Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1

This entry badly needs an introductory paragraph. --The Cunctator


 * content moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war)

Weasel words
Statements such as "many people have expressed" and "few military analysts believe" are merely hearsay. The article *must* provide exactly who said what and when. Which military analysts? What exactly did they say? Kingturtle 17:26 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

...."and allegations that he was involved in the September 11 attacks."

Who has alleged that Saddam was involved in the Sept 11 attacks? This has never been the U.S. government's position. I'm sure that connections were investigated, but I haven't heard anyone actually claim that he was involved...


 * I saw a CNN survey on Sunday which said that 51% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, though I haven't heard any official allege such things. -- Zoe

Kuwait missiles
I don't believe any reputable source has "confirmed" that the missiles fired into Kuwait were SCUD missiles, at least not yet. --AW


 * I'd also not heard any such confirmation, but Reuters here reports a couple of such claims. It would be best, I think, if we said exactly who had confirmed these were Scuds though, because an Iraqi spokesman appears to have denied they were (in a rather confused sentence which you can read in several different ways, but still). I'll let somebody else pick it apart though, I'm off to bed. --Camembert


 * The BBC report also seems a tad confused - it refers to the missiles as "scud type", but then later says "if it were to be confirmed that..." Sheesh, I dunno what's going on. :) --AW


 * Well said. Iraq will make claims; the U.S. will make claims. Better details might come into focus in a few days, or months, or years. After all, LBJ lied to us about the Gulf of Tonkin. Who knows what kind of drivel we are being fed. The media frenzies today are out of control. What sicks me is to hear TV and radio reports all saying the same bit of gossip as if they had made it up. Kingturtle 02:47 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take the scud bit out, then, on the principle that it's best not to include anything in this article unless it's rock solid and copper-bottomed... --AW

Flaming oil location
All the reports I have seen are about southern oil fields with a few flaming wells, not Northern ones. Is there a source for this claim? Rmhermen 15:51 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * CNN reports the flaming oil wells are in the South. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/sprj.irq.oil.wells/index.html
 * Reuters reports that there are only 7 wells set on fire.

Rmhermen 17:02 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * I was interpreting the BBC article, which said the wells on fire were in "other parts of the country", and definitely says that there is fighting around the northern oil wells. They've revised a bit since then, though, and now split the sections: near the top of the article they have this - "But Chief of the UK Defence Staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce said that elsewhere in Iraq seven oil wells had been set alight by Iraqi forces, down from an earlier estimate of 30." (the "elsewhere" follows on from the previous paragraph, which discussed the al-Faw peninsula). Now *LATER* in the article, not together with that bit as it was previously, comes this: "Meanwhile, fierce fighting has been reported around the big oil fields in northern Iraq, which US special forces are said to be trying to secure." Seems there might be a northern theatre which the U.S. military isn't so keen for the reports to discuss. BBC article --AW

Inconsistencies
I think the whole article is getting a little unwieldy and internally inconsistent, due to bits of it being written at different times by different people under different circumstances. Does anyone agree it needs to be copyedited to be consistent in terms of tense (try and use past tense wherever possible, this is an encyclopaedia article after all) and naming (try and use the same name for the same country consistently?) --AW
 * We could lose some of the speculative "plan" sections like the one about the air war preceeding the ground war - which of course didn't happen. Rmhermen 16:08 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

Abridgement
OK, I took action and cut this down to an article on the invasion itself. Now we need to discuss where to put the stuff I cut out.

Firstly, "US rationale for invasion". I think this and the "military preparations" section and just about everything else under it deserve a separate article on US political and military actions in the lead-up to the invasion.

The "UN position" section can possibly be rolled into the "United Nations actions regarding Iraq" page.

I think we can lose the "effect on civilians" section for now, and write a new article on the consequences of the invasion once it's actually FINISHED.

Comments? --AW


 * A bit of an NPOV problem -- the article was just starting to become a bit balanced between an exclusively US pov and a UN/rest-of-world POV. This, IMHO, was a good thing.  If you split the pro-sentiment into one article, and the anti-sentiment into another, neither comes out neutral, they both end up looking like propaganda.


 * There should, I think, in an encyclopedia, be a single page, easily found with an obvious title, which makes some attempt to give a balanced point of view.


