to them as sandniggers. —Christiaan 15:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7938792

Haha, thats hilarious. The US, busy slaughtering Iraqi civilians and anyone they can shoot, by the tens of thousands, angry after they failed in their attempt to privatize Iraqi oil fields and get them into Western hands out of Iraqi hands, complains that Iran is "meddling in Iraqi affairs". Priceless.

Improving this article

Some general notes on how to improve this article:

• There is far too much waffle about justifications, which I think comes from left-right argy-bargy. The article should focus on the invasion and occupation itself, and document the concrete history rather than the motivations.
• The description of the invasion and destruction of iraqi forces could be much longer. There's no real description of the disposition of Iraqi forces for instance. There's little analysis of the "shock and awe" and why it was so particularly effective or ineffective.
• Other things that need a mention - Allied logistics, problems with working as a combined force (i.e. Matty Hunt's death) POW processing, damage to Iraqi infrastructure
• The "Rationale" section at the top and "Opinion and legality" down the bottom need to be combined. They're fundamentally talking about the same issue. They can then be split out into a "Rationale and Legality of 2003 Invasion" article, and replaced with a 4-5 paragraph summary, covering briefly 1441, WMD, etc.

I'm keen to hear your opinions. 203.173.32.84 11:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And another thing - the introduction should give an estimate of the Iraqi forces! Knowing how many Iraqis is more important than knowing how many Poles! 203.173.32.84 11:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All excellent points...but this isn't an encyclopedic article...it is a left wing propaganda piece.--MONGO 13:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing an article on Wikipedia about the rationals for the invasion, but I haven't been able to find it recently (might be that it was merged into this one, that I have a wrong recollection, or that it still lies somewhere where I haven't looked).

I am not completely sure that "Rationals" and "Opinion and legality" are exactly the same thing: "rational" is the official positions of the invading governments; "opinions" is more about popular and non-official positions; and "legality" is mainly the discussion revolving around UN resolutions. I'd tend to think that the three should be separated, is fact, or perhaps would be better grouped with "Rationals and Opinion" and "Legality". But that's just a vague idea...

As for the military technical aspects of the invasion, if someone is competant to extend and give more precisions, it goes without saying that he is very welcome !

Before I finish, I would like to brotherly make a small comment on the "left wing propaganda" aspect (especially for MONGO): everyone is of course entitled to his opinions, but it would be nice not to make hasty asumptions as to other's ideas. In this particular case, questionning the validity of the whole article as "left wing propaganda" has the doubly negative effect of being not nice to the numerous users who are striving to keep this article precise and impartial, but also to make your own position more difficult to defend against hypothetical truely extremist users, who could dismiss your own statements as "far-right propaganda" and point to this comment to question your motivations here. In the interest of Wikipedia as a whole, which undoubtly benefits from your input, I would make a friendly suggestion that you should avoid weakening your position like this.

Thank you for the interesting ideas and cheers ! Rama 13:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

THank you, I believe that as insulting as my comment my be, it is justified in it's factuality....sorry, I won't sugar coat it.--MONGO 20:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, what I was trying to say was that it was a political shouting match. It contains far too much political comment full stop. It really needs to lose the lefty rambling true, and then it also needs to lose the attempts at justification.

On "Rationale" being the same as "Opinion" etc: what is clear is that various countries supported the war, for a small number of reasons, and there was a body of public opinion both in agreeemnt and disagreeing with this. The part of the stated rationale was the violation of 1441. Indeed the background could be summarized as:

• 1991 invasion, and subsequent expulsion of inspectors - 1 paragraph.
• Outline of Iraq disarnament crisis and passage of 1441 in 2002 - 1 paragraph
• Rhetoric of Iraqi brutality/Al-Quaeda relationship - 1 paragraph
• Agreements establishing "Coaltion of Willing", mobilization/deployment and Iraqi response - 1 paragraph (Note the current article has almost nothing on this) - also the Kwaiti, Saudi, and Turkish response
• Establishment of deadlines prior to October 2003 - 1 paragraph

Then onto the description of the invasion's opening attack. Then the note on media coverage, the proper "end date" for the invasion, and casualty estimates. At most 1 paragraph on popular views. Then we'll have an article talking about the war. 203.173.32.84 14:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I agreed...I suggest you commence imputing this info, and deleting the unencyclopedic jargon and see how far you get against those that wish to continue to see this hypocrisy stand as the benchmark. I know this sounds sad and highly critical on my part, failing to assume good faith, but I feel that this article is beyond hope. I have watched it for so long and only got on the band wagon editorializing when I saw there were 3 or more people with serious reservations about the same issues I had. However, a select group of gargoyles have formed a coalition to ensure that this page is reverted back almost in any case they feel makes even the slightest alteration to a more factual accord...and attempts to move this article to a NPOV one. Besides the mere alteration of and or incorporation of anythig that would make the article NPOV, you'll find that many wish to continue to utilize phrasing, tone and qualification for "balance"...jst a ruse to ensure their jargon is here for good...your attempts are ones to be encyclopedic, theirs are ones to utilize this article as a political sounding board.--MONGO 20:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Resolution 687

Silverback, you removed

"in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687(notably point 22)[49];"

with the comment

"rv, this text does not make the case claimed for it, obviously congress was judging Saddam's behavior, if he complied with the UN that in itself would be regime change, the lack of a treaty is decisiv"

Would you mind extrapolate a little bit, I am not quite sure that I follow you... Sorry if I am slow to grasp the meaning :p Rama 17:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The continual charge that the Iraq Liberation act is either a violation of 687 or in international law in general is open to wide speculation. Christian lost this fight over in the Iraq Liberation act article and now wants to try it again here. Furthermore, I cannot find a credible source that states that the ILA is a violation of 686 or international law. Law, and UN resolutions in general are subject to a wide variation of interpretation, that’s why we have lawyers and judges and juries. If a source can be found then perhaps the reverted material can be added to the article, otherwise it be gone and it stay gone. TDC 23:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for yout input. The argument here, as I understand it, is that the statement by the USA that only the removal of Saddam Hussein will permit the lifting of the sanctions does not match the UN resolution 687; indeed, in the resolution, a set of conditions is defined for the lifting of the sanctions, which nowhere demands a change of government. I suppose that the argument developed here means that no other resolution of the UN demanded the departure of Saddam Hussein, and that as such, the ultimatum made by the USA was not in a continuation of the UN process. On this particular point, the UN resolution leave very little room for interpretation, it does not make mention of a change of power. Rama 23:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me all, but could we please discuss the reasons which led Silverback to remove the piece in the the first place, as well as the oportunity of putting the piece here, rather than keeping reverting back and fro without any proper reason ? I say this in the interest of the nerves of all the parties, as well as for the poor server which is striving to catch on... Rama 22:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The references did not seem logically connected to any argument that this law violated international law. The provisions cited relied upon the security council to lift sanctions. Since the US has a veto on the council, if the US says the sanctions will only be lifted under certain conditions such as regime change, it obviously has the means within the article you cite to make sure those conditions are met, or at least the sanctions stay on the books. The US has a veto on the findings of fact. The behavior of other members on the security council demonstrate they feel no obligation to be intellectually honest in the evaluation of the facts. The US of course would have had to have done much more to prevent the cheating on the sanctions by several of the parties that voted for them. How could the law passed by congress, be in anyway a violation of those provisions of the sanctions, it seems quite within them. Now if the law unilaterally lifted the sanctions, or authorized the US government to cheat on them, then it would be a violation under those provisions, just as the cheating by other security council members was.--Silverback 10:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems like an arguable interpretation. I'm not comfortable with the statement as a fact that the Act was in violation of of Resolution 687, and I'd like to see some reasonable reference to a legal argument being made for this if I'd even want it included as a notable opinion. It looks to me like it's probably a bit of original research as suggested. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

perhaps a bit of sur-interpretation at least. The current formulation in the article in now "in contrast with...", which is less problematic on this respect, if I understand the issue correctly. Rama 12:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who are these others?

Is there a reference for this sentence that could be added? Others have remarked that in comparison to other engagements involving the numbers of troops, the scope of the engagements and the duration of the action, that the percentage of deaths and causalties is less than an eighth of those from previous military actions.

Not only who the others are, but a pointer to the statistics would be useful. -Wikibob | Talk 12:37, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Whoever inserted this should be able to provide a source. Feel free to remove until the source shows up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then the following POV item must also go...There is currently growing concern being voiced from some in the U.S. comparing the situation to previous wars such as the Vietnam War. Here is a link to current combat casualties and a quick click on prior U.S. causualties allows anyone with simple math skills to do a quick computation....and not to forget additional issues such as the length of time the conflict has lasted or the number of troops involved...[50]...furthermore, naturally most wars involve fighting between mostly young men, but this is an all volunteer military so not to be confused with very yong men of the Vietnam era that were, in great liklihood, there due to a military draft...the terminology of very young men is therefore, pushing an antiwar rhetoric pervasive in this article, keeping it from becoming neutral...it is not our job to judge the war...only report it without bias as much as possible.--MONGO 19:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is currently growing concern being voiced from some in the U.S. comparing the situation to previous wars such as the Vietnam War is not untrue, as can be seen in a quick google search. I suggest that this statement be supported by significant external links (for instance [51] and [52], but other are welcome). There is also the sentence "Iraq is like Viet Nam on crack cocaine", by Marilyn Young, Professor of History NYU, which seems to prohemently illustrate this current of thoughs.

The mention of "young men" sounds a little bit odd, and I fail to understand what it brings apart from gratutious connotation; if I missed the point, I am of course open to hear the underlying idea, but else, it might better be removed.

The voluntary nature of the engagement of US soldiers in Iraq is debatable: a significant proportion are young people of the working class who joined the Army for the advantages that they would recieve afterward for their studies. Also, the US Army has extended the time of engagement, and it is not trivial to know what the soldiers involved in this feel about it. Finally, a number of stories about US soldiers deserting have been publiblished (including the one requesting political Asilium from Canada). A point to nuance, then. Rama 19:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marilyn Young calls herself a "commie hippie pinko protester" and we are to consider this to be significant and an unbiased treatise on the subject...sure...now that's not a biased source.--MONGO 20:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned it up differently, please let me know what you think. In my opinion if we say the military is all volunteer we also should add the fact that recruitment is way down the last few months for balance. Certainly reservists didn't expect to be spending over 6 months in Iraq. Many soliders have also fought their tour of duty extension (which some call a back door draft) and some have even gone AWOL and fled to Canada rather than return to Iraq after leave. zen master T 20:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The external links are obvious anti war links. Anyone who teaches at a place like NYU (a bastion of ultra liberal idiocy) are going to come up with preposterous jargon like "Iraq is like Viet Nam on crack cocaine", the mention of young men is POV pushing because this is an all volunteer military unlike 30 years ago...reports of morale that show it being low are nothing compared to morale during the Vietnam era especially 1968-1971....the number of desertions is not in any way comparable to previous engagements, especially the American Civil war and even that glory of glories? WW2. I recommend you look outside your liberal circles for better facts. The grumblings are normal for any enlisted man...it is typical and expected and not enlightening, but incorporation of this merely continues to give this article a biased POV feel. It would also be advised that calling something untrue is no more useful than saying Bigfoot is untrue...as we don't really know that it doesn't exist even though the evidence is weak...comparing antiwar events today to those in 1969 for example indicate to me that you two don't remember those protests from that era...the difference is extreme and holding on to some belief that there is any equal parallel tells me you've been misled. If you come here with a predisposition to report based on your politics, then there can be little hope that this article can ever become NPOV.--MONGO 20:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By what basis are you proposing the removal of links merely because they are "anti-war"? The article no longer says "young men" I changed it to something along the lines of "high percentage are young men between the ages of 18 and 22". "Better facts"? interesting phrase. It could be argued that Iraq is worse than Vietnam, Iraq can be alleged to be a war over oil as a resource whereas Vietnam was principly a battle over ideology. 100,000 estimate dead Iraqi civilians is within an order of magnitude of the estimated 500,000 dead Vietnamese. Reporters and critics and world leaders have drawn parallels to Vietnam, how is that not valid inclusion material? If there is a dispute over a possible parallel to Vietnam we should mention that the parallel to Vietnam is disputed, rather than remove any mention of Vietnam. Can you provide citations for the claim that Iraq is not like Vietnam? zen master T 20:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between young men and the phrasing of high percentage of men between 18 and 22...is that supposed to be different...I don't see that. I say that reporters and others that do attempt to compare the current situation with Vietnam are foolish and wrong...that is how I feel based on the simple fact that there is no comparison....asking me to provide claims that it is not like Vietnam is silly...anyone with simple math skills can add the figures, the length of the combat, the number of dead and injured, the fact that there was a draft meaning that a vast majority of people who fought in Vietnam were not volunteers (regardless of the argument of arm twisting you claim modern recruitment employs). Estimates for number of civilian deaths in Vietnam number as high as 7 million..compared to what a maximum of 40 thousand for the current war in Iraq. The U.S. has lost just over 1500 soldiers in Iraq compared to 58 thousand in Vietnam. Over 6 million troops saw combat in SE Asia between 1958 and 1975 compared to less than 1 million in the entire theater of operations of Iraq and the Persian Gulf 1990-date....how can there be a comparison? There can't unless you fudge the numbers to fit your agenda.--MONGO 18:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, your appreciation of New York University surprises me: according to [53], it is among the best universities in the world... In any case, the political opinions of the professor in question do not invalidate the fact that the point was made (valid or not).

The comparison of the desertion rates in certainly interesting and valid; nevertheless, I think that inserting "voluntary" in the article without further development would not be very productive (you are welcome to suggest a development, naturally).

I size the opportunity to kindly remind you that assuming good faith and refraining from making asumptions about your interlocutors would in no doubt contribute to the pleasant and constructive atmosphere of this page. Thank you very much ! Rama 21:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why, because it would be a fact? The U.S. is a volunteer force....your insinuation that the current recruitment is geared toward involuntary force in any way similar to a draft indicates to me that you have no idea what it was like for those that suffered under a draft to go fight wars like Vietnam...additionally, the military has always been heavily populated by those of a lower income level due to the fact that it is a better alternative for some of them due to fewer other viable income opportunities which is, in their defense of course, beyond their control. Naturally one would expect there to be those that go awol, those that are completely dissatisfied and those that had their soon to end enlistments extended...but I see no mass exodus of American youth to Canada to escape the draft, or tremendous protests that completely shut down universities and government office buildings....your politics are making you want to make something out of nothing to support your ideology and it is unfair to this article and others of similar politically charged current issues.--MONGO 18:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, obviously the point was not clear. I will try again: the matter here is not whether the comparison between the war in Iraq and the war in Viet-Nam is accurate or not; it is about whether the comparison is often made. We have here examples of very numerous sites, article and proheminent intellectuals who make this comparison (I even remember a U.S. general mistakingly saying "Viet-Nam" instead of "Iraq" before the invasion occured, which is a very obvious indication that Viet-Nam was on everybody's mind). I am very open to the idea that the comparison is not accurate, but nevertheless, the fact that the comparison is regularly mentionned has its place in the article as much as, say, the accusation that Iraq possessed Mass Destruction Weapons. (and once again, my personal feelings and opinions are outside the scope of this discussion and have nothing to do with the fact that other people say such or such thing). Rama 19:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just thought of a succinct way of putting it, "volunteer army" does not mean a soldier necesarrily volunteered to support a specific war, it just means they volunteered to join the military, in many cases for money for college or other financial incentives. zen master T 22:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Baloney, do you really think that when they enlist the recruiters tell them that they can fight the war if the want to or a war of their choosing? That's like saying you signed up for a job as a truck driver but don't want to have to drive anywhere...everyoe knows they can be sent to anywhere in the world if the governemnt decides (or President) to do so ...so for those that enlist and then decide that they don't want to fight they can be dishonorable discharged and forfeit any compensations such as college tuition assistance...there is plenty of paperwork they complete to said effect when they enlist.--MONGO 18:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

whilst it may be correct military jargon its kinda misleading and therefore imo not NPOV Plugwash 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether the men whose contract was unilaterally prolongated by the US Army are volunteer by any definition of the word... Rama 23:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point, I think that given the information we have, stating "volunteer army" would be largely correct, yet inexact. Since the armies of most Western democracies are volunteer armies (at least of the troops which are sent to places where a war is taking place), I would advise simply outright droping the mention to avoid the hassle of the footnotes. Rama 23:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WhetherSaddam Hussein was a target or not

User:Ruy Lopez, I have taken the liberty to restore the parts which you have removed about the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein being a target. I understand that contradictory signals were sent by the U.S. governement, but the ultimatum however did take place, and Saddam Hussein was (later) stated as one of the primary reasons for the invasion (think of the (astromically poor-tasted) card playing game which was issued to U.S. soldiers).

