Talk:2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq

Archive 1 (489kb) /Archive2

/Fpahl vs Silverback

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:[]--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)


 * "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 Baastalk: 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 Baastalk: 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" 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 Baastalk: new 04:14, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

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     ... heck just google    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


 * 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)


 * 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. 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 . "third world" is also accurate, 117 of them have lower-middle or low income per capita  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)

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:. 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.


 * 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)

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 |Attorney 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: . 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?

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.  :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 Baastalk: 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)

Article moves
Would people please cut this crap with the article moves? We have now ended up (probably because of cut-and-paste moves) with this article totally separated from its history, which causes legal problems with GFDL. And y'know what? I'm not going to clean up after you this time (although I hope someone does). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:54, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)