 * I don't see that this article is giving any point of view. This is a factual article about the events of the invasion, I don't see that it has any position on whether the invasion is desirable or not. It simply says "On Day X, force Y did Z". The reportage about the various positions on whether the invasion should be happening in the first place belong elsewhere, at least in the schema that ) and I are proposing. Probably in the UN article and the article on Iraqi WMDs. --AW


 * This article may not be the appropriate one to argue about, but the article that it was 2 hours ago is.


 * The problem isn't that your facts are unsupported (they are facts all right), but that only the facts being played up by U.S. press are being reported. If you want a "copper-bottomed" factual article, read some outside sources first.  I've been following several outside sources including the U.N, German, Italian, French and Russian press.  The U.S.-only bias is pretty obvious once you've read the others.


 * You're not seriously suggesting that the Frenchm, German, Italian and Russian sources are going to be free of bias are you?


 * Nobody disagrees on the facts, but which facts are mentioned and which are downplayed can lead to a bias, and sometimes a less-than-subtle one.


 * The article you are moving (where has it gone, anyway?) was starting to take shape because several of the american-downplayed facts and arguments were being slowly re-introduced.


 * For example, to look at the U.S. press, you would think that the "coalition" includes every country in the world except France (and sometimes Germany). Check this amusing British article as an antidote to that:


 * What can Eritrea possibly do to help the US in Iraq?


 * It's a truism that the victors write the history. Wikipedia is one of the first chances we've had to let the whole world write the history -- let's take advantage of that!   Not just facts, but an attempt to find the facts that one country's press can't or won't mention, but another's might.


 * SteverapaportSteverapaport


 * I'm basing all the stuff I include on BBC reports, cross-checked with whatever other news sites I can find (mostly CNN). I only put something in once two sites at least have mentioned it, and if it seems questionable, I attribute it. If you want to put in things *actually happening in the course of the invasion* (since that's all this article covers now) that have been missed and that ought to be here, go ahead! It's a wiki, after all :). --AW


 * Have you considered that maybe CNN and BBC were not entirely reliable to express every side points of view ?

Once again: this article isn't expressing anyone's point of view. It's recording actual events. If you can cast sufficient doubt on whether anything reported to have happened in this article actually did, feel free to explain and remove it. If you think there are actual events in the invasion which have taken place and are not on this page, add them. --AW


 * I am glad to hear that. I am probably dreaming when I have the feeling to read a pro-coalition side view in it. Why is there no mention it was saddam and his sons who where the goal target on the first bombings ? Why is there no mention of the fact saddam appeared on tv at least 2 times since the war started ?


 * I don't see that either of those are pro- or con- anybody, they're just omissions! I'm doing my best here, but I'm not perfect. I missed those, so Why not just add them yourself, instead of complaining here? This isn't "my" article, it's a wikipedia article. Yeesh. --AW


 * sorry. since you have been writing most of the new article, I can't help calling it yours. Why did you not moved the previous one, instead of merely doing a copy/paste. It would have preserved the history. It is now a left over in an article, which as you state yourself hold little in common with the previous one. Why did you do that ? Making the history of an article disappear is a real loss. *I* complain because this article is oriented imho, and am getting tired to see my stuff removed for being poorly written.

More on SCUDs
I've seen reports, with photos and video of Kuwaiti soldiers kneeling next to Iraqi missile fragments ,claiming that Kuwait has confirmed that 2 of the Iraqi missiles were SCUDs. The other missiles are believed to be other types of missiles. Anybody seen any more information about this? If so, we should add it since SCUDs are prohibited under the U.N. resolutions.


 * It's known that Kuwait has said that. No-one else has, however (not even the U.S. military's official spokespeople), and I think it's wise to wait for at least more than one source before adding something as verified fact on this page. --AW


 * Until there is confirmation from the U.S. military on whether SCUDs were fired or not, keep it out of the article. Kingturtle 01:14 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Self-contradiction
Adam, you report that "it is clear that it is a taped statement" and then continue with "one factor supporting this theory." If it is a theory, then it is not clear. Keep hearsay and innuendo out of the articles. Kingturtle 01:14 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Erm, I didn't write that. I took that OUT. Check the current revision, by me - that bit isn't in. It was added by the previous revision, by an IP address. --AW

''of course it's taped, everything on TV is taped. rewrite this to be somehow less US-biased. remove the vague and questionable assertions by the US military'''

I put in that its taped because that's the major problem with trying to determine whether or not its "new". Everything on TV is taped, but not everything is live. This was defintely not live, according to analysts. That IS important.