Just like it is discussed in the section above, it is not necessarly the exactitude of an argument which makes its quotation revelant, but the fact that it was stated.

On the other hand, if you have a reference to George Bush saying that the invasion would take place whether Saddam Hussein would leave or not, you are of course welcome to insert this into the article. I hope you understand my motivation. Cheers ! Rama 06:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not editing, that's pushing a POV. It may not be important what they said, so long as they said it...in other words, no reason to bother editing here since we are not here to make a fair and accurate portrayal of the subject matter, only to report whatever people say, regardless of whether what they say has a basis in fact. When you state that "hope you understand my motivation"...it is obvious that your motivation is to make a ruin of this article with your propaganda. Continued argumentation that the exactitude of an argument is not necessary indicates further that you have a hopeless bias to creating an anarchistic article. How can you continue to display such a total lack of understanding of what constitutes encyclopedic and what constitutes good research and sound editing?--MONGO 09:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am afraid I do not quite understand your point. Do you mean that we should remove all allusions to Iraqi weapons of mass destructions because it turns out that the accusations made the the U.S. and U.K. goverments were baseless ? Rama 10:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it already says that in essence...thanks in no small part to the redundant lefty overtones of this entire article.--MONGO 08:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you see redundent sentences or tendencious formulations, you are of course welcome to edit them, or in doubt, report then on this talk page for further discussion. I would appreciate if you could elaborate, is this would be helpful to work this out. Rama 10:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

in other words, no reason to bother editing here since we are not here to make a fair and accurate portrayal of the subject matter, only to report whatever people say, regardless of whether what they say has a basis in fact.

That's partially right, MONGO. We are to report what the Bush administration (and Saddam Hussein's) said, attributing those statements to them, whether or not what they said made sense or was truthful. We should of course also state where the claims of either seem far-fetched or have been proven wrong by events. If the Bush administration advanced nonsensical and false reasons for invading Iraq, we should nevertheless report that it gave those reasons. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. That is an excuse to utilize a loophole in Wikipedia to report baseless information just to bolster a POV. The true purpose of this enterprise is to educate and to do so with a sense of neutrality and a desire to be as factual as possible.--MONGO 08:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will try to make myself as explicit as possible:

* Some statements have been made, are falsifiable and have been proven true.

* Some statements have been made, which are not falsifiable.

* Some statements have been made, are flasifiable and have been proven wrong.

Whether or not these statements have been proven right, wrong or not at all does not change anything to the fact that the statements were made. On the other hand, the mere fact that a statement be made, whether right or wrong, explains behaviours or indicates tendencies.

For instance, the statements around the alleged weapons of mass destruction have been proved to be a notorious red herring. They were plain wrong. Now, according to what I understand of your statements, we should remove all references about this (among other subjects) on the ground that the statements were baseless. You will of course understand that if we did this, the article would basically report the invasion with virtually now cause or explanation as to why it was initiated; in other words, the invasion would seem completely arbitrary. Naturally, we do not intend to suggest such a thing.

I have had the impression in the past that you held me for more left-wing than you are (an opinion which is purely yours, by the way); but if you consider the actual example of the "Saddam Hussein as a target" which is discussed in this section, you will note that my intervention tends to maintain another minor reason which has been presented by the U.S. government as a reason for the invasion. On this respect, I take, in this particular point, the position of an advocate of the U.S. government, a position which is not consistent with one which could be taken "to report baseless information just to bolster a POV". I therefore would appreciate if you could make an effort in the future to refrain from doubting my good faith, will for accuration and dedication to this project, "this enterprise (...) to educate and to do so with a sense of neutrality and a desire to be as factual as possible", as you say very well, unless you have very precise and specific criticism to address. It is not that these insinuations harm me in any we, but I fear that they weaken your position to the point where it would become difficult for you to have your remarks taken seriously ba other contributors.

I hope that you understand the general idea, and I look forward to having constructive discussions with you. Rama 10:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If accuracy was your goal, then why leave in the unsubstantiated remarks submitted by Ruy Lopez? Surely you noticed them....--MONGO 11:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did I not ask for references ? Rama 11:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you did revert him once and can wag off the remainder as not trying to get into an edit war. I took care of the misleading unreferenced information anyway...for now.--MONGO 11:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed one could think that this page has been the subject of more than its share of revert wars, still recently. Also, I would like to point to the fact that Ruy Lopez has rewordedd his point, in response to the concerns which I raised on this talk page. I would also have prefered to see a link, but I would like to underline that Ruy Lopez does not seem to be heading to a deadlock here. If someone could provide a link to back the statement attribuated to George Bush, the part woulf have to be taken into consideration. Rama 12:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the Azores, Bush said Iraq would be invaded whether Hussein left or not. He did suggest Hussein could leave, meaning I suppose that if he had fled to Syria or somewhere the US would not pursue him. This must not be confused with the idea that the US would not invade Iraq if he left because Bush said he would invade Iraq whether or not he left. He said this in the Azores, days before the invasion. Ruy Lopez 19:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• In the Azores, Bush said Iraq would be invaded whether Hussein left or not.

According to Noam Chomsky perhaps [54]

But, like usual, not according to fact at hand.

• Bush also raised again the possibility that Hussein could leave Iraq, although administration officials view that as highly unlikely. "Saddam Hussein can leave the country, if he's interested in peace," Bush said. "You see the decision is his to make."[www.palcus.org/comm/azoresummit.html ]

March 17, 2003: Bush tells Saddam to leave Iraq or face attack In a speech broadcast around the world, the president says the United States will attack Iraq unless Saddam Hussein flees his country within 48 hours. [55]

TDC 22:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have given a quick look at the full transcritpion of the discours [56], and it did not leave me with the impression that George Bush, nor any of his allies, are affirming their intention to invade Iraq whatever the issue of their ultimatum. Perhaps the point made by User:Ruy Lopez was an exagerated interpretation of what is said here, or originates in something absent from this document; but for the time being, I still have to see references for this statement attributed to Georges Bush. Rama 13:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(oh yes please, I'd like to see references for this statement attributed to George's Bush too!!)—Christiaan 13:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am now convinced by the reference [57] kindly provided by Christiaan:

Q Will U.S. troops enter Iraq, no matter what, at this point? In other words, even if Saddam Hussein, in some off chance, takes this ultimatum, leaves the country with his sons, will U.S. troops, nevertheless, enter Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President addressed that last night. And the President made clear that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave, beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time last night. The President also made plain to the American people that if Saddam were to leave, the American forces, coalition forces would still enter Iraq, hopefully this time peacefully, because Iraqi military would not be under orders to attack or fire back. And that way Iraq could be disarmed from possession of weapons of mass destruction.

(though it seems that neither Bush not the Azorres were parts of this particular affair) Rama 13:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Silverback is now trying to remove the text that explains the statement of intent by Ari Fleischer that the U.S. would invade Iraq no matter what. Invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land (a nation or territory, or part of that), often resulting in the invading power occupying the area, whether briefly or for a long period. We are not here to propagate the U.S. government's propaganda that "entering" Iraq "peacefully" would not be an invasion. The intent was clear, they would invade Iraq "no matter what". —Christiaan 21:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how the version suggested by Silverback is less accusatory than yours. The statement by Ari Fleischer is obviously stretching reality quite far, and I am confident that any reader coming through the passage will recognize this sort of proposal for an "Anschluss the Return" for what it is. My opinion is that the mess around this passge can now safely stop. Rama 22:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of being accusatory. It's simply that Silverback has tried to remove the word "invade", which I think dilutes the passage and panders to U.S. government propaganda. —Christiaan 22:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It one is going to justify the passage with the citations, it is the language of the citations not a POV interpretation of them which should be used. Rama's right, the actual language should suffice, if you have to spin it, you are admitting you other interpretations are perhaps more likely. That said, I think despite the ultimatum to Saddam, the administration realized that little would change with the Bathist/Sunni's still in power. It is a shame Saddam didn't yield his ill gotten country peaceably.--Silverback 22:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add spin, I removed it. —Christiaan 22:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We don't need another edit war on this. The language of the White House is far sufficiently eloquent, and the argument that we must not repeat propaganda is not valid; we have an article about LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii, do we not ? Propaganda should be exposed, providing it is marked as such (here, with quotation marks). Refusing to expose propaganda is not only a removal of information, it is collaborating with the propagandists. Rama 11:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say we mustn't "repeat" propaganda. I said we mustn't pander to it. I'm talking specifically about the removal of the word invade, of which Silverback has often pushed for in this article. —Christiaan 11:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

removing addition of U.S. propaganda

Christiaan, US "propoganda" are the sources being cite for these statements that are allegedly conflicting. Fleischer makes it clear that if Saddam complies the entry to Iraq may be peaceful and this does not conflict with Bush's statement.--Silverback 13:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, Silverback, we've already discussed this exhasutively. We're not calling the invasion of Iraq, the "entering of Iraq". —Christiaan 13:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have talken the liberty to change it back to the version suggested by Silverback, but with quotation marks. This has, I think, the advantages of

• Being probably a middle term solution (does anyone see a problem with it ? I'm open...)
• Giving a taste of what is in the document without making the formulation our own; also, it cuts down a little bit on the repetitions of the word "invasion", and illustrates the way that the notion of "invasion" is avoided by the White House
• Easing the use of one of my favourite functions: "Search in text" !

Cheers (and thanks to Christiaan for the nice documentation work here). Rama 13:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since we're writing about the invasion don't you think we should refer to it as that. Let's not panda to U.S. propaganda. "Coalition", "allies", "enter Iraq" are all carefully chosen terms of propaganda; a good reason for us to avoid them. —Christiaan 13:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, as can be seen here and there on several talk pages, I am certainly a strong advocate of caution when it comes to using specific terms coined by interested organisations (especially governments). But if they are properly quoted and marked as such, they can be a rather elegant way of solving the problem: no more paraphrases, no hassle as to what is what, etc: just say "the guy said that, used this term for say this, it's not what WE say and we let you judge". (Besides, the little jig that the poor spokeman is playing to avoid the use of the word "invasion" deserves to be seen; look at how he even forgets to stick to the "coallition forces", before he comes back to his senses...) Rama 13:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I can live with this. See my edit. —Christiaan 14:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your attitude. Rama 14:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dude, it's "pander". A panda is something else. Chamaeleon 23:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh, so it is. :) —Christiaan 23:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Name of war

In the United States and Unitd Kingdom, it seems to me that "Iraq War" is the predominant name for this war. Is anyone aware of how this war referred to outside of these countries? In Iraq especially.119 00:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurds, and Shia's refer to it as the great liberation.--MONGO 08:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be The Great Liberation? LOL. —Christiaan 09:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And your grammar is perfect...such as the use of "your" when you meant "you're" in this comment.....[[58]]. Yes, it is a liberation for the majority of the population in Iraq...--MONGO 16:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, ya got me Mongo, hope you feel better now? —Christiaan 20:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You messed up, again...it's MONGO, not Mongo...--MONGO 20:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Mongo, I'll try not to do it again. —Christiaan 20:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removal of text concerning internal US politics.

Tony (Sidaway), your edit of me in 2003 Invasion of Iraq is just you once again, pushing your left wing sentiment! I did nothing but create facts and you edited over it...it has the most left wing POV phrasing of any article in Wikipedia and all I did was attempt to make it more neutral...the U.S. house or representatives and the Senate did OVERWHELMINGLY vote in favor of granting the President the use of force in Iraq....the current phrasing of the article does make it look as though the Iraq Liberation Act is a Bush affair when it isn't...it was passed during the Clinton administration.....get your facts straight...--MONGO 09:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "The United States congress also passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" in October 1998", in the "Prelude" section of the article, makes the above point a little bit obscure to me.

Also, "OVERWHELMINGLY", in capitals, is not a well-defined mathematical notion; the percentage of favourable votes might be a good alternative. Rama 09:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trolling again eh, Rama? House voted 296 to 133 in favor of the use of force with 81 Democrats voting in favor and siding with the Republicans...Senate vote of 77-23 also in favor sounds pretty damn overwhelming to me. About 75% is an overwhelming vote in compared to most congressional....--MONGO 09:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trolling ? Could you elaborate ?

The statistics are nice, and precisely what I was calling for; why not use them as such in the article ? Rama 09:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I will in a day or two..don't want a violation of 3RR. Prove to me that you are neutral and put it there yourself.....2003 Invasion of Iraq.--MONGO 09:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was actually putting this in the article when I checked for references to back the numbers, and I found [59]; you will note the foot: "Adopted 296-133 by the House of Representatives October 10 and 77-23 by the Senate October 11, 2002." matches the number you cite, but not the date cited in the article ("The United States congress also passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" in October 1998"). The difference between the two texts [60] and [61], give me serious doubts as to whether these are the same act: I quote, in particular : " SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'." compared to "SHORT TITLE: This joint resolution may be cited as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. ". A little sorting and precising is likely in order here. Rama 10:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine...you are confused...I never said that the vote 296-133 and 77-23 were for anything other than the congressional vote for the "invasion" of Iraq, passed in 2002...they are two seperate points...point one...the Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998, while Clinton was still President and I objected to the previous use of text in the article as it referred to the act in a manner which seemed to make the reader think that Bush had the act passed, even though it was passed under Clinton. Point two was a piece of legislation, passed overwhelmingly by the congress in 2002 which authorized Bush to use force in Iraq to support the previous Iraq Liberation Act. This second legislation passed by the vote of 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate in favor of the use of force against Iraq.--MONGO 10:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry, the fact that the two papers were subjects of changes in this edit confused me. Now we have the name of the resolution, reference to the article and result of the vote (though, to be fair, just naming and linking to the appropriate article seems sufficent to me, since the result of the vote is mentioned in the head of the said article, but whatever). Rama 12:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, your edit seemed to be an attempt to score a point against some of your fellow Americans with whom you appear to have picked an argument, whereas RAMA and I are Europeans, yet you falsely accuse me of pushing leftwing views by excluding your edit. I remind you that this is an article about the invasion of a country, not the internal politics of the United States. If you want an article about political maneuvering in the USA over Iraq foreign policy, please do write one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No...this article is about the "invasion" of Iraq and my edit was not an attempt to discuss internal U.S. politics, especially since the "invasion" was performed by a coalition with the U.S. leading that coalition. I simply tried to edit out left wing bias in an effort to find neutrality here...you know, the U.K. is there too, Tony...remember what your pal Bush said...America has no truer friend than Great Britian...should we put in the issues in the Parliment to balance things out?--MONGO 11:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how adding in a reference to internal US politics can be said to balance anything, or indeed what left wing bias you might have been trying to "edit out" by adding irrelevant detail. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All I did was contribute facts and try to make neutral the "internal politics" already in the article...what the heck are you talking about? Look at the edit again...[[62]]...what are you talking about...there already is a discussion with internal politics in place.--MONGO 14:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my view, probably a mistake, because it invited your politically motivated sniping. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was a mistake, because you are a leftist and your motivation is to ensure that articles like this only have your point of view.--MONGO 20:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been somewhat following this page (not closely) and frankly I'd rather not slog through all of the above, but I've been noticing what seems to be an odd argument going on, partly here on the talk page and partly through edit warring. Normally, when we write about a war, we try to give the background of the events (political, economic, diplomatic, etc.) that could usually be seen as leading to it. Otherwise, one is just left with military history and no context.

It seems clear to me that U.S. politics are highly relevant to the Iraq War. While the invasion was nominally executed by a coalition, and certainly the UK military roel and the political/dioplomatic role of several other participants was significant, has any commentator seriously argued that this war would have occurred without U.S. leadership? That if (for example) Bush had taken a position akin to that of the French, the UK would have cobbled together a coalition and led an invasion? I can't imagine it. The confrontational U.S. political stance at all times since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, under three presidents from two parties, is relevant background to this war, as relevant as the 1980s behaviors by Iraq that lent some credence to the claims of WMDs. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Of course Some particular allusions to US politics are revelant. Mentionning a legal text which gives the President of the USA authority to agress another country is trivially relevant on the page dealing with the invasion of the said country. What is not relevant is the insertion of "overwelmingly" in the sentence "the House voted the text".

It is

* a petty attempt to force a positive conotation into the mind of the reader,

* It is obviously put there largely over the assumption that the reader will be a citizen of the USA (which in not necessarly the case. For instance, Tony is not a citizen os the USA; I am not a citizen of the USA; etc...)

* It is vague and imprecise (compare to giving the number of votings)

* It is very much on the verge of being off-topic and redundant, since the article which deals about the text in question,linked here, mentions the result of the vote in its first paragraph.

