Talk:1993 cruise missile strikes on Iraq

There were two cruise missile strikes in Iraq outside of the no-fly zones in 1993, once in January ordered by Bush and once in June ordered by Clinton. Shall we combine them into one article?

Links: Jan. 17th strike: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/strike_930117.htm Jun. 26th strike: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/strike_930626.htm

WDW Megaraptor (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article misses key information leading to a one-sided POV
Information regarding the torture of the suspects for a forced confession and their revoking their forced confessions during trial should be included. Information that they were smugglers, not professional agents or assassins, should also be included. Later statements by the CIA that this was a ploy by Kuwait to force a harder hand by the US government on Iraq should be included. Generally, stating the ambiguous and controversial details of Kuwaiti and Iraqi smugglers as fact of an Iraqi government assassination attempt against George HW Bush requires revisiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.54 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this article needs some cleaning up. The CIA's conclusion is that Kuwait made it up. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-05-27-9305270298-story.html This means the only people claiming such a plot assuredly happened were the Kuwaiti authorities. Since the suspects were tortured into saying what Kuwaiti authorities told them to say, it lends less validity to Kuwait's claims. Another point you missed is that Human Rights Watch was condemning Kuwait for its torture of prisoners before that point. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This article lists Iraq as a belligerent, when according to the CIA they didn't attack anyone. 45.72.231.4 (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Disagreed, the text is balanced, and such informations are selectively cited here in the talk page because of political agenda. Clearly you want that information in the article to advance your political dogmas. Wikipedia is full one side POV, mostly in the way you would like (You want outsider theories to be added, without mentioning scholars), but, it should be avoided. The article is well written compared to what could be found in Wikipedia. There is a contradiction when at the same time you claim the article is one sided, and at the other you want an obscure THEORY to be added here. You need consensus among scholars to talk about a theory this way, it sounds very conspiratory, by the way.