 * I don't believe it was claimed to be live on broadcast, and no-one ever reported that it was. So saying that it isn't, as if this is something exciting and important, is misleading. --AW


 * DIdn't say that anyone did. But as it was, the article only questioned whether or not it was a body double and said that it was determined that it probably wasn't. That gave the false impression that we know for a fact that Hussein is still alive. Thats not the case. The question of whether or not the film was live or taped is important - if it was live, then we know he was alive. If it was taped - it could have been taped six months ago and would mean absolutely nothing. I don't have a problem with the statement that was added at the end though.


 * Sure, which is why I didn't remove the segment completely. I just rewrote it, rephrasing the basic information - we don't know when the statement was recorded - in more neutral terms. --AW

re: vague assertions by the US military... whats wrong with saying what the U.S. is saying? I'm attributing the statements to the US. Just as IRaqi statements are attributed to Iraq. I don't see any difference.


 * This is an article about the actual EVENTS of the invasion. If we included everything everyone said, we'd be here for the rest of eternity, and the article would be full of useless hearsay. Statements should only be included when they are the positions of each side on an actual, solid event (a missile attack, an incident in a particular city, for instance) - not something vague like the state of Iraqi command.


 * If you say so.. I guess you're in charge. Personally, I think Iraq saying that US forces have not set foot on Iraqi soil and the US saying that Iraq's military is breaking from within are pretty important statements.


 * No! No-one's in charge! This is an anarcho-syndicalist collective, this is! ;). In a sense you're right, but remember that this is an *encyclopaedia*, not a news report. Right now, what the US and Iraq say is kind of interesting to people, and it's certainly appropriate content for a news report. I'm trying very hard to keep this page not a news report, though, but more what a wikipedia article on the topic ought to be, in my personal opinion - a quite controlled attempt to present the actual concrete facts of what's happening in the invasion itself. Iraq says one thing, the U.S. says another - in a couple of days we'll generally know for sure either way, so we may as well wait for that point then write it down than have to keep chasing around changing people's statements. --AW

Cheering Iraqis
Removed "Coalition forces were greeted with cheers and hugs from Iraqi citizens as they took control of the city." as I've not seen anyone report this (let alone as fact and not hearsay), not even Fox News. If anyone can verify this, feel free to put it back. --AW


 * It was reported on MSNBC (with visuals of Iraqis helping marines tear down enormous portraits of Saddam Hussein) but if you don't want it in the article, that's fine. -- Someone else 09:20 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, fair enough, I haven't checked MSNBC. Seems odd that no-one else seems to mention it, though. Go ahead and put it back in if you want, but maybe since MSNBC is the only source, it should be attributed ("MSNBC reported that...") --AW


 * I've seen it reported. (Australian commercial TV would report anything.) But it's just a propaganda claim. The accompanying footage of three people waving was about as convincing as one of Saddam's speeches. It may be true. It may not. We have absolutely no way of knowing at this stage. It's just the inevitable PR guff that you get in any war. Wait a few weeks longer and all will become clear. Till then, let's just print the stuff we know. Tannin


 * Yes, this was the general position I was working from when I took it out. But things like this do happen in wars, and if the report was sufficiently convincing (detailed eyewitness reports, pictures, something like that) it might be worth reporting here. But if not, I agree with you, Tannin. --AW


 * I've seen a couple of articles on the net (which are probably long gone with newer information by now) that said elderly women were hugging coalition soldiers.

Iraq MOI cited without explanation?!
Um, if the following is included..