To finish, I would like to ask MONGO whether if he has any intention at all to stop insulting his fellow editors, or whether he could at least find creative and amusing ways to do so ? I am tired and bored of reading "you are a leftist" in half his comments, especially when the consit exclusively of this. I won't go as far as to suggest that "left" and "right" are relative and that you could as well say "I am Right-wing", but but the shake of conciseness, could you at least make it, say, "YAAL", for short ? (see the improvement in terms of information density over "Yes it was a mistake, because you are a leftist and your motivation is to ensure that articles like this only have your point of view.") Rama 06:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And the phrasing that " In my view, probably a mistake, because it invited your politically motivated sniping" is supposed to be full of "information density"? Once again, I was precise and will not parrot the issue...my insertion of the information was not in any way an attempt to provoke, push a POV and or to do anything other than to address what I know is not a balanced treatment of the subject matter...where in the heck Sidaway gets a notion that I was attempting to discuss internal U.S. politics when the issue was already discussed is beyond me....the predisposition is to assume that my intent, in that I am oftentimes on the opposite side of the issue from those that are politically to the left of center, is to believe that my intentions here are to push my POV...baloney! I see little effort that can be made to eliminate the NPOV tag on this article if I can't put one small item of FACT in here that simply balances an issue that is already stated. The fact is that the U.S. Congress did pass by over a 75% the authorization to use force in Iraq in 2002, which is a mandate and acts to enforce the previous Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, this issue is relevent, it is not solely an internal U.S. issue in light of the fact that it affected the decisions, whether you like it or not, made by leaders and governments of other countries, and in some way or another affected their decisions to either go to war or to not go to war. Regardless, my main effort was to ensure that the fact that the Iraq Liberation Act was passed during the previous administration which was essentially omitted.--MONGO 08:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the way to do it is put a "(1998)" right after the name of the said text. Rama 08:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Rama. The attempts to introduce point-scoring against perceived "leftists" is tiresome and somewhat ignores the fact that non-US people couldn't give a rat's ass care less which administration fostered an act that, US-people believe, authorizes the invasion of a country. Such authorization is, by treaty, outside the remit of Congress, so the point is moot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on any particular adjective, just on the fact that pretty much all U.S. or UK legislation threatening Iraq in the 1990s or later is probably relevant here. And I would suggest that MONGO and Tony could both be a lot more civil on this page. Part of why I don't find myself wanting to read through all of this is that more of it communicates I'm really angry and I don't respect you than it communicates anything about the subject ostensibly at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Me and Tony and have locked horns a few times here on Wikipedia but I fail to see where Tony lacks civility on this page Jmabel. —Christiaan 09:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have struck out a use of the vernacular that could have given a false impression of anger, and replaced it with a phrase that correctly conveys indifference to the vagaries of internal politics. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, yet it fails to explain why there is objection to facts inserted into a section which already discusses, as you put it, "internal politics".--MONGO 11:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe what Mongo is trying to express is that while George W. Bush certainly had taken the more confrontational actions here as opposed to the previous administration, he wants to make it clear to readers not as absorbed with the Iraq issue as American readers would be, that this lengthy escalation was not George W. Bush's creation. Precedent had been set for military action by Wm. Clinton, in going to Congress in 1998 he established regime change in Iraq as formal US policy. It might be further noted that the votes in Congress and House for OIF in 2002, were by a larger margin across partisan lines in favor for action, than a similar vote George W's father had for Desert Storm One. Tony I have to disagree when you say it lacks importance and you say the non-US world doesn't care about the internal politics here. (and add that somehow this action goes outside the scope of congress, which really isn't true at all) To say that, BTW, would leave me asking you why they are voting on something outside their scope? :-) What is troublesome is that it leaves for posterity the view that this was entirely George Bush's war- I can give you quotes and dates of the following Democrats claiming in speeches,or written statements, Saddam having WMD: In 1998, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry,in 2001- John McCain, Joe Lieberman- and in 2002, Al Gore, (several times!)Robert Byrd, John Kerry again- and would you believe Ted Kennedy? In fact Al Gore on September 23, 2002, said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." as well as "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." While this article is excellent I still have the distinct impression this is portrayed as "George W. Bush's War". To a world which can sometimes be as cruel as to stoop to belittling the man for a speech impediment, I'm afraid this removes legitimacy of the endorsement of the majority of the American people - which, despite some misgivings since, in March 2003 had the polls at nearly 80% in favor, 15% against, and 5% unknown.

John San Diego 0400 April 19 2005

parallels to Vietnam

Tony, your cite for parallels to Vietnam, only makes a cautionary note about post election optimism, with that optimism as virtually the only parallel. Hardly relevant to this invasion article. Other coutries have also had optimism after elections, even if things do turn sour in Iraq, there will probably be better post election parallels than Vietnam, perhaps Yugoslavia? In any case, those parallels will probably be more appropriate for the articles on the post invasion phases. --Silverback 14:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While the statement does seem unclear and located in the wrong part of the article, I wouldn't worry too much about it. The link goes to Counterpunch, and I'm sure pretty much everybody who follows the link will either know what Counterpunch is or figure it out pretty quickly. Anyway, I guess it's still worth correcting if you're a perfectionist, but as I say not too critical an issue (IMO). --Daniel11 14:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: the statement, which I did not writer, is that some critics have compared the current situation to Vietnam. The link adequately supports the fact that critics have indeed done that. I draw no comparisons to Vietnam, I simply supported a claim that this had been done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was the aspect that seemed inappropriate. It looked like the statement was left over from an earlier debate. This article is not about the "current" situation, but about a past situation. I expected any reinstatement of the point would reference critics who in the past while the invasion was going on, compared it to Vietnam, based on conditions that existed at that time. --Silverback 17:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the sentence was (and is) referring to post-May 1 events, not while the invasion was going on. It actually says so explicitly. The same word, "quagmire", still hangs on the critics' lips. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Point made is mainly that regardless of how biased a source we can find, we can find almost anything to support a predisposition if we wish to dwelve into the absurd...as we have discussed ad nauseum in the past, I can find plenty of "proof" or "opinion" in published form that says that Bigfoot is real or came here on a spaceship etc. especially from what are well know to be less than credible sources that specialize in sensationalistic reporting. I am chastized for inserting a fact while others believe that it is encyclopedic to insert an opinion from a well known biased source of information...this makes no sense to me. I call this "fishing for evidence" to support a predisposition and is done only from a desire to bolster an agenda...it could be here for no other reason.--MONGO 18:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, you realise of course that we do have an article about Bigfoot ? Rama 19:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes Rama, I do..but do we deliberately use biased sources as "evidence" in that article...no.--MONGO 21:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As evidence that some people talk about Bigfoot , yes, we certainly do. Exactly the same way that we intend the demonstrate that some people compare Iraq to Viet-Nam, not that Iraq is comparable to Viet-Nam. Rama 22:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the comparison is a poor one, then I believe that as people attempting to create a neutral article on the events, then we are acting as poor messengers when we decide to incorporate decidedly unneutral opinions...that is pushing a POV...period.--MONGO 08:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have been discussing this for some time. I have already said that accirding to this kind of argument, we should also remove all mentions of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, since the references to that were also arguably "poor" and "POV". Yet we do incorporate them, because they were an important leitmotiv in the discussions about the war in Iraq. Similarly, comparisons to Viet-Nam are an important leitmotiv when speaking about Iraq (even US generals keep making the comparison).

No, I would solemny invite you for the n-th time to stop doubting the honest motivations and good faith of your fellow editors. Your constant reference to "POV pushing this", "unneutral that" without ever being able to point anything concrete, your constant ignoring of my explanations of this particular topic, are disturbing th normal process of the improvement of this article. If you think that you can instile doubt in the reliability of the article or in the honesty of other contributors simply by repeating "POV" often enough, you are mistaken. Rama 08:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to report significant opinions, preferably by attributing them to prominent spokespersons. MONGO repeatedly tries to prevent Wikipedia from reporting significant opinions with which he disagrees. He doesn't try to change the general policy; he just snipes away at particular instances and tries to get articles to violate the policy, with his proposed violations almost always favoring the right wing. He has exhibited this pattern quite prominently in his editing of the George W. Bush article. It appears to me to be a waste of time to argue with him on the basis of what the current NPOV policy actually says. He simply doesn't agree with that policy, or at least he doesn't agree with its fair and uniform application. JamesMLane 16:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see. IN other words, I can expect you to be neutral in articles that have a strong predisposition to be polarizied from you, especially when their user page states they are hostile to the right wing....give me a break buddy. Furthermore, your constant insinuation that I am the one that is inflexible is ridiculous. I can cite numerous times in a number of articles that I have either conceded to the consensus or have allowed a passge to remain so long as I went on the record as having disputed it...and allowed others an opportunity to also dispute what the left wing liberals like to protect as benchmarks.--MONGO 12:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never said I was neutral, so your refutation of that supposed claim is an example of the straw man technique. None of us is completely neutral. What you have a right to expect is not that I'll be neutral, but that my edits will conform to the neutrality policy. Nor do I think I've insinuated that you're inflexible. What I've said is that your arguments about specific edits are not consistent with Wikipedia's policy about reporting notable opinions. In your response here, you've again avoided that issue. I stand by my statement. JamesMLane 13:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I have spoken the actual statistics which show that clearly anyone that is attempting to equate the situation in Iraq with that in Vietnam is misguided....I am not going to repeat them here....that the parrallels have been made are obvious, but they are done in an effort to distort and to help to bolster their antiwar, anitBush agenda...sure some General says "this is like Vietnam"...of course it is, it is war...but that doesn't mean that it really is comparable....we can all see that based on the statistics...I haven't edited out again, so stop with your accusations that I try to censor, or try to only report or want to see as positives...but just curious??? How does the left support the continued enfranchishment of Saddam? Does the left offer anytthing of hope that his removal from power could have been done politically and or if that were to be possible...that the power vacuum that would result would have produced more stability for the people of Iraq???? Why are those of the left so quick to verbally want to fight for human rights the last to grab a gun to do so...a situation which is necessary if there is a gun keeping you from enjoying basic freedoms....Let me make this clear...we have 20 times more justification for being in Iraq than we did of ever have being in Vietnam.--MONGO 19:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Counterpunch is neither the best nor the worst citation I could imagine for pointing this out. Something less tendentious would probably be better. Multiple citations of analogies would probably be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

National Enquirer or similar tabloidish material would be better...at least they may be funny in their preposterousness.--MONGO 21:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I judge the quality of the "source" for articles on Counterpunch.org by who wrote the article, just recently there was an article from Ralph Nadar quoting Robert Novak's recent article that the U.S. will likely begin withdrawing from Iraq this year. Also, it's convenient to try to bash the quality of the source when the article is for example written by a fellow professor of Ward Churchill's at the U of CO (that is what makes the citation relevant, not the fact the article appeared on counterpunch.org), on the ward churchill talk page someone tried repeatedly to bash counterpunch.org as a source, I kept pointing out the article was written entirely by a colleague of Churchill's (they ignored this point). zen master T 22:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is beside the point. The statement was that opponents of the Iraqi occupation had invoked Iraq. Predictably enough, they had. This is a high quality source for the fact that war opponents invoke Vietnam. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is a high quality source.--MONGO 08:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I'm not sure I should take you seriously on saying that you view Counterpunch as less of a source than the National Enquirer, but, frankly, the main thing statements like that do is reduce your own credibility as a judge of sources. You seem to be saying, in effect, "I don't share their politics, so they can't be worth citing". You might as well just say, "hi, I'm not here to work on making this article accurate, I'm here to steer it as close to my own views as possible." That's not what this is supposed to be about. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, you couldn't be more mistaken. Naturally, National Enquirer is a joke. Counterpunch has a liberal tilt overall. Your comment has no material to add other than to be construed as a personal attack on me. I see nothing of substance in your comment that discusses whether the current statements in the article comparing Vietnam to Iraq are to be allowed or to be eliminated...other than to provoke and to insult, what purpose does your comment have?--MONGO 08:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My comment was about your rhetoric, which was (presumably deliberately) provocative. (If it wasn't deliberate, then go back and re-read what you wrote.) If you sling mud, expect to get some on your own clothes. I'd be more than glad to ratchet this down, but not unilaterally.

BTW, Counterpunch is many things, but it is certainly not "liberal", except in a very broad sense of the word where virtually all Americans are "liberal". It is leftist, well to the left of anyone who would typically be called a liberal, and it is roughly as critical of liberals as it is of conservatives. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The question of whether or not Counterpunch is liberal is beside the point. Counterpunch contains articles in which parallels are drawn with Vietnam, therefore it is an unimpeachable source of support for a Wikipedia statement reporting that some commentators have compared the post-Iraq invasion situation to Vietnam. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How short our memories are. Just 3 years ago the war in Afghanistan prompted hundreds of comparisons to Vietnam as well. Between October 1, 2001, and October 1, 2002, the New York Times ran nearly 300 articles with the words Vietnam and Afghanistan in them. On day 24 of the Afghan campaign, Times's muckety-muck R. W. Apple revived the Q-word — which to liberals can only mean Vietnam — in a thumb-sucker titled "A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam."

All of this talk of Iraq being like Vietnam is just another horseshit scare tactic.

I am sorry but Iraqi is not Vietnam. The enemy in Iraq overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims and they're largely confined to the Iron Triangle defined by the Baghdad suburbs in the south, Tikrit in the north, and Ramadi and Fallujah to the west, in Vietnam the. They are not drawn from a wide swath of Iraq’s population and if they tried to mingle among the peoples they oppressed for 40 years, the Kurds and Turkomens in the north and the Shiites in the south, they wouldn't last a New York minute.

They don't fight to unify their homeland under communist tyranny, but to regain a brutal minority's power over an enslaved majority. They were the privileged class under Saddam Hussein and they don't want to let go of the BMWs, the mansions and the other perks. They have no Ho Chi Minh to put a kindly and sympathetic face on their murderous designs. They don't have a China or a Soviet Union to pump in weapons and ammunition and carry the ball for them in the United Nations and internationally. They don't have the sanctuaries that afforded easy shelter and protection for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. Not even Iran wants to be caught providing shelter for these people.

So, what then are the parallels?

Well, leftists sure seem to love the terrorists, I mean “resistance”, in Iraq. I see demonstrators marching for these thugs, just like in Vietnam.

Vietnam is still a fond memory for lefties. For them it was a great "victory," against the boogeyman of US imperialism, although the U.S. defeat resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese by execution and re-education. Far from feeling remorse for their collaboration in this bloodbath, they've been eagerly awaiting a rerun ever since.

But if we want to have this in the article, I will make sure to point out the hundreds of differences between the two. TDC 18:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Of course you miss the point that reporting that the comparison has been made is wholly different from making the comparison. —Christiaan 20:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, did you cry when my boys blew Uday and Qusay away? TDC 19:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh whosa poor little baby? Having trouble staying on topic I see today. —Christiaan 21:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, so long as the fact that there was a comparisom helps to bolster the lefty leanings of this article it is easy to apply that rule for you...doubtful that it would be so allowed if the comparisom was made to show the opposite.--MONGO 18:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at *who* makes the Vietnam comparison in the article cited? "Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit." This isn't just some random leftie, it's someone with experience in US involvement in Southeast Asia. I'm not arguing that he's right, only that his is a significant voice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am most certainly not arguing that the material not be included. I am arguing that if the material is to be included, there is more than enough material from non-Philip-Agee-wannabes that completely refutes is. Christison may have spent alot of time in the CIA, but that does not make him any less of a tard. TDC 19:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

My addition of John McCain's speech balanced that and is just as significant.--MONGO 19:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't know why TDC is still making an issue of it. We're not here to argue whether Christison or McCain is right. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because he wants to and has that right. But again, I see that the need to constantly find either negative or positive items on a situation to bolster a political agenda ends up making the articles look like mudslinging contests and dwelve into areas of the subject that are so ephemeral that they add nothing of substance to the main focus of the subject.--MONGO 12:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, your comments have degenerated into repeated accusations of bad faith against those who won't permit you to do the edits you want to do or who do edits you don't want them to do. Please stop. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And this, as you have just stated adds nothing new either.--MONGO 19:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merging

Following articles and more should be merged. They all talk about the same material. Some are just POV oriented. This is NOT your political playground. I will be moving material around. I need HELP. I dont care what your problems are regarding the matter. I am not happy with the Invasion Personaly, however this does not mean we can start political debates. Everyone has their views regarding the thing. I dont want to hear it. Please focus on merging thse 10s of articles litterting wikipedia. If you are Pro Bush Anti bush pro america anti america, or what ever you are last thing you want is the other Parties views be published. We can merge these articles into 2-4 articles. I am listing the articles that should be merged: --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Actual effects of invading Iraq
• Predicted effects of invading Iraq
• Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq
• Global protests against war on Iraq
• Popular opposition to war on Iraq
• The UN Security Council and the Iraq war
• Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq
• American popular opinion of invasion of Iraq
• American government position on invasion of Iraq
• Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Also items in:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2003_Iraq_conflict

I know I am being drastic but the category desperately requires SIGNIFICANT improvement at once. There are articles related that are not in the Article category tree. I listed some. There is more. Do not clutter my wikipedia with your personal conflicts between each other. You are welcome to have civil discussions, I prefer E-mail or some other median Each article has .5 meg of archive material. All talking about the same thing. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) I didnt bother checking this article before, what the heck were admins doing? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with u that there is a lot of repatition, but i disagree that all these pages can be merged into one with out significant loss of information. The Global protests against war on Iraq for instance were/are a significant historical event in their own right (epsciallt feb 15th, the anervercery of which was featured on the main page anvercercy bit). Please discuse stuff before u start doing anything to drastic.--JK the unwise 14:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to take some attention. We need to merge anti-pro iraq war and official foverment view into one article. Ill be creating an article under my user page to show you guys what I am doing. IF you havent noticed I did not touch the articles. Wikipedia is very slow at the moment however. Opinions and facts should definately be seperate. Article should not need a {{disputed}} tag when we are done. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll help. 119 00:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see significant duplication. If you look at Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq you'll see that it's essentially an umbrella page, listing several related articles with a capsule description of the scope of each one. You say, "Everyone has their views regarding the thing. I dont want to hear it." Which people hold which views, and what reasons they advance, and how they acted on those views, are all encyclopedic facts. If you don't want to hear it, don't read the articles. Reporting POVs is not POV. Any POV problems with a specific article should be addressed by editing that article, not by merging. JamesMLane 04:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Need for an overview article?