According to the Iraqi Minister for information, strikes have made 207 civil casualties in the capital

..Shouldn't we also mention that the Iraqi Minister of Information made a number of other statements that were completely and totally false - like US forces are retreating, we've killed 5 tanks, coalition forces have sustained a number of casualties, they haven't been able to hold cities in IRaq, they've captured civilians and pretended that they captured soldiers, etc, etc, etc. It seems like this claim is questionable to say the least, in light of the other claims he made. (I watched his statement in its entirety by the way)


 * true. We won't be sure until the war is over probably. But, I don't see it a reason not to include the information claimed by the other side. There were also some claims made by the us government, which apparently are very questionable (such as "proofs" presented at the UN). Do you also question other claims made by the us government ? The change made by aw is ok.


 * Of course. I don't deny that the US puts out misinformation - all goverments do.. including the US, and Iraq, France, Germany, etc, etc. BUT.. in this situation, nearly everything the guy said was obviously false - most of the US's claims on the war largely seem to be backed up by 24 hour-a-day television footage (for example, you can turn the TV at any time and see that US forces are not retreating, US forces are on Iraqi soil, photos and videos of Iraqi soldiers surrendering, our forces in Iraqi cities and driving down Iraqi roads, etc). The point is, I just don't think it makes sense to put much weight on any of his claims at this point. But, as you say, the change is ok. My note here was before the change was made.


 * "Our" forces? This isn't an American, Australian or British project. It's international. Please remember this. --AW


 * Yeah.. relax. This is just a talk page. I'm talking as an American here. Oh wait.. I'm sorry, what is the wikiPC word for it? "USAsian"?


 * Yeah. Maybe. But please try not to put too much this "our" forces in the article. Not everyone here is included in the "our".


 * Have I done that even once? I don't think I have. Like most on Wikipedia, when I type on a talk page I am speaking in my own voice for the most part. When I type an article, I'm not.


 * No, that would be The Nationality That Dare Not Speak Its Name. -- Someone else 11:28 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not from France though.


 * Silly me! I thought that was a large stinky brie hidden under that white flag you're holding in your prehensile tail! -- Someone else 11:40 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I think it's an especially important thing to keep in mind when trying to maintain an article like this, working from more or less universally Western-centric media (I wish I could read Arabic, or something...) --AW


 * It unfortunately is an western-centric media, and it should not be. I wish there were an iraki here


 * no question about that. I always keep that in mind when writing articles. Talk pages are much more informal. We shouldn't ignore the US media though.. sure it's biased, but no more or less than any other country's media. They all have their own agendas.


 * Yup. That's exactly the point. Nearly all the info put there is stuff taken on british or american or australian media. Clearly they should not be ignored :-) Just as other medias should not be ignored either. The US media here is the neglected one.


 * I know you're being silly.. but I was not suggesting that western media was neglected. Somewhere up above in this mess (or on another talk page.. I can't remember now with all of these articles), someone made a comment about US-media-bias and suggested using German or French media sources. That's just silly. My point was that we shouldn't overcompensate. Use everything to some extent. (Although, I do think Iraq's minister of information is useless.)


 * Actually, that's not so. Sure, all countries bias their media, I would not dispute that for a moment. But most countries, largely by virtue of their size, get a great deal of their media content from other countries, which has an enormous balancing effect. No-one can learn much about themselves by just looking in a mirror. It's simply not possible for a New Zealand or even a Canada to produce all its own media content. The United States is very unusual in this respect: it gets an almost pure diet of undiluted home-grown content. (Partly becaue of its sheer size, but also for both geographic and trade policy reasons.) The result is that, if you live in the US, you are far less likely to be exposed to a wide range of media content than if you live in (for e.g.) Ireland or Denmark or even France. The US, in this respect, is less akin to most of Europe and the English-speaking world than it is to China, the former Soviet Union, or, indeed, Iraq. Tannin

Removed disputed section
Text removed:
 * The US-British forces are beginning to show signs of confusion, with "frendly fire" downing of one British plane. The towns which were reported captured are now showing resistance by urban guerilla. It appears that troops were deliberately allowed to enter deep into Iraqi territory, only to be later spread thin and entraped in guerilla warfare, proper for any similar situation of foreign occupation attempt.


 * USA and British bombs have menaged to kill 77 civilians in Basra by means of heavy bombing, and hundreds of civilians are wounded in Basra and Baghdad. USA and British leaders have expressed their concern over the breaches of Geneva convention by the Iraqis, who showed captured and killed US soldiers on TV, a grave breach of the convention by the Iraqis.


 * Heavy military losses are reported in the invading army - 25 killed, 35 captured and dozens of wounded mercenaries. The resistance and such development was not expected by the military planners of the aggression, but they are confident that Iraqi forces will soon crumble in awe and that Iraqi people will begin to welcome the mercenaries with American flags and buckets of oil.

The above is reaching conclusions based on disputed facts. This is a clear violation of our NPOV policy and needs to be rewriten to attribute analysis to the correct parties. -- mav


 * Could you please tell a bit more why the facts stated above (as found in independent media reports by established news agencys like Reuters and AP) violate the NPOV policy? till we *) 23:30 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Body count
Text removed:
 * The total civilian death toll -- including western journalists -- until now is estimated to lay between 126 and 199 casualities, according to Iraq Body Count project.

Is it possible to cite a more neutral source than this? --mav 01:57 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I doubt it. &mdash;Hephaestos 02:04 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * I doubt it too, but for different reasons, I think. A simple tally of figures given in newspapers does not make an independent estimate. The Iraq Body Count project makes no attempt to record or assess the original sources for their information. If they see a report in a major newspaper saying "Iraqi authorities claim 100 civilians were killed, but Allied command calls the figures greatly exaggerated", they enter it into their database as "minimum 100, maximum 100" since the Allied side failed to state an alternate figure. Unfortunately, we're not likely to get more balanced figures since the Allied side, and even the independent journalists in Baghdad, are generally not in a position to make numerical estimates. -- Tim Starling 04:25 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Removed text:
 * According to the Iraq Body Count project, the total civilian death toll&#8212;including Western journalists&#8212;until now is estimated to be between 126 and 199, although this has not been independently verified.

This requires independent verification. We don't report things just because some website that gets 59 hits on Google says so. See above thread for more. --mav


 * I've put the text back in, because I find the methodology of the Iraq Body Count project convincing. They describe on their website en detail how they work, and I doubt they would a headline like the one cited here include as min 100 max 100, but as min 0, max 100. till we *) 23:17 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Just because they describe it in detail doesn't mean it's flawless. You've actually got to read the detail to judge that. Here's a quote from the website:


 * Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.


 * Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum column.


 * As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present clearly identifying some of the killed as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians within the total will be entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6 -CIA Factbook 2002.]

It seems quite clear that my sample statement above would be considered "max 100, min 100", as long as the report appeared in two major newspapers. -- Tim Starling 00:26 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Also, the fact that IBC's current figures (199-278) are quite a bit higher than the Iraqi estimate of 158 suggests that something is wrong. -- Tim Starling 01:02 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

I would also like to know who are these people and why is their estimate so important that we should report on it? Just because somebody has a website, an agenda and supposed 'information' does not mean we should report the 'information'. Do these people have a track record of reliability? Are they famous? Do have expertise in statistics? News reporting? Anything? It doesn't really matter how accurate their estimates are because in the first place what they say is as important as any random group of people with a Geocities website. It would be far better for us to report that "Al Jazeera estimates there are 1,500 civilian deaths", "The Washington Post reports 25", the "United States government reports 3" and "Iraq says that 5,000 were killed". These are all well-known sources that we should report on - not some random website. --mav

Joke?
Cite for this? Looks like a joke to me.


 * BEIJING -- Monday -- China has given the United States the address of its embassy in Baghdad in the hope of avoiding a repeat of the deadly 1999 bombing of its mission in Belgrade, diplomatic sources said on Monday.


 * China passed on the details of its Iraq mission, at around the time US-led coalition aircraft started dropping bombs in and around Baghdad, to prevent any repeat of the 1999 bombing Washington said happened because of outdated maps, they said.

It is REUTERS news. It sure looks like a joke, a black one indeed - lol

Independant check ? Tom

If I was China Id do that too. Dietary Fiber

Other countries are sending aid too
from page '' Once the port city is declared safe, Coalition forces hope to begin delivering food and aid to cities under Coalition control. ''

I object to "coalition forces hope to begin..." here. Delivering of aid is organised and will be provided by humanitarian organisations, not by the coalition. Putting it that way implies that only countries from the coalition will bring help to population, which is grossly wrong.