Perhaps this 2003 Invasion of Iraq article should become a subpage of a wider "U.S.-Iraq War" or similar article which covers the lead-up, invasion, and occupation (Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005? 119 00:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old evidence of massive pro-war psychological propaganda operation

I've never heard of this website before but it was linked from a more reputable site and it appears to have a summary of a 2003 report by a retired air force Colonel that documents the psychological propaganda operations used to trick the U.S. and British publics into support for the 2003 Iraq war here. How much of this should be put into this or other relevant articles? I will look for corroborating URLs. Much of this information seems new to me but the date give is 2003. zen master T 06:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some tidbits include (bolding is my emphasis):

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress, and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein.

The multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White House and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment "irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal".

Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains. Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty, democracy receives collateral damage." For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic psychological operations pushed their way into the important process of informing the peoples of our two democracies".

The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the plan. But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down, Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred. "If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have".

Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill. According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the American and British people."

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of the invasion. Every one of these stories was false.

Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a very small part of the strategic influence, information operations and marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic." The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil. Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.

The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those attacks.

The means for pushing the message involved: saturating the media with stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle; managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use information to attack and punish critics.

Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without question. Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the "anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to attack Iraq.

In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden letters.

It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military installation. The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more prominent White House "announcement." As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax plot continued to persist. Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda campaign. "If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around."

For now, this could be featured only aither as "some people say...", either in "external links". If the most proeminent statements of the page can be confirmed indedently, then perhaps they would be topical in something like rationals for the Iraq War or something like this (there is an article out there with a similar name). Rama 07:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Serious consequences 2

MONGO, you say that

U.S. and U.K. argued for 8 weeks with France about the terminology of "serious consequences"

This picture is very innexact. Neither France, nor Russia, not China, nor the USA, nor the UK, said that the "serious consequences" meant an automatic approval for a war. Official from the USA and UK specifically stated the opposite, as is said in this very article:

The language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences", which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to depose the government. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers", no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council

Since no resolution was specifically passed afterward,which autorised an aggression against Iraq, the sentence "It began without the explicit backing of the United Nations Security Council" is perfectly accurate, and is a better rendering than "The matter caused heated debate in the Security Council, and there is great disagreement about whether the phrase 'serious consequences'(SC resoultion 1441) was an authorization for war or not." If you can provide specific statements made by officials of any member of the Security Council which say, in the context of the UN, that Resolution 1441 autorises war, you are welcome to contribute them. However, in the absance of such references, the latter version is much less accurate than the first one. Rama 09:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama...you are so wrong...there was a big debate on this issue...perhaps changing the wording is fine but altering the message is not...nothing in the edit I made says that the UN security council did agree that the terminology for "serious consequences" gave explicit backing for an act of war..the phrase does, however attempt to show that there has been an ongoing debate about the terminology essentially outside of the confines of the UN by governments etc....regardless...the wiki article itself on the resolution discusses the arguments between primarily France/Russia and the U.S./U.K. on this wording...UN Security Council Resolution 1441--MONGO 09:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that you have misread the article. it says that there were 8 weeks of discussion about what would be in the resolution, before it was passed. Not 8 weeks of discussions as to what interpretation should be given to the resolution, once it was passed. The version which you promote is very misleading. Rama 09:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me look at it..I will work to make it NPOV--MONGO 09:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your dedication, but I think that the original version is the best that I have seen for now. If you like, you might want to linkify the original version to the relevant article, and add comments on further developments there. But retrospective attempts by people who are not even government officials to a posteriori justify something does not belong to the lead section of this article. Rama 09:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then...my last edit before the child reverted was fair and neutral...--MONGO 10:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit by 66.65.117.165

You got there first Rama. I was simply going to add the results: human rights abuses and an increase in terrorism. But I guess you're right, such aspects were not "targets".

I don't think that the results can be taken as a criteria for the reasons for a war; one can have objectives and fail.

My revert was motivated by the fact that neither "human rights abuses" nor "terrorism" were officially presented as reasons for the planned invasion of Iraq -- though they wre indeed stated retrospectively by US officials, and of course, largely commented upon by the media. But saying that they were reasons for the "intervention" is extremely inexact. Rama 23:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant. —Christiaan 00:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Baloney...it was reported as one of the reasons for waging war...read our own article on said situation...Human rights in Saddam's Iraq.--MONGO 07:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By whom ?

The diferent trends of thoughts about the war are discussed later on in the article, but the summary box and first paragraphs include only official positions and are well so.

Again, if you can provide citations of officials staing before the Security Counci of the UN that the invasion would be motivated by these considerations, you are welcome to provide them, and I will be curious. But it is important to clearly distinguish between the official stance of the US government and the innumerous reports, comments and marketing event aimed at the US or world public opinions, which are something interesting and relevant, but different. For instance, neo-conservative media and think-tanks might influence or motivate US policies, but they are not the ones who officially define it, this is for ambassadors, ministers and heds of states to do. Rama 08:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why would they have to be before the security council? Those would only be the reasons that diplomats thought might result in security council support for the war. Given the members of the security council, it would be less than diplomatic to bring up human rights violations, they might feel threatened.--Silverback 08:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. And the policiy of a country is definied by its officials (beore the Security Council, or in other official speaches). Rama 09:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Search this site for "human rights" [63]. Evidently Powell was undiplomatic, because he brought it up, although briefly and with apparent trepidation.--Silverback 09:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Listen, if you have something concrete to prove that the official policy of the United States of America stated something more than weapon concerns, please provide documentation. I am not going to waste my time arguing over nothing. Rama 09:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Powell's speech was before the UN, before the liberation. It is exactly what you asked for. Are you changing the standard?--Silverback 09:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let us take the example of the discourse of Bush, Aznar and Blair in the Azores [64]; this very "shameless" discourse, where main actors of the "coallition of the Willing" "show their cards" (to repeat the metophore used by Bush), so we can safely assume that they are saying most of what they have on their mind, without bothering much about the Security Council of the United Nations.

• For the Human Rights, you note that they mention "Human Rights" en passant, but only to mention that they will enforce them when they occupy Iraq (probably, as you mentioned, in a way as not to irritate the numerous partners and allies of the United States who would be at odds with the concept). But the very obvious absence of this item tends to nuance the argument gravely.
• For "terrorism", there are of course a number of instances, but they are very vague and it is difficult to tell the allusions to supposed links to Al Qaida-style organisation (or meta-organisation), or "state terrorism".

Do, overall, I am mitigated. One who would like to see these items present or abstent from the article will see arguments for either way. I don't have a pre-constructed opinion on this, but reading by the texts, I find the points vague and imprecise. What I am quite certain of is that

• right-wing looneys will love to point at these to justify a posteriory an illegal and ultimately pointless aggression (I mean, to defend the invasion against accusations of pointlessness. I do not take these statements as my own)
• left-wing looneys will love to point at these to mention that the situation of Human Rights has not significantly changed under US occupation, and that the connections to Al-Qaida has proved to be forgeries or gross errors.

I say this to suggest extra caution since this items, on top of being unclear and debatable, are an obvious playground for trolls. Good luck with the "alleged"/"allegedly" too... Rama 13:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hence the discussion and the reason for the POV tag onj this article. I could care less for the most part as to what goes in the target box, but do think that this should be in the body of the text. It would be a lie to suggest that the situation involving human rights abuses was NOT one of the official reasons for the "invasion"...perhaps it wasn't stated in so many words, but it certainly was well documented by many well regarded organizations ranging from Amnesty International to the International Red Cross, hardly right wing looneys....Powells speech and repeated commentary leading up to the "invasion" would mention human rights abuses..ie: gassed the Kurds, murder and genocide of political opponents (including relatives)...these were words constantly used by Powell, Bush et al.--MONGO 18:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Powell speech has a description of the al Qaeda/Iraq links as well, notably Zarqawi.--Silverback 13:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Cybercast New Service"

The recently cited Cybercast New Service: I'm guessing this should be "News Service". I've never heard of it. Is it at all a credible source? It seems remarkable if they have a credible claim of Iraqi possession of WMDs and it has remained as such a minor report, given the controversy there had been over the question, and the even the U.S. gov't does not claim, even now, to have found any credible evidence of such. In short, is there anything here solid enough to belong in an encyclopedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The only part of the cited article that would really be new information would be the purchase of the mustard gas and anthrax. The rest is consistent with what was already known. I doubt a document would be good enough evidence to make much of a splash. There has been a lot of denial that the chemical shell containing a binary nerve agent that was found constituted WMD, so would a vial of mustard gas, or anthrax be "enough" to be considered a find of WMD?--Silverback 05:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The value of the Cybercast "exclusive" is also diminished by their failure to post copies of all the documents and their translations, only the first page was posted. Evidently, some of the documents are signed. Good journalism would involve tracking down the signatories and/or validating their signatures by comparison with other documents.--Silverback 05:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do you think there is any value to this addition to the article? I think not, and would like to revert it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would have no objection to either it being deleted or counterpoints added about the lack of full disclosure, and cooberating evidence.--Silverback 06:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. They did actually eventually post the rest of the documents online, but there still has been no discussion of these documents in any mainstream media source that I am aware of. They only seem to be acknowledged by bloggers, some of whom doubt their authenticity. Until someone actually reads what the documents say and reaches a conclusion independent of cnsnews, I don't think the claim should remain in wikipedia. --csloat 09:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cybercast is a very small independent. I doubt whether they have the resources to check this document, and none of the other news sources are touching it with a bargepole. At the current stage, it's as if we just gave Matt Drudge a live feed to a sidebar in our articles. Let's leave it unless and until it passes the fact-checking of one of the main players. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's very ambiguous. Can I presume "leave it" means "leave it out", not "leave it in"? That seems to fit with the rest of what you are saying and with the apparent consensus. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I meant "leave it out." I removed it myself, then someone restored it with better wording, which I then edited. I'd rather not have it at all because it has a bad smell. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is not necessary, everthing except the mustard gas and anthrax, has better sources available, such as Powells speech to the UN Security Council. The WMD, is the only part that seems new, and we need more to hang a hat on.--Silverback 21:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm not deeply involved in this article but:

• Why were the more recent casualty figures reverted to older ones?
• Why was the BBC's "day by day" link dropped?

Jmabel | Talk 06:35, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Coming Late to the Edit War

Can someone please explain the reversions that keep happening on this page? I'm reading through them and some seem to be questions of bias, whereas much of it seems to be about basic facts and figures. The latter should be easily confirmed. Can we do this? I don't think the revert war is productive from either side. --csloat 20:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverts by Rama and Sidaway

I state that reversion to a different edition than the one I postulate is helping to ensure that the neutrality tag remains. I will elaborate:

• Wishing to state "without explicit backing of UN Security Council" sounds POV. The statement is true but also misleading...it makes it look as though there was zero rational or justification to liberate Iraq through force...many have argued that resolutions passed by the UN that Iraq failed to comply with since the end of the Persian Gulf War of 1991 gave credence to the liberation....regardless, the details of the legalities are discussed later and need not be in the introduction...I simply stated that the event occurred without saying whether it was right or wrong, whereby your edition takes a stand.
• No one calls the period since the fall of Baghdad the "post invasion period"...at least not anyone in a position of authority...it is more properly worded as period of occupation.
• The U.S. and other countries have repeatedly called the liberation force as the coalition of the willing...I am not sure why this was changed by you.
• That the Iraqi forces were poorly equipped is more accurate than underequipped...they had plenty of tanks, guns, and ammunition...it was just in a bad state of repair and or outdated in it's sophistication compared to coalition equipment.
• Relations after the 1991 war did remain low, especially betwen the U.S./U.K. and Iraq...both countries supported the northern and southern no fly zones afterall....attempting to continue to make it look as though only the U.S. had a beef with Saddam is misleading...what else explains a dozen resolutions passed in the UN against Saddam since the end of the 1990?
• I changed "act" to what it is: Iraq Liberation Act because it was confusing to not have it this way.....
• The northern and southern no fly zones were definitely a response to Saddams genocide (gassing!!!!!) of the Kurds in the north and supression of the Shite uprising in the south....but I agree that it was also done to ensure control of the bulk of Iraqi airspace which was also done due to Saddams failure to comply with UN resolutions....
• John McCain did make his commentary about Iraq not being like Vietnam to the Senate...your wording makes it look like it was just a comment made to almost anyone....--MONGO 19:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are using subjective language, such as "liberation". --[IrishRover]

Almost all major news organisations use the phrase "post invasion" --[IrishRover]

You should put "no-fly zones" in brackets as they have no specific UN backing. --[IrishRover]

Because "coalition of the willing" is a manufactured phrase. You could try a "coalition of armed forces from a number of countries" to be more accurate and assist those to whom English is a foreign language. --[IrishRover]

You could say an act known as the "Iraq Liberation Act" to be more precise and neutral. --[IrishRover]

Which? "definately" a response, or merely "was also done to ensure control". --[IrishRover]

Time stamp yourself correct or be gone...do not break up the argument answer each issue so that this whole discussion reads easier by surmising after my comments please.--MONGO 20:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Without explicit backing" is better than the other option you have provided. The countries that voted have stated publically they did not authorize war. "coalition of the willing" is hardly common usage. The no-fly zones were to protect Kurds and Shias from reprisals from Saddam's regime for revolting after the first gulf war. I think critics' comparisons to Vietnam are more about the usage of propaganda in support of the war than being a statement that the situation on the ground is exactly the same. zen master T 19:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda in support of the war...who are you trying to fool...and I suppose that the article you postulate is neutral...not hardly.--MONGO 20:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand, the critics comparing Iraq to Vietnam are just noting the similarities in the propaganda used to support the war. Lying to the public about WMDs, involvement in 9/11, involvement with Al Qaeda, etc. The example I remember was comparing the U.S. military response to the results of the recent Iraq election with a very similar statement made by the U.S. miltary after Vietnam elections in 1967. I don't believe the critics are saying the logistics of the situation on the ground is the same, for one thing Vietnam doesn't have oil. zen master T 20:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did someone really lie to the public about WMD's??? None were found...and that means that we were lied to right? How hard is it to hide a vile of anthrax in that desert? Do you know how much damage 12 ounces of anthrax can do if effectively dispersed? How much space do you think the gas used by Saddam in the 1990's to gas the Kurds took up in terms of space and weight....no more than that of an average car...how hard would that be to bury in the desert or destroy....if the critics aren't saying that the wars are the same or not the same then what the heck are we bothering to quote them for?--MONGO 12:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, it looks as if you have failed to gain consensus for your edit again. You're continuing to use loaded language to defend it, but nobody's buying. I see that now you've incorrectly described my last revert "vandalism". Rather than get into a ridiculous edit war with you, I shall ask for the page to be protected while he hash this out. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I know you solicit and ask for assistance in your own user pages for articles...and or others do the same with you...I do not employ this tactic but can and may do so. If you lock the page out then I am certain you will do so in your version...this will be construed as a hostile act and I will declare it to be protected on the wrong page...my edits have not been POV...they have been much more neutral than yours or others who have been trolling here lately....I do not have doubts that you have the right to be vehemently opposed to the Iraqi war...I do not, however, feel that this is the place to vent that hostility which you repeatedly do by supporting a POV version of this article.--MONGO 12:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't solicit help in that way and I disapprove of those who do. I'm an admin but ethically I cannot protect. I would have to ask on WP:RFPP and I cannot predict who, if anyone, would act and which version they'd protect on. As to being protected on m:The Wrong Version, I hope you realise that the article describing that situation is an attempt at humor. I really don't mind whether it's protected on your version or mine as long as we stop the edit war and get down to discussion. If you like, I'll let you go to WP:RFPP and request that it should be protected displaying a ''{{twoversions}}'' template, so that the alternate version can be seen simply by clicking a single link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I could care less what your stance is here...you revert me without even bothering to look at the versions between mine and the earlier one....are we so far apart politically that I would be reverted so quickly...as far as the attempt at humor...whatever do you mean...most of the time a page is protected it is done so in the wrong version...naturally. I refuse to have good faith here...the consensus is politically motivated to ensure that this page does not become neutral.--MONGO 13:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, in short, if I understand correctly :

• The is a plot by leftist extremists to keep the page in an extremely propagandist state ("the consensus is politically motivated to ensure that this page does not become neutral")
• Since these people are extremists, there is no point in discussing with them ("I could care less what your stance is here", "I refuse to have good faith here")
• Neutrality is defined only by what you think ("most of the time a page is protected it is done so in the wrong version")

Well, if you renounce the idea of discussion with people whose appreciation of the situation is different from yours ("I refuse to have good faith here"), why don't you take the next logical step and go edit some other wiki ? Of course, you are very welcome to stay, but I am afraid that you might have to change your attitude toward the edition process in application here. Rama 13:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do understand correctly and your attempts to silence are the same as censorship...you have yet to argue about one point I made at the beginning of this section...all valid arguments brought up originally in a spirit of discussion...you and Sidaway revert without either looking at my version verses the previous version and fail to engage in dialogue in regards to the above mentioned items...therefore I consider your reverts vandalism....and hence my opinion that you and Sidaway are not acting in goof faith....I do say that you support a biased page article...why don't you go edit another wiki?--MONGO 13:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I revert far, far less often than you do. I reverted your edits because, like many others who have edited this article, I looked at it and decided that it didn't help and appeared to be done in order to counteract perceived (not actual) political bias. You omitted important detail, and you attempted to insert weaseling on the point of the USA's obligations under the UN Treaty. You excised a false claim by President Bush, made in a speech whose transcript is available on the White House website. You deleted a reference to the BBC's "Day by Day" guide to the events of the war. You deleted the refrence to the ongoing UK discussion of whether the war was legal--there is still considerable question about the Solicitor General's advice, which has not been made public and which appears to conflict with his earlier assessments which have been made public through leaks. You have supported an unorthodox interpretation of the term "Serious consequences" which directly contradicts the assurances given by the US ambassador to the UN in his speech arguing for Resolution 1441. Your edit is not acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here are the issues again....address them and explain to me how I am being unfactual...

Wishing to state "without explicit backing of UN Security Council" sounds POV. The statement is true but also misleading...it makes it look as though there was zero rational or justification to liberate Iraq through force...many have argued that resolutions passed by the UN that Iraq failed to comply with since the end of the Persian Gulf War of 1991 gave credence to the liberation....regardless, the details of the legalities are discussed later and need not be in the introduction...I simply stated that the event occurred without saying whether it was right or wrong, whereby your edition takes a stand. No one calls the period since the fall of Baghdad the "post invasion period"...at least not anyone in a position of authority...it is more properly worded as period of occupation. The U.S. and other countries have repeatedly called the liberation force as the coalition of the willing...I am not sure why this was changed by you. That the Iraqi forces were poorly equipped is more accurate than underequipped...they had plenty of tanks, guns, and ammunition...it was just in a bad state of repair and or outdated in it's sophistication compared to coalition equipment. Relations after the 1991 war did remain low, especially betwen the U.S./U.K. and Iraq...both countries supported the northern and southern no fly zones afterall....attempting to continue to make it look as though only the U.S. had a beef with Saddam is misleading...what else explains a dozen resolutions passed in the UN against Saddam since the end of the 1990? I changed "act" to what it is: Iraq Liberation Act because it was confusing to not have it this way..... The northern and southern no fly zones were definitely a response to Saddams genocide (gassing!!!!!) of the Kurds in the north and supression of the Shite uprising in the south....but I agree that it was also done to ensure control of the bulk of Iraqi airspace which was also done due to Saddams failure to comply with UN resolutions.... John McCain did make his commentary about Iraq not being like Vietnam to the Senate...your wording makes it look like it was just a comment made to almost anyone--MONGO 13:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quit fooling around. If I want to read your justifications again I can see them formatted slightly better earlier in this section. Have you thought of going to WP:RFC and asking for comments on this issue? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have asked for them from you, and the other recent persons that have reverted my edit...but none have been provided yet...your tactics are obstructionist to making this article neutral. Please cease with your suggestions if you don't wish to directly address the issues as I have brought them up.--MONGO 14:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is something quite surrealist reading MONGO call Tony Sidaway an "obstructionist" right after copy/pasting another long and irrevelant rant. I find it incresingly difficult to put out of my mind the idea that MONGO is here mainly to apply the tactic of causing trouble on the article to maintain it in a "controversial" state in order to discredit it globaly, and to stall the talk page with lengthy rants. I already have expressed my concerns about this on his talk page, and he did very little to help me dismiss this idea. MONGO's declaration that he does not intend to act in good faith, while probably only a clumsy formulation, does not help in this respect.

I am agreed with Tony Sidaway that if it becomes totally impossible to communicate, a WP:RFC will end up being a good solution. Rama 15:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My communication is clear. Comments are in order...go ahead, make my day. It isn't impossible to communcate...no one has bothered to discuss my valid points as detailed twice now...shall I paste them again??? Since no one wants to discuss the points, then I'll just edit as allowed.--MONGO 05:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A WP:RFC is not a conflictual solution, it is only a request that other Wikipedian give their perspective of a particular question to break a deadlock. In this case, "My communication is clear" is essentially a wishful statement. Rama 07:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know what...I wish that you could read...your comment above is a personal attack...I find most of your comments as they read to be both condescending and rude...nothing you have to state is clear...I consider your lack of wishing to discuss my arguments to be nothing other than obstructionist.--MONGO 07:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Wishing to state "without explicit backing of UN Security Council" sounds POV. The statement is true but also misleading...it makes it look as though there was zero rational or justification to liberate Iraq through force...many have argued that resolutions passed by the UN that Iraq failed to comply with since the end of the Persian Gulf War of 1991 gave credence to the liberation....regardless, the details of the legalities are discussed later and need not be in the introduction...I simply stated that the event occurred without saying whether it was right or wrong, whereby your edition takes a stand.

This statement say exactly what it saiy, it does not prejudge of the possible reasons which could have justified the invasion. Similarly, the bombings on Serbia were initially "not backed by the Security Council" (even though in this case, it was only out of fear of a unilateral veto by Russia). The question about the legality of the invasion is a most remarkable feature of this event, and is legitimately stated in the beginning.

That is an opinion....it takes a stand...nothing has been LEGALLY determined to said effect and the way it is worded sounds like the "invasion" was almost without precident...I simply stated that the invasion happened...your version does take a stand...

• No one calls the period since the fall of Baghdad the "post invasion period"...at least not anyone in a position of authority...it is more properly worded as period of occupation.

It would seem that in fact yes, people call this the "post-invasion peridod". The relevant article is named "post-invasion Iraq" for reasons which are extensively discussed there, I invit you to skim through this talk page.

However, it is not referred to this by any government....it is more properly called an occupation.

• The U.S. and other countries have repeatedly called the liberation force as the coalition of the willing...I am not sure why this was changed by you.

It can be fine by me if the reference to the "Coalition of Willing" or whatever they call it now is put in quotation marks.

Then why revert it over and over?

• That the Iraqi forces were poorly equipped is more accurate than underequipped...they had plenty of tanks, guns, and ammunition...it was just in a bad state of repair and or outdated in it's sophistication compared to coalition equipment.

Trivial detail point.

Then why revert it?

• Relations after the 1991 war did remain low, especially betwen the U.S./U.K. and Iraq...both countries supported the northern and southern no fly zones afterall....attempting to continue to make it look as though only the U.S. had a beef with Saddam is misleading...what else explains a dozen resolutions passed in the UN against Saddam since the end of the 1990?

I really don't understand this statement. The relations between the USA and Iraq were poor, therefore one cannot say that the USA were hostile to Iraq ? Several other countries suggested ways to soften the embargo between 1991 and 2003 (if I recall correctly, France suggested a progressive lifting of the sanctions after the reports of the waepon inspectors, and as an alternate to the invasion, in 2002 or 2003).

And France is also a member of the security council...the same council that passed all the resolutions...it is erroneous to in wording for it makes it appear that the only country that had a problem with Saddam is the U.S.

• I changed "act" to what it is: Iraq Liberation Act because it was confusing to not have it this way.....

Trivial point.

Once again, your revert is therefore uncalled for.

• The northern and southern no fly zones were definitely a response to Saddams genocide (gassing!!!!!) of the Kurds in the north and supression of the Shite uprising in the south....but I agree that it was also done to ensure control of the bulk of Iraqi airspace which was also done due to Saddams failure to comply with UN resolutions....

Since you agree that mentionning "genocide" as the only reason for these "no fly zones" is innaccurate, I don't understand why you don't either refrain from putting it, or put a more complete explanation.

The current wording fails to mention that the no fly zones were also done to protect the Kurds and the Shites. Hence my comment.

• John McCain did make his commentary about Iraq not being like Vietnam to the Senate...your wording makes it look like it was just a comment made to almost anyone...

I don't understand that at all. Rama 07:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current wording makes it appear that McCain's commentary on the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam were done in a less formal venue than the U.S. Capital...this is an addition I did to the article...the fact that mXCCain did state the comments in the Senate were eliminated by someone else...I was only trying to protect my factually worded and referenced edit.--MONGO 08:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would advise that you start by implementing the trivial changes which you suggest, and perhaps draft soemthing for McCain, and cease to tie these points with the Security Council and "no fly zones" parts, in particular, which you tend to edit in a way which seems not to be appreciated by the communauty in general. Rama 08:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I state...the inclusion of the "without the explicit backing of the un security council" etc. is here to support the idealizations that there was zero justifications, rationale, legality to wage war...I and others have disagreed with this wording....I'll edit it tomorrow so long as those that don't wish to particpate in the discusions here don't revert me back as did this chap...Dcabrilo....Your constant referral to trivialities are rude as well.--MONGO 09:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, the situation is this: under the UN treaty a country isn't supposed to just up and invade another without the permission of the Security Council to do so. In getting Resolution 1441 the US and the UK both explicitly stated that it wasn't an automatic trigger to war and prior to taking military action they would come back and ask the Security Council. They did not do so. The statement should be in the article because it accurately portrays the 2003 invasion as a military act of at best questionable legality, and certainly an explicit reneging of their earlier promises. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from...but as would be expected...I disagree (on the part about the military act being questionable legally)...regardless of what I have heard it called as potential pressures by the U.S., the courts of international law would have difficulty prosecuting either the U.S. or the U.K. or any of the other coalition partners due to a preponderance of previous UN resolutions which when taken as a whole, show a commitment by Saddam and his government to repeatedly NOT abide by those resolutions...and earlier resolutions did, for all purposes, detail the net result of noncomplience....1441 also utilized ther terminology of "serious consequences". The argument, and it is a valid one, is that the UN security council need not be consulted again before waging war...remove the sentence to make the article more neutral,,,,the issue is covered later anyway....--MONGO 10:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid there isn't room for disagreement on the questionable legality of the invasion. It is a matter of fact. The problem here is that you seem to think that Saddam Hussein's putative breach, or at least intent to breach, provisions of 1441 and other resolutions, changes the position--it does not. You say "he argument, and it is a valid one, is that the UN security council need not be consulted again before waging war" but this is unequivocally false under the UN treaty, as was explicitly recognised by both the UK and the US ambassadors to the UN in their speeches supporting the motion. Only an imminent military attack by Iraq on another country would have justified military action without explicit support from the Security Council. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, in response to

I deleted it because I didn't like the accusation when all I was trying to do was to get a discussion going.....I didn't violate any rules....Rama, you need to remind yourself that I am not your enemy...the fact that we can have arguments in cyberspace and get mad at each other and we have even agreed is proof of why Wikipedia is so great....I'll leave the article alone for awhile...prove to me that you are not POV and insert those "trivial" points you so quickly reverted.

I certainly do not see you as an "enemy"; I have been working to understand your point and give you occasions to clearly prove your good faith, since I had concerns that your actions might be interpreted as bad faith tactics. I feel that you might have a problem with formulation your point, in fact. For instance, your comment "I wish that you could read...your comment above is a personal attack...I find most of your comments as they read to be both condescending and rude" is very typical; while I do not mean to be rude not condescending, I have trouble to understand how you can complain about this particular trait in the very same sentence where you doubt my ability ro read (as a matter a speaking, I understand that, but hardly a polite one, is it not ?). As for "prove to me that you are not POV and insert those "trivial" points you so quickly reverted", saying that these points are "trivial", as I said, means that I consider them of negligeable importance for the article -- you are welcome to edit if you so wish. I am open to discussion, but I do not intend to negociate surrendering or contributing such or such points to prove anything to you personally; the discussion, as I see it, is intended to improve the article in its globality, and any consideration alien to this aim is futile. If you have a problem with this, you are welcome to ask advice in a WP:RFC. Rama 13:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually you should restate

MONGO, I'm willing to believe you've stated your basic points twice, but as an only occasional visitor to this page without a lot of time on my hands I can't find them. But I have a suggestion: instead of just restating your own view, it would probably be more useful if you would try to state, in the most neutral language possible, what you see as the points of disagreement. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

At the top of the section preceeding this one...it is most clear.--MONGO 06:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

compromise?

You guys seem like you really need someone to help come up with a compromise. Ok, I made a version which incorporates all of MONGO's relatively minor edits and also the new stuff that has been added since his version. The only substantial changes by MONGO which are not in my version:

1. "It began without the explicit backing of the United Nations Security Council." - not deleted
2. "Mission Accomplished" photo-op details - not deleted
3. "There is still on-going discussion in the UK whether the war was actually legal, and the final verdict has yet to be reached" - not deleted
4. John McCain/Vietnam/note that it was a speech to Congress - I fudged it

I would suggest you don't revert the minor stuff, and we can talk these four points over. My feel: "without explicit backing" - probably true, keep. "mission accomplished" details - irrelevant to this article, delete or move to article about Bush. "discussion in the UK" - keep (but link to examples of such?). McCain - keep mention to Congress, otherwise feel free to rewrite since my version is clumsy. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it? ObsidianOrder 14:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations ! Rama 14:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I can't accept those. I first reverted the insertion of "arguably" from the statement on international law, but then when I went back and looked at the earlier edits they seemed to be virtual clones of MONGO's. I don't have a problem with the McCain thing at all, but the "crowds of Iraqis" phrase is factually incorrect, promotion of US claims about the geographically localized extent of resistance from claim to fact was too blatant, and the removal on the note about the evolution of the US justification was just gratuitous.

I see that you've restored the word "arguably". This is also factually incorrect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should add a sentence specifically on how the U.S. is signatory to a treaty that requires explicit security council approval, but add that others claim everything is still disputed. zen master T 15:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is qualifing which I am opposed to but have to do sometimes to compromise...why does your objection have to be stated first..why can't it read that...some have claimed that the war was "legal" but others have claimed that it violates international law and was commenced without the explicit backing of the UN security council...furthermore, the use of the word "explicit" seems to be a weasel word...it alludes to the concept that perhaps the un security council may not have to have been consulted....--MONGO 18:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony - they are clones of MONGO's, that's the point, I wanted to simplify this so that only the edits actually being disputed are being reverted. What on earth is the contentious stuff in my version? "arguably" - yes, I would argue it, with sources if you want. "crowds" - BBC and CNN both say "crowds", what is your source? how many people constitute a crowd, by the way? evolution - sorry, but all of these have been given as justification as early as 2000, if not even earlier. localized - have you seen a map of attacks? [65] ObsidianOrder 15:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "arguably" is bizarre, one could say that anything is "arguable" just because one person argues over something. In this particular example, we have people like Kofi Annan, for instance, who discribed the aggression against Iraq as "illegal" (I would not imagine Annan letting out such a word without carefully pondering the thing).

The part about the genocides could be worked on a little bit too, since noone seems to consider the present state as portaiting accurately the situation. Perhaps either removing the thing altogether, or precising that the "no-fly-zones" continued to be enforced long after these events. Rama 16:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never disputed the validity that the war began without explicit backing of the UN security council...I have, however, in obvious disagreement with some here, that this may or may not have been necessary...even under international law....in light of the proliference of sanctions against the Baathist regime and their violations of such sanctions repeatedly...therefore, I felt and still feel that this one sentence is POV and should be eliminated...the Israeli attack on Iraq's atomic power station wasn't an approved action either...nor was much of the balkan war...or the USSR invasion of Hungary in 1956....I suppose I am also one of those that feels that the 1990-1991 gulf war never really ended so all the events of 2003 were merely a huge flareup of the same conflict...there is much argument to support this position as well...--MONGO 17:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You think that the invasion of Iraq which occured in 2003 was indeed illegal, but that it is "POV" to say it ? Rama 18:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No I do not think it was illegal...I do say that the statement that it began without explicit security council approval is correct...this is a factual statement...I argue that un security council approval was necessary.--MONGO 18:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The US and UK say that earlier resolutions can be interpreted so as to authorize war. Thus it is possible to say that the war was arguably legal (it certainly is so, and the US and UK have lawyers making just that arguemnt) but it is not possible to say that it is arguably illegal in international law to just invade another country without Security Council support--because it in fact illegal, and neither the US nor the UK disputes this.

The dispute is simply over whether earlier resolutions implicitly granted the US and the UK the right to invade. US and UK say yes, UN and nearly everybody else say no. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When you say everybody else...you surely don't mean: Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria, S. Korea, Japan, Australia, Honduras, etc.....--MONGO 18:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. The US did garner some support for its invasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is that a dispute at all? It doesn't matter if earlier resolutions can be interpreted by one country to justify their breaking international law; that doesn't make it "legal." It's as if I got caught dealing marijuana and told the cops that I thought the Constitution protected my right to engage in this activity. The argument is notable perhaps, but it certainly doesn't change the claim that my behavior was "illegal." I think it would be fair to say that the action was illegal but the US and UK dispute that, and claim that other resolutions "implicitly" support the right of the US to attack.

On another note, I think it is accurate that the "no-fly" zones were established after Saddam's genocide against Kurds and Shiites. But it is important to add, I think, that these were established only in response to international pressure after the Bush Administration did nothing about it and the world complained because Bush had, of course, stoked the rebellions that led to the massacres. I think it's also important to note that the no-fly zones remained in place long after the threat of genocide had subsided, and became a way for Bush and then Clinton to justify periodic and routine attacks on Iraq during the 12 years between Iraq wars. I will check the Gulf War article and see if there is information about this already there (and perhaps this entire claim belongs there rather than here). --csloat 20:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony - "it is not possible to say that it is arguably illegal" - that is not what it says. It says "arguably required explicit Security Council approval". That is what is being argued after all, specifically that implicit approval existed from earlier resolutions, just as you say. The phrase "arguably illegal" does not occur anywhere. How would you word that sentence to note that an argument exists? ObsidianOrder 23:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is absolutely the case that invasion in those circumstances would require Security Council approval. No "arguably" about it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A plea to everyone: please do not do bulk reverts, if you disagree with some things but not others, revert just the ones you disagree with, or better yet propose a third version. I think people are just a little bit worked up here, to the point that apparently any edit that originally came from MONGO will be blithely reverted, even if there is no objection to it. This is silly. ObsidianOrder 23:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An interesting debate between law professors about the application of international law here: "Iraq: was it legal?". Taking a step back from UN resolutions to more general legal frameworks, here are two good summaries on the Laws of War [66] and [67]. I think you can see that there is an argument for how UN resolutions did authorize the use of force, and also very strong arguments for how it is justified in a broader legal framework. So, yes, "arguably". ObsidianOrder 00:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

War is always the last alternative...I think it is unfair for anyone to characterize the Bush adminstration as being war mongers....the article makes it look this way to some degree...my opinion is that Bush and his administration did make a big effort to reach a declaration of war by the security council, but always believed that this wasn't really necessary in light of the fact that Saddam had snubbed or had been not honoring most of the resolutions passed against his government....I thank you for those links....and I recommend that anyone that feels that there is any moral question to the war should ask themselves to justify what right the free world has to stand by, doing nothing when the fact is that since the invasion, 290 mass graves have turned up in Iraq and in them are up to 300,000 people...we don't need anthrax or nukes to justify war here...Saddam was his own weapon of mass destruction.--MONGO 12:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No-Fly Zones

I think both parties have been incorrect on no-fly zones. It was my perception that the zones were not established until after international outrage about the Shiites and Kurds being massacred (BTW - "genocide" is inaccurate - Shiites are still a majority there, and there are still plenty of Kurds. That is not to discount the overwhelming brutality of the attacks - hundreds of thousands, I believe, were killed - but just to use the term "genocide" properly). After doing some research, it turns out the first zones were established not to protect the Kurds but to protect US forces (who were planning on staying there). The second set of zones did not get established in the south until 1992, after a fight over UNSCOM -- a Pentagon official said "The purpose of establishing a no-fly zone - and I would emphasise it's a no-fly zone, not a security zone - is to ensure the safety of coalition aircraft monitoring compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; Paul Wolfowitz even said that there would be no no-flyzone to the south if it wasn't for the confrontation over UNSCOM -- so the zone was basically a way to punish the Iraqis over weapons inspections. So unless somebody wants to explain all this (perhaps in the no fly zone entry), perhaps we should stick with the version of this page that doesn't mention the rationale for the zones, which was hardly to protect Kurds and Shiites (or at least, is a lot more complicated than what is stated). The quotes above come from the following sources -- [68] and [69] --csloat 01:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look up the term genocide before you render a verdict of it's meaning "there are still plenty of Kurds"...that is a pretty disgusting thing to say....furthermore, do a bit more research and you'll find that the no fly zones were partially an effort to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shias found primarily in the south. Additionally, so what if the zones were imposed as a way to ensure Saddam abided by un resolutuions and weapons inspections...shouldn't he have to follow international law too...or is the U.S. the only country that has to do this?--MONGO 12:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. If you want I'll leave that part to your discretion, but it sounds like it might be too complex for a soundbite explanation. Maybe just mention the zones here without a reason and add more at Iraqi no-fly zones. ObsidianOrder 02:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree - it's too complex to mention here; perhaps I will add it to the specific page; in the meantime I'll plan to remove the reason from here (unless you already did it)... --csloat 02:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and congratulations to everybody (particularly ObsidianOrder and csloat), I think that we are sorting lots of things out, here. Rama 08:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Invasion

Does anyone here have any idea what the term invasion means...well it doesn't mean spend half the article discussing the reasons why or why not. Where are the details of the weapons used by the invaders...numbers of troops, divisions, corps, aircraft, naval vessals planning, tactics, strategy conceptualizations logistics...and where is the discussion about the Iraqi's weaponry, tactics, strategy etc. The analysis of the weapons of mass destruction are good research but don't belong here in the depth they are presented...they belong in an article about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...oh well.--MONGO 13:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see your point; you are very welcome to contribute your knowledge of such details if you have some. It is not incompatible with a discussion of the politics behind the invasion. Rama 14:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to second that sentiment. The details on the military side are very slim. This was (from a military point of view) simply an amazing achievement, and it really needs to be handled in considerably more detail (of course not all details are available yet). The Battle of the Bulge article is a pretty decent example of what one would expect from a military history. I will try to add some more stuff when I have time. A lot of info is here 2003 Iraq war timeline actually but it needs to be organized. ObsidianOrder 16:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article appears to be more an analysis of the reasons for and against the invasion than a treatise on the military aspects in general..that's all....--MONGO 09:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am mostly agreed that more technical military informations could be in order. On the other hand, I would like to nuance that with the remark that the military situation on the field seems to have been fairly trivial; the armies were of comparably numerical sizes, with the Iraqi army virtually 25 years back in time, and absolutely no aerial support of any sort. On the other hand, the political struggles which preceeded the invasion, and the political invasions whch followed make this invasion much more than a mere miliraty event. If I had to compare this to an event of the Second World War, the Invasion of Poland would come higher on my list (though this article seems to have beneficited from more miliraty expertise than this one, one can notice that the political and historical context are a significant part of it). Rama 12:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"the military situation on the field seems to have been fairly trivial" - not quite. oh, there may not have been much doubt about the eventual outcome, but the speed of the advance and the extremely low level of casualties on both sides are fairly unprecedented and due to a revolutionary US doctrine of attacking command structure rather than concentrations of troops. the Iraqi army may have had no combat aircraft but they were extremely well supplied with anti-aircraft artillery (over 7500 pieces that can reach targets at 10,000 ft) and missiles. they also had a ton of conventional artillery. I think almost all military analysts pre-war expected thousands of casualties on the US side, and months of fighting, including bloody urban combat. ObsidianOrder 03:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"extremely low level of casualties on both sides": really ? Do we have a figure for the casualties on the Iraqi side ?

"revolutionary US doctrine of attacking command structure rather than concentrations of troops": what is so revolutionary about that ?

"I think almost all military analysts pre-war expected thousands of casualties on the US side, and months of fighting, including bloody urban combat": This is interesting, there were actually much fussing about European media predicting a messy war (whether or not the media actually did say that and to what extand is still debated); do we have any references to back this idea that such a long and bloody war was indeed a reasonable prediction ? Rama 08:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

iraqi military casualties - yes, we have estimates. I consider the most likely number to be around 7-10,000. that is very low for a campaign resulting in the defeat of a force of 250-300,000. doctrine - for a long time US doctrine has been attrition-based (AirLand Battle). this was probably the first-ever application of a different doctrine (Rapid Dominance). I'd say advancing hundreds of miles while leaving intact large concentrations of enemy troops in your rear and without securing suply lines [70] is revolutionary, if you can pull it off (traditionally one would expect a force attempting this to get completely wiped out). predictions before the war - 100-5,000 [71], 5,000 [72], 2000-5000 [73], "thousands" [74], "thousands, perhaps tens of thousands" [75] "multi-thousands" [76]. The expectations of the general public were actually a much more accurate predictor [77]. ObsidianOrder 23:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Casualty figures?

People keep changing the casualty figures but the changes don't make sense. The most recent was an "update" but I noticed in the update there were fewer U.S. dead than in the older version. Did some U.S. soldiers come back to life in the intervening weeks? Is anyone checking sources to see that these figures remain accurate? --csloat 19:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Non-operation support?"

What the hell is that anyway? I agree with the edit that took out this meaningless phrase. The 911 commission did not find "support" of al Qaeda; what they found was evidence of communication between the parties. It's clear that this communication went nowhere in terms of leading to a relationship of "support." Have you read some of the things al Qaeda members have written about Saddam Hussein? There is no question of them actually working with the socialist infidel. And the same is true in reverse; Saddam saw the fundamentalists as a threat to his dictatorship. My vote is to take the phrase out unless you have evidence to support it. Evidence, not smarmy comments about how anyone who denies your own personal skewed worldview is somehow a supporter of Saddam. --csloat 22:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This transcript from an exchange between James Rubin and James Woolsey will ilustrae my point rather well [78]

WOOLSEY: But Saudi Arabia hangs, I think, to some extent, in the balance. But I agree with you, as you know, about oil. That we should radically reduce our reliance on oil. But that doesn’t mean that Saudi Arabia is a good target for attack.

RUBIN: There’s one thing – one thing that Jim said I need to correct. The 9/11 Commission, that everyone respected their judgment – Cain and Hamilton looked very hard with the latest intelligence long after you left office, and they examined the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, and they came to a very different judgment than the one you just put on the table.

WOOLSEY: No, they didn’t.

RUBIN: They said that there was no significant relationship between the two.

WOOLSEY: They did not. They did not. They did not.

RUBIN: They made it very clear—

WOOLSEY: They said, “No operational relationship.”

RUBIN: So that’s what we’re talking about.

WOOLSEY: No, we’re not.

RUBIN: What are we talking about? The non-operational relationship? [laughter]

WOOLSEY: Yes, exactly. We’re talking about training. Look, when I was director of the CIA, we had cooperative relationships with dozens of foreign intelligence services. We had operational cooperation with many fewer than you can count on one hand. There’s a big difference between providing training and support and false passports and all that—

RUBIN: [overlapping] And when this president – and when this president—

WOOLSEY: [overlapping] And the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said that that’s what Iraq did for Al-Qaeda.

TDC 23:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

All this demonstrates is that Woolsey is a hack. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein provided "non-operational" support for al Qaeda. You didn't respond to any of my specific points. Have you actually seen what these people were saying about each other? The rest of CIA was well aware of this. Ask Mike Scheuer. Ask counterterrorism experts like Rohan Gunaratna. There was no support in any meaningful way of al Qaeda by Saddam. The 911 Commission never uncovered anything, and Woolsey says nothing specific in the exchange above. According to this logic, the US provided more support for al Qaeda than Saddam! Training? Support? Fake passports? Where is the evidence of this? The main al Qaeda connection most people point to is the MAK -- an organization with al Qaeda links that operated in Northern Iraq. Fine, except that part of Iraq was under U.S. control since 1992!! And, in fact, MAK received money and support from American sources! So please stop perpetuating this flawed claim. It has been dealt with on this page before. --csloat 03:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's what the 911 Commission Report has to say, copied and pasted from the previous discussion:

p. 66: There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime,offering some cooperation.None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report,Saddam Hussein?s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

p. 134: Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin?s having met with Iraqi officials, who ?may have offered him asylum.?Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders,though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq

p. 161: In his interactions with other students,Atta voiced virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American opinions, ranging from condemnations of what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City that supposedly controlled the financial world and the media,to polemics against governments of the Arab world.To him,Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East.

p. 334: Responding to a presidential tasking,Clarke?s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks. Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad,concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no compelling case that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports,including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak,the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime.Finally,the memo said,there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

--csloat 03:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, Woolsey is a hack ehhh....... thats the best you can do? Simply stunning.

Since we are quoting from the 9-11 Commision Report, here are a few passages you seemed to have left out.

• Page 66: With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and early 1995. Bin Laden is said to ask for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request

the footnote they cite is a CIA memoranda with sources that did claim requests were fulfilled, in particular training requests. The report was that an Iraqi military bomb-making expert and the chief of Iraq's intelligence services met with Bin Laden and trained his group on bomb making techniques in 1996.

• Page 128: On November 4, 1998, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led (Richard) Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaida agreement” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq”.

TDC 01:32, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

But if we go that deep into suspecting countries just because they have some sort of contacts with terrorist organisations, aren't we increasing the noise over signal ratio ? Reading these, it seems that the United States of America had stronger ties with these fellows than Iraq had. Rama 08:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TDC: Woolsey's hackdom is not "the best I can do"; in fact that was not my point at all. The Woolsey comment had to do with you drawing the wrong conclusions from what he said. He intentionally misreads the 911 Commission report; his interpretation is totally at odds with the report itself and what commission members have said in subsequent clarifications. As for the 911 commission quotations you add here, I've taken the liberty of putting in bold the part of page 66 that you seem to have missed. There is no "non-operational support" if one party isn't even returning the call. The comment about the footnote adds your own speculation about it. It's all a bit silly if you look at the diagrams of bombs found with Ramzi Yousef as well as the Bojinka evidence -- you really think al Qaeda needed Saddam Hussein's help in learning about bombs as late as 1996??? As for page 128 first of all Richard Clarke has said over and over again in no uncertain terms that there was no meaningful cooperation between Iraq and al Qaida. He has been one of the most consistent critics of the state sponsorship theory of al Qaeda. Second, the quote you use is from a 1998 indictment. You conveniently leave out the very next sentence: "This language about al Qaeda’s 'understanding' with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998." The Commission's conclusion was that there was nothing there in terms of a connection or an "understanding." And it's clear from the narrative at that point that Clarke and the CSG did not consider the "understanding" worth any attention, and it was not in the PDB.

Finally, you ignore the rest of my arguments above. Even if your misreadings above were accurate, there is less "non-operational support" of al Qaida by Iraq than there was of al Qaeda by the U.S. during the same period of time (and I am referring specifically to support of MAK both direct and indirect, which includes keeping Saddam Hussein out of their hair). Rama is correct in pointing that out above. --csloat 08:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TDC Stop Reverting

Quit reverting the silly "non-operation support" claim when you can't defend it, when it's been answered above, and when the phrase "non-operation support" doesn't even have any specific meaning. --csloat 02:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non operation support is vague...however, there has been some, not a lot, but some evidence that the former regime in power in Iraq did have contact with some terrorist groups...one of which is the Mujahedin e-Khalq which has been labelled by the U.S. as a terrorist group...suspected to have been sheltered by Saddam and to have been involved in anti western and anti Iranian incidents. [79]--MONGO 03:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will you please read the above? I responded to this already. The MAK (the group you're talking about) was never "sheltered" by Saddam Hussein. They were sheltered from Hussein by the U.S. and UK patrolled "no-fly zones." So if anything the US provided "non-operation support" to these terrorists. --csloat 05:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did read the above...MAK was provided safe haven in Iraq by Saddam and allow to continue to undermine the the Shite government in Iran long after the end of the Iran-Iraq war...is this some kind of revelation to you?--MONGO 08:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a revelation; it's false. MAK operated in the north, in the no fly zone. Saddam did not provide them "safe haven" at all. They were not "allowed" by Saddam to undermine Iran -- he had no control over them to allow them to do anything. They were meanwhile receiving money from American sources (who wanted to fund them because they were undermining Iran). So it's ridiculous to use them as an example to support your claim! --csloat 09:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any government has links to terrorist groups, it is part of their jobs (else it would be impossible to gather informations, negotiate, or anything). Stating that Iraq had links with Al-Qaida just because they were some sorts of contacts with Iraqi officials is about as revelent as saying that Iraq had a police. Rama 07:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But you don't deny they may have had contacts which is what part of the argument is about...eh--MONGO 08:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, my denying that Iraq had links with terrorists organisations is not what the argument is about (what a strange idea).

The question is whether the goverment of Saddam Hussein was related in some way to the attacks on New York, and perhaps was a further danger of terrorism. It turn out that the links which Iraq had with al Quaida seem to have been very slim. For what I have read, the links between al Qaida and Iraq were not as close as the links between al Qaida and the USA. Given this, and unless further proofs are found, I say that mentionning these very slim links as a valid reason for the invasion is not legitimate. Rama 08:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only "links" between the U.S. and al Quaeda (the base) are that during the Afgan war between the the USSR and Afghanistan, the CIA provided material and expertise to the "holy warriors"...MAK are mostly exiled Iranians who have been linked to the U.S. hostage taking in Tehran in 1979 and attempts to overthrown the existing Iranian government...the U.S. considers them to be a terrorist organization...Saddam did provide safe haven for these people...the argument is over whether Iraq had connections with terrorists groups and in this case the answer is yes....I never stated that this group had anything to do with the situations around 9/11....did you think the war on terrorism is just about the terrorists groups behind 9/11? Has the U.S. not also been involved in assisting other countries:ie: Phillipines...with subduing terrorism within their own lands? What is your "strange idea" of a notion as to what the meaning of the war on terrorism is all about?--MONGO 09:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is bullshit Mongo as I pointed out above. Those are not the only links between the US and al Qaeda. And you put that link in quotes as if it is not a real link but that is the biggest one of course since it totalled billions of dollars as well as arms and bases and training. But setting that aside -- it was, of course, an excess of the cold war, and took place before the terrorist threat was clear to us -- the US has much more recently given direct and indirect support to al Qaeda affiliated groups in many cases, especially MAK, which received funding from some right wing US sources (I recall reading an article in early 2002 that claimed even John Ashcroft contributed to this group but I can't find it easily right now). Some have speculated that this terrorist group was protected during the beginning of the 2003 bombing of Iraq in order to keep them around as evidence of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection (the group was mostly left alone at the beginning of the war even though the US was well aware of their deadly terrorism). --csloat 09:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever seen bullshit...or smelt it? I got news for you, it isn't too bad...it's a lot better than the stench of your humanshit you're trying to peddle here, dipshit. That article you claim in which Ashcroft gave money to the MAK...now that sounds like big giant whaleshit to me.--MONGO 10:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like this particular whaleshit was published in Newsweek.--csloat 10:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

find the newsweek article...why is it the left always comes up with second rate referencing? I see little if anything of credibility here...nice try though.--MONGO 11:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Christ; you can't click on a link? You need me to do it for you? I linked the fucking article. Second rate referencing my ass. Stop arguing in bad faith. --csloat 20:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am MONGO, not Jesus. I clicked the link...can't you. That we are disagreeing is a normal part of discussion in such topics...I am under the impression that you look only for what your politics will support...too bad.--MONGO 05:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. If you clicked the link you would not have whined about my referencing. Disagreeing is normal but you are the one cherry picking evidence. --csloat 07:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that we are drifting away from the subject. My point is that "having connections with terrorist groups" can be said of any government (including democratic ones, including thos engaged in the so-called "War again Terror"). Consequently, stating "connection to terrorist groups" without providing specific (and serious) charges is not a valid accusation.

Now, the fact that the US government used alleged connections between Iraq and terrorist organisations as stated reason for the invasion (excuse, if you prefer) has to be mentionned, of couse. But merely repeating the vague and apparently substanceless statements of the US government about the eventual outcome of this issue is not adequate for us. Rama 09:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did that already....do some research on MAK. I don't prefer the term excuse...there was a plethora of reasons to invade Iraq...even in the unlikly event that Saddam's government was not deeply involved in terrorism, he was his own terrorist anyway...over his own people....--MONGO 09:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, Iraq had nothing to do with the alQaeda training camps in Iraq. And the money Saddam provided them, that was an accident, he thought he was paying for a camel. Rama propaganda is not welcome here. Dagen 09:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it's not welcome here, please stop spewing it. The al Qaeda training camps in Iraq were in a part of Iraq that was not under Saddam's control. How hard is that to understand? He did not allow them to operate there, and I don't see any evidence that he gave them money. The US and UK patrolled the part of Iraq that the terrorists operated in. So if anyone is to blame for giving them "shelter," it is the US and UK.--csloat 09:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be enlightened...[80]--MONGO 10:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right, it's MEK, not MAK, which explains why I couldn't fiind the article I was looking for before, and Saddam supported them - in 1987, according to that link. When the US was still giving money to al Qaeda related groups in Afghanistan. More recently MEK received money and support from such neoconservatives as Richard Perle among others. And they operated in the part of northern Iraq that was controlled by the US and UK, not Saddam.--csloat 10:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's your link...to a blatantly biased source..."antiwar"!! Saddam continued to support the MEK well beyond that period and they were used for espionage by Saddam even after the end of the Iran/Iraq war. They were opposed to the current government in Iran...get with the picture!--MONGO 10:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blatantly biased perhaps but it reports and links to articles from mainstream media. And look, Richard Perle and John Ashcroft supported this group openly. They did not refute it. The newsweek article I cited above is not "blatantly biased." Yes you're right this group was "opposed to the current govt in Iran" -- as was Ashcroft!--csloat 10:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yadayadayada...regardless of your assumptions, it is obvious that Saddam supported this group (MEK or MKO) in his neverending efforts to ensure his brand of hegemony in the middle east....--MONGO 11:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you are not willing to discuss in good faith. You pressed for evidence of support for MEK from US neocons and I provide it; now all you have to say is yadayada like a little kid with fingers in your ears. Saddam supported this group in 1987. The war to destroy Saddam was started in 2003. In the intervening years there was the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War, which led to the US establishing no fly zones that prevented Saddam from controlling the areas where the MEK operated. At that point it was the US that was providing this group sanctuary, not Iraq. --csloat 20:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saddam knew of the group, he supported their attempts to undermine the Iranian government and those are facts and he did this well after the end of the 1991 Gulf War. The fact that there was a no fly zone in the north, where MEK was primarily located, has little to do with there existence or U.S. protection of them...why would we deliberately protect a group that had good relations with Saddam? The northern no fly zone was there to protect the Kurds...if it also protected MEK then that was a side issue. I cannot consider your efforts as good faith when you tell me that my comments and evidence are "bullshit" which naturally led to my responses. Furthermore, the war to destroy Saddam began in 1991 and ended when he was captured in 2003....this whole invasion stuff is merely a big escalation of the same conflict...history will eventually state it this way.--MONGO 05:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact was the US controlled that area. Your question - why would we protect a group with ties to Saddam - shows your naivete about such matters. You don't know anything about the 1991 war if you think it was to destroy Saddam, and you keep averting the issue with regard to MEK. MEK was being openly supported by the likes of John Ashcroft! That's not a "side issue" even if the no fly zone was there for the kurds; in any case, the point with the no fly zone is this group operated in an area controlled by the US, not by Saddam, so it is disingenuous to say that the MEK operated in Iraq with Saddam's support.--csloat 07:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I realize the 1991 war wasn't to take out Saddam, I am not naive...your referencing is POV...you better cool out. MEK did have the support both financially and politically of Saddam...[81]--MONGO 11:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I think it's pretty clear that the MEK was supported by the US too, and, again, they operated in an area controlled by the US. So it's hard to take seriously claims that Saddam had any control over this group. And you really haven't responded to this; you just keep offering ad hominems and telling me to chill out. Again, I think it is naive to believe the US would not help an ally of Saddam. Also, I'm glad you realize the 91 war was not to take out Saddam, but that's the opposite of what you said earlier. This is why I feel you're arguing in bad faith. On another note if we're going to have the nonsensical phrase "non-operation support", I think it should say "some US officials claim" rather than the "US claims", since the position of the CIA and other US agencies, and even the official position of the President and Vice President when pressed, is that there is no link between Saddam and al Qaeda.--csloat 16:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I stated that the effort to remove Saddam began in 1991...I don't care about the phrase "non-operational support" being here one way or the other...I never said the U.S. government feels as of today that there definitely was a connection between Saddam and al Quaeda...I merely stated that Saddam did have connections with some terrorist groups and those connections were for more purpose than to use them solely for espionage...as far as the no fly zones being "controlled" by the COALITION (not just the U.S. enforced these zones you know)...they may have in terms of airspace, but not on the ground...Saddam could have still done most anything he pleased to MEK if he so desired....he probably wouldn't have been able to do much to the Kurds though because they aren't on the terrorists watch lists by the U.S. or the U.K.--MONGO 17:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the last edit by Mongo, but I wanted to say something about each change: 1. There was no backing by the security council. It should be mentioned, as it was the reason France/Germany/Canada/et all didn't join 2. Dictatorship cannot refer to a party. The word refers to a person. 3. We should mention that the UN had bad relations as well (I agree with this part of the edit) 4. This is sort of correct. Some sort of compromise needs to be worked out here. Hope that makes my reversion clear. Burgundavia 09:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

You are right...dictatorship doesn't refer to a party. I also agree that the UN had bad relations with Iraq...hence the multiple sanctions against Iraq.....the term "explict security council support" etc. is just here so some can continue to argue that the war was illegal which has never been decided and probably won't be, at least not in a court of law.--MONGO 09:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will add the UN stuff back in, I was waiting for your response before I did that. Burgundavia 09:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have added the UN back in. Explict security council support was quite important. I happen to know that my country (Canada) would have joined had there been a security council resolution. Whether any war is "illegal" is a point for another debate, and the first paragraph makes no mention of that. Burgundavia 10:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I dont' understand MONGO's point here. All the legal defence of the US government centres around the idea that Security Council backing was not necessary to legally allow the invasion. Therefore, the fact that the Security Council did not back the invasion is not an argument in the discussion of the legality of the invasion.

On the other hand, it is most remarkable that the invasion took place without the backing of the Security Council, since it is the first time that a First World power starts military operation without the agreement of the Security Council (in this optics, it might also be interesting to mention that NATO did not back the invasion either). Rama 10:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR, which was a first rate power and a member of the security council was not the first time....or how about the time the French and British were in the Sinai in 1956...did that get UN security council approval? Neither did.--MONGO 10:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the difference here is the leadup. The USSR didn't want it and didn't care. The US did want it and did care that it didn't get it. Burgundavia 12:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fine...but my response was in disagreement that the U.S. led invasion into Iraq was the first time a first rate power commenced a military excursion without explicit UN security council support...which gets back to my argument that the sentence which uses this line is misleading and is there to support a pov and that pov is that there was no legal right to invade...an argument which has not been finalized yet.--MONGO 12:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Sinai was a matter of national interest for the French and the British, since the Canal of Suez was a franco-british property and had been nationalised by Nasser.

The USSR is a second-World power.

Perhaps examples of a breaking of the will of the Security COuncil can be found somewhere, but you'd have to find better ones. For now, the best one I have found to date was the bombing of Serbia over the affair in Kosovo, with the important differences that

# the Security Council later gave its approval

# the matter was agreed upon by NATO

which is not the case for the invasion of Iraq.

I fail to see the connection with the legality of the thing. Rama 13:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they were at the absolute apex of their military and industrial strength and aside from the U.S., was the only other superpower in the world at that time...the U.S. was staunchly opposed to the French and British actions in the Suez...so they hardly would have garnered full UN security council support....--MONGO 13:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear... Second-world like "Communist World" ! and First World like "Western World", "Free World", "Empire of the Good", "Acis of the Willing", whatever youu call it !

As for Suez, both the USA and the USSR were opposed to the intervention, that's not the point. France and The United Kingdom had been directly attacked, since the Suez canal was a franco-british concession. It was arguably an act of self-defence, which does not need the agreement of the Security Council to be carried out. Rama 13:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the heck difference does it make...we are discussing the "need" for a sovereign country to invade...besides, the USSR didn't ven try to get UN support, which makes their situation much less acceptible. The U.S. and USSR wanted Egypt to have the suez...as an end to colonialism...hence their lack of support for France and the UK.....BUT: neither event was backed "explicitly" by the UN.--MONGO 13:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, another time, very slowly: I say that the Invasion of Iraq is the most blatant ignoring of the Security Council disaproval of a military operation by a First World (i.e. democratic, Western, capitalist, ...) country. 1) the USSR was NOT a first world power (so whatever it did, I'm not talking about it) 2) France and England were reacting to a direct agression (like the USA trying to rescue hostages in Iran). This kind of actions does NOT need the autorisation of the Security Council to be carried out, it fall under the "self-defence" clause. Is that understandable ? Rama 13:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama, your patronizing tone adds nothing to this discussion. "another time, very slowly", "is that understandable" is just plain obnoxious. Please refrain from insulting others in future, especially if you cannot learn to spell "aggression". I suggest a lot less agression (sic) and a lot more listening to others who might know more than you. 12.22.183.194 15:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With "is that understandable", I was honestly inquiring whether my latest remark was clear, since it appears that some misunderstanding did happen in the previous ones. Sorry if this appears insulting.

"another time, very slowly" might indeed sound a little bit condescending, but explaining what a "first world poweer" is for the second time in a row did not leave me with the impression that the discussion was advancing very quickly.

Thank you for the spelling of "aggression", which I will try to remember in the future, and welcome to Wikipedia ! Rama 15:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that this war was carried out without support and authority of the SC is quite important and relevant to the case, as the US (and UK) tried to get UNSC backing to the very end. This is a part of history, they tried and wanted to get UNSC autority to go to war; they didnt get it. Omiting this is omiting a part of history, this is not POV, its a fact. --Cybbe 20:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't a fact, I stated that the words are there to support the overall overtone of the article which is a slamdunk against the war and an effort to continue to deride Bush. Then why does it even need to say "explicit"...that makes it look like, well, yeah, there was some authorization, but it wasn't a full authorization.--MONGO 05:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I too think that the word "explicit" is stange here and should be explained. Rama 05:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can agree with that the use of "explicit" makes little sense, there was noe implicit support either. --Cybbe 06:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The word "explicit" is needed because their was implicit authorization through the earlier UNSC resolutions. Johntex 07:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand, Kofi Annan explicitely stated that he considered the war illegal, and France, Russia and China all stated that they would veto an attempt to pass a resolution. In this light, we could say that the invasion occured without the explicit approval of the Security Council, but also with its very explicit disaproval. Rama 08:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has certainly been argued, on defensible legal grounds, that earlier resolutions authorized the invasion, though this is an extremely controversial issue and we cannot state as a matter of fact that the invasion was authorized--although it's an opinion promoted by the countries that took part in the invasion, it is not otherwise a popular view. In fact, it is evident that the US and UK both explicitly reneged on their earlier promises to the Security Council in securing Resolution 1441, and left their legal experts to try to patch together some kind of legal figleaf. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with part of Tony Sidaway's comment: "It has certainly been argued, on defensible legal grounds, that earlier resolutions authorized the invasion, though this is an extremely controversial issue and we cannot state as a matter of fact that the invasion was authorized--although it's an opinion promoted by the countries that took part in the invasion, it is not otherwise a popular view." I disagree with Rama because one or more members saying they will veto a resolution to approve is not the same as the council explicitly disapproving. Clearly, the US and UK would have vetoed a resolution of disaproval. Johntex 08:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot say that the Security Council expressly disapproved--clearly it was divided and the US and UK calculated that they didn't have enough support to carry the war-enabling resolution that they had tabled. Kofi Annan is Secretary General of the institution and has the duty to uphold its treaties. Although his interpretation of what they entail may be disputed by members, it would probably take a Security Council resolution to trump it. As a member of the Secretariat, he does not speak for the Security Council. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberation of Iraq

I am a little bit uncomfortable with this. It is obviously quite some specific view of the matter which could have labeled the whole matter "Liberation of Iraq". I don't mean to say that it doesn't exist, but on the other hand, should we not then also mention namings like "Crusade against Islame" or such ? that'd get cumbersome...

MONGO, you say "rv. I disagree...the Kurds and the Shites certainly feel liberated from Saddam and they make up almost 70 percent of the population there..."; it might be true, but what of the population of Faludja then, for instance ? Rama 05:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama, ask yourself, if your country's leader was a gang-raping, chem weapons using, police state operating, thieving, corrupt dude with bad body odor, would you feel liberated when he was toppled by our beloved DoD? Abso-effing-lutely you would. The issue of the subsequent deployment of forces is quite different from the liberation itself. The former is meeting with resistance from fanatics, Baathist deadbeats and kooks but the latter was very popular even by those now attacking the Yankee imperialist running dogs.Dagen 05:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dagen , do you have any sources to back you claims that Saddam Hussein was gang-raping and had a bad body odour ? Rama 06:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rape maybe, maybe not...but as I mentioned earlier....290 plus mass grave sites with at least 300,000 mostly Iraqi people buried there is enough to substantiate that "coalition of the willing" actions there are certainly a liberation. Saddam probably didn't smell too good after he got pulled out his little hole...he looked like a rat--MONGO 11:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Funny you should mention this "hole" story, since we have a testimony by one of the soldiers who contributed to the capture of Saddam Hussein who happens to cast serious doubts as to its authenticity. My point is that one should be cautious not to jump to conclusions and re-construct the argumentation afterward. This is what already happened for the "Weapons of Mass Destructions" and for the "terror links". In this particular point, I have some concerns that Dagen's arguments are more extracted from an a priori iconography than from objective considerations, and the very curious presence of "bodily odours" in his list of recriminations is an example of what I think weakens his argumentation. Rama 13:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should provide a completely fact based report on that issue or not make it....good luck--MONGO 11:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is in Saddam Hussein, "In March of 2005 a former U.S. Marine who reportedly took part in the operation that apprehended Saddam alleged that the capture of Saddam was fictionalized by the U.S. military to make it look like he was found in a hole. The Marine further alleged that Saddam was actually found in a house and fired at the Marines with a pistol. [82]". Rama 11:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No facts there...there is no proof that Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh even exists or if he did that he was at the location when Saddam was captured...you are presenting a conspiracy theory that is so preposterous it defies reasoning.--MONGO 11:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I said "we have a testimony by one of the soldiers who contributed to the capture of Saddam Hussein who happens to cast serious doubts as to its authenticity". You asked me to prove it. I provided a reference to the testimony. What more do you want ? Rama 12:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama, there is no proof that this guy was even a soldier...in the most polite manner I can, I see no proof here...his witness to said event does not provide me with serious doubts....I want the guy to prove he was either in the military or if he was, that the was even at the location when Saddam was captured...besides, he claims he was a marine...the marines were not involved in the operation...army rangers and army special forces units were.--MONGO 12:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to prove that the story of Saddam Hussein in the hole is wrong. I say (and prove) that there is some controverrsy around it. In the context of the theatrical arrival of George Bush on an aircraft carrier dressed as a fighter pilote, it is not unconcievable that this could have been "sexed up" too. I merely notice that it has become very quickly popular in the "Saddam Hussein is a rat" iconography, and that some discussion has arisen around it. Rama 12:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked the capture story. It came directly from UPI's Lebanon desk, and made it to the wire before the US-based bureau checked it. They say they've been doing the best to kill it since the Marine Corps can find no trace of the purported ex-Marine Sergeant who was interviewed in Lebanon and made these claims. It's a fake about a fake. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the term "Liberation of Iraq" should be incorporated and described explicitly as a loaded or propaganda term used by promoters of the invasion, and unlike the other terms not one that enjoys much general currency. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not in the circles you wander in, but most of the folks I know certainly think it was a liberation.--MONGO 11:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well that's the point. Whether one thinks it was a liberation (on balance I think it probably was) and whether one further uses the term "Liberation of Iraq" (I don't like to because it reeks of jingoism), depends very much on one's point of view. The term shouldn't be used in the introduction to the article as if it was a universally used term, any more than one would want to insert "Tricky Dick" into the intro of Richard Nixon as an alternative title. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope...the wording said "alternatively" which means that to some, or to a fair number...I am of that fair number and some others commenting here are also...perhaps the bulk of the world considers it to be an invasion, so the use of that word occupies the title for the article...but others also call it the second gulf war, third gulf war...etc...there is no reason that it cannot also be alternatively known as the liberation of Iraq...--MONGO 11:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind "alternatively" at all, but we need more qualification. "Sometimes referred to by its advocates as The Liberation of Iraq", perhaps. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine.--MONGO 12:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like "alternatively" but I think Tony's suggestion is good also. I would like to point out that "Invasion of Iraq", while factual, does also have POV connotations. The word "invasion" sounds negative, even if one believes the aims are noble. Johntex 15:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No argument there. But in an effort to reach a concensus, the current wording fits in with the event best. I doubt the invasion was done for noble purposes...it was done to ensure that Saddam was removed from power due to his neverending failures to fully comply with UN resolutions...all the other issues were secondary.--MONGO 04:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Freedom

It seems very non-parallel that we have seperate articles on the United Kingdom military operations as 'Operation Telic', and the Australian operations as 'Operation Falconer', but 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' redirects here. We should have the seperate article Operation Iraqi Freedom and list this article as the main article. Discussion? Johntex 06:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem here. Perhaps the logistic aspects of the US operation can be discussed there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems very appropriate to me, especially in the light of the remarks made by some users about the lack of technical military informations. Rama 08:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the intro about "liberation". I don't normally wade into POV matters, but that's just too much. Imperial conquest isn't liberation. Everyking 08:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imperial conquest...really...you mean like Japanese invasion of Manchuria or their subsequent raping of Nanking??? Because that is a better example of what a true imperial conquest is for a definition.--MONGO 11:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the only example of imperial conquest. There was something imperialistic about the decision to scrap the GSM phone system already in use in parts of Iraq and replace it by an incompatible CDMA system that is mostly used in the USA, for instance. This was apparently an unashamed attempt by US politicians to manipulate post-invasion Iraq to the advantage of their own constituents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speechless...I am speechless...those nasty Americans are trying to make sure the Iraqi's use American style phone systems...that is so damn imperialistic...in all liklihood, since the majority of the contract work being done there is handled by American companies, it is cheaper for them to install what they are familiar with...I mean, the U.S. is paying for it...MY TAXES...but you are right, this forced enslavement of the Iraqi people to utilize American phone systems is tantamount to rape and pillage...--MONGO 12:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what I have seen, the majority of the money used for "reconstruction contracts" was coming from the Iraqi budget. In any case, Tony Sidaway makes a very good point by underlyine the forcibly subordination and exclusive dependency which the USA are pushing in Iraq. While there is no comparison with the rape of Nankin (that would rather be the equivalent of Abu Grahib), it is an obvious tactic for any empire to force a dependency on his vassals. In this context, with all reconstruction contracts awarded to US companies, in disregard of international economic rules, there is indeed an imperialist component in the attitude of the USA toward Iraq. Rama 13:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have been brainwashed!!! How in the hell can you compare the prison abuse scandal with the rape of Nanking? You must be kidding!!!! Furthermore, simply put: the U.S. may be installing a phone system which they are not only more familiar with (from and engineering standpoint) but that also is more relaible etc. You guys are simply off the charts to the left as far as the political spectrum goes on this issue...absolutely no intentional insults here. I thought that Sidaway was kidding when he discussed the phone system...I mean so what!!! that is imperialism....give me a break! Lastly, BILLIONS of U.S. tax dollars have been earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction efforts...--MONGO 17:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, would please at least try to stop beginning most of your remarks by insults to your fellow users ? This is really, really tyring. I am trying to shed lights and give nuances, not to get the "You have been brainwashed!!!" by someone who doesn't know what "first world" means. What do you want as an answer ? That I at least have a brain to wash ? If you are so astronomically badly educated that you are unable to interact with your fellow users on a civilised tone, by all means do go on FreeRepublic or anything else.

And as for the discussion, you can challenge the comparison of Abu Grahib with Nankin (not that I mostly said that it was more adequate than Nankin with telephon systems), but if you think that you impress people with the use of capitals and the number of exclamation marks you put in sentences, I suggest that you retake your classes from the kindergarten. The same goes for the telephone system, do you have any sort of argument to say that US technology is better, or did you infer it from watching Team America ?

Your lack of education on the talk pages is not serving you, it just makes you appear as an ignorant peasant. If you want to be taken seriously, you might really reconsider your phrasing, and learn the difference between an opinion editorial and a news report. Rama 21:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You lecture about insults when you have been warned about being rude and condescending by myself and others. I see nothing about what you just said that has anything to do with you proving you are more intelligent than I am or that your argument is more sound intellectually. Repeating the idea of first world...that is not a phrase used here in the states.....regardless, all it was was an effort for you to sidestep you putting your foot in your mouth when you stated it..it appeared to me to be "the first" not first world...regardless, it makes no difference because it's not like the U.S. went it alone for the umptenth time...they did have others as you know.--MONGO 10:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apart from you I have been warned by one single, one-edit anonymous editor, and it was immediately after you failed twice in a row to understand what "First World" means on a talk page where youu ramble about geopolitics. As for you, you once said "I find most of your comments as they read to be both condescending and rude" on this very talk page, as we were discussing the opportunity to ask for Request for comments about your edits. I do not think that you edit in bad faith (although you did say "I refuse to have good faith" on this very page). However, I do think that you are generally badly informed, unwilling to nuance your understanding of the matter at hand, and badly mannered. Your punctuation is deplorable. You might think that others staying calm and nuanced while you ramble your simplistic views is a plot to make you look like a fool, but this is how people here mean to work. You sound like a 6 year old in a university commity. I have absolutely genuine concern that if you don't stop taking things for granted and treating your fellow users like a redneck, it will make communicating with you so difficult that people might be forced to require an RfC on you, so I once more urge you to adopt a lower tone. Rama 11:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I punctuate as I wish...your spelling is the worst I have ever seen. You continue to insult me and have the audacity to suggest that I am a contender for banishment through RfC...I think you're on a witch hunt for anyone that argues with your obvious POV...Je donne vous crédite parce que je soupçonne que vous êtes français si anglais est votre deuxième langue. However, if this isn't an example of a witch hunt...I don't know what is:[[83]] I may have to discuss this whole matter with Jimbo.--MONGO 12:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is, MONGO, that crucial decisions about Iraq's infrastructure were taken by Americans, with US interests uppermost. This seems to be justification for regarding the United States to be motivated by imperialistism rather than altruism in the case of Iraq. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought the debate over at some of the articles related to sexuality, like sexual intercourse and autofellatio raised tempers. So, uh, bringing it back to the question this section is about, namely removing the redirect from Operation Iraqi Freedom: It looks like there are no objections so far. I don't actually know how to remove a redirect so we can begin the article. Could someone point me in the right direction, please? Unless more discussion is needed, of course. Thanks, Johntex 15:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just go to Operation Iraqi Freedom. You will be redirected here but under the title you will see "(Redirected from Operation Iraqi Freedom)". Click on Operation Iraq Freedom and you will go to the redirect page (it's just an ordinary article page containing a Wiki redirect command. edit it to delete the redirect and replace it with whatever you like. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tony - thank you very much. I will put a short article together this weekend and then substitute it for the redirect. As you suggest, I think that will be a good place to talk more about the military operations. Johntex 18:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of George W. Bush at USS Abraham Lincoln

Is there any reasons why this article is using screen grabs from CNN to illustrate the visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln? I've found some PD Navy images:

• George W. Bush
• His jet landing
• Mission Accomplished
• White House pics

Is there any objection to using some of these pics instead of the CNN grabs? Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

this would seem very sensible to me, indeed (long live Commons !). Rama 08:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds okay. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All but the last one are unviewable via my server so perhaps others should be brought to a vote on this first.--MONGO 10:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues

A number of times I've seen this: someone states that the inspectors said there were still "issues". It seems that this is sometimes used as some kind of justification for the invasion--which is absurd. Of course there were still issues--the search for WMDs was expected to take months. Maybe I've misunderstood. What is the special significance, if any, of there still remaining "issues" to be resolved at the time of the invasion. And if these issues still remained, why did the US and the UK insist on pre-empting the inspection proces that was engaged in resolving them? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because the U.S. and the U.K. decided that no matter how through or committed the UNSCOM inspectors may have been, there was always the chance they could overlook things or that, as in the past, Saddam would be more obstructionist than proactive and abiding. Furthermore, it was a post 9/11 world. Here is some food for fodder...[84]--MONGO 11:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Silverback (reverting to MONGO)

I am not completely agreed with some points:

• removing " A few of these nations provided combat troops and support troops, more provided logistical support, but most simply provided moral support, in the absence of a Security Council resolution", which is factually true, and more informative than "These nations provided combat troops, support troops, and logistical support for the invasion"
• Adding "Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorise war. The coalition formed around the USA argued that another understanding of the resolution is possible". Is that so ? I though that officials of both the US and UK government gave assurances that the 1441 was not meaning automatic war. Did these government take back their word ?
• Adding

  "The United States and United Kingdom claimed it was a legal action which they were within international law to undertake. Along with Poland and Australia, the invasion was supported by the governments of several European nations, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, and Spain. In the countries whose governments supported the invasion, governments and media have called the good faith of the Council into question on this matter, on the grounds of the issues raised by trade with Iraq in violation of the sanctions, the corruption of the Oil for Food program and the UN in general, and a resentment of the cultural and economic dominance of the USA that led to opposition irrespective of the merits of the invasion."

This is lengthly, repetition of what has already be said, and tendencious ("governments and media have called the good faith of the Council into question on this matter, on the grounds....", fait enough, but also then we should also say "an overwhelming majority of the population disaproved the position of their governement, and huge protests took place, considerably undermined the claims of defending democraty" (insert quotations of Junshiro Koizumi here)). To balance this part, we'd need to make it even more lengthly, it will probably turn into an edition war, and will not add much to the article, so I suggest we just scrap it. Rama 09:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is incredibly repetitive at the moment (I don't recall it being this bad a month or so ago). I think the problem is that we cannot yet agree on an appropriate form of words to describe the situation surrounding the outbreak of war, and as a result we're holding a debate within the article itself. We should strive to find a form of words that will work for all of us, state it once, and stick to it. The issue of the legality of the war, for instance, should be mentioned once in the intro and once in the appropriate section, not rehashed over and over again in all sections. The nature of the support (a minority of nations, and mostly just signing a memorandum giving moral support, with only four nations ( US, UK, Australia, Poland) or whatever sending invading forces, and most neighboring countries uninvolved (Turkey offering support but overruled by its Parliament, Syria offering no support this time, Saudi offering no support or possibly covert support according to one NYT story). Spain at the Azores, but not sending invading forces. These essentials should be summarised in the intro and elaborated in the appropriate sections, but are now being drowned out by this debate format where one person adds a contentious statement and another editor seeks to balance it by qualifying it. This makes the article read, at times, like the ramblings of a madman. That's not a reflection on any editor, but an inevitable consequence of our difficulties in collaborating on the editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we're also seeing a lot of questionable attributions, too. I removed a lot of unsourced statements suggesting, for instance, that the US administration questioned the meaning of "serious consequences"--this may have happened in the press among pundits, but has the US government put its name to it? Also the innuendoes about the US failure to gain support in the Security Council being down to commercial ties between Iraq and nations that would not sign to an early second resolution--are these really, as stated in the article, claims to which the US government has put its name? If either of these extraordinary claims is true we should document them well, otherwise we should not give the claims prominence and certainly must not attribute to the US government that which it has not said. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps youu could in fact consider creating a specific section for arguments which were developped by conseervative US medias (Foxnews comes to my mind, but there are of course lots of other examples) without being endorsed by the US government, and even mention how these tend to stick in some portions of the US public opinion. This might help sort the two sortrs of arguments, and will also be less surprising for readers who would expect to see such arguments (a little bit like an "urban myth" section). Rama 09:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Q: is rama a sock puppet for Tony Sidaway? The responses seem very close together...and the way this whole section goes, it almost appears as if Tony is talking to himself.--MONGO 10:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non, il est francophone, je suis anglais. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oui, j'ai su cela. Mais vos réponses