 * Well, others are *already* sending aid. Kuwait for example has dozens of trucks headed north into Iraq, Save the Children is also headed in there. But the coalition forces have ships waiting off the coast ready to go in as soon as things are clear. Nothing incorrect about the above statement.

Unwillingness vs. fear
Quit changing "unwilling to fly through" to "afraid to." Flying through smoke and attacking ground troops is just stupid, it has nothing to do with fear.

Discussion about contributor actions
Cunctator, since you're editing other peoples comments on the talk page.. can I edit yours?--BugBoy
 * You can. Whether you may is another question. --The Cunctator


 * BugBoy must of missed the memo that stated you can do it and he can't. --mav
 * Huh? I just said BugBoy can. --The Cunctator

Various Topics
"Around midnight UTC (early morning local time), the Turkish military stated that 1,500 Turkish troops had moved into northern Iraq"


 * Has this been confirmed? I've heard conflicting info about this. Some have said the troops had always been where they are now and they haven't moved. Others have said they are moving troops in, others have said they're not. And unless I'm mistaken, didn't a Turkish offical just announce that they did not have plans to enter Iraq? Anyone know what is happening exactly?

Marketplace deaths
I thought the "more than 30" were killed in the marketplace - this article says 14 dead and 30 wounded... Perhaps Wikipedians are reporting on breaking events too fast? Given the number of "major reports" that turned out not to be news, we should wait at least a day before adding anything new. --dan

Operation location
Shouldn't the "Operation" title be at the start of the article, as it is with Desert storm and other wars? I don't mean the actual "article title" - I mean, shouldn't the Operation name be one of the first things listed and in bold as it is in other wars like Gulf War? It was the first thing and then someone moved it down a ways.

Sorry, but we supported the invasion
Removed from article:
 * The invasion is opposed by a majority of the population in most of the coalition nations.

In the US, at least, less than the majority of the population opposes the invasion, according to 2 TV network polls I remember reading. If my memory is wrong, please cite some polls or other proof, and put the correct info back into the article. --Uncle Ed 23:08 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

I think you'd better cite sources before saying whether a majority does or does not support the war. Youd also better cite the question and answers offered in the survey. Otherwise the information is useless. Dietary Fiber


 * I agree. That's why I removed the statement. Pending sources, etc., it's tantamount to propaganda. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a side one way or another here on the ethics of the war (ask me privately, if you want). I'm just trying to make the article accurate and timeless. --Uncle Ed

Ed: It was referenced. In the "coalition of the willing" entry:.

"US position"?
"Part of the US position..."....which part? exactly who? cite references. Kingturtle 03:41 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, just a question. We have a problem here with the numbers. How do we define the number of combat personnel? Assume (for the sake of example) that Australia has 2000 personnel in theatre (it's actually a bit more than that, but round figures will do for my example). Of those 2000, assume:


 * 150 SAS troops. (Obviously combat personnel)
 * 30 F/A-18 pilots (ditto)
 * 20 Chinook crewmembers (not intended to be combat personnel, but if they have to perform an SAS extraction under fire ....)
 * Navy personnel seem like non-combat staff on first sight, but HMAS ANZAC was doing shore bombardment the other day - if you are firing shots, I guess that makes you a combatant.
 * And so on.

The exact same problem applies to the Polish force, of course. And indeed, to the US & UK. Tannin 07:14 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * The real point that should be gained from this is that the Polish support is, militarily, primarily symbolic. In terms of individual lives, it's significant, but the Polish commandoes are unlike to change the course of the war. The reality is that the U.S. and U.K. presence dwarfs the others, so that to a zero-order approximation this is a U.S. war, to a first-order approximation it is U.S. &amp;amp; U.K. The U.S. is using hundreds of thousands of people and spending billions of dollars and using billions of dollars of equipment. Noone comes close to that. It would be much more disingenuous to state "This is a US, UK, Australian, and Polish invasion" (without stating the disparity in numbers) than to state "This is a US invasion". --The Cunctator

Kurd count
Is there any source for the kurdish coalition forces? 50,000 militia people? I've never heard about this! till we *) 23:19 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you could count them, they aren't a regular army. I've seen estimates published from 20,000 to 100,000.  Don't know what they are up to, they don't seem to have reporters embedded. -º¡º


 * More problematic: They don't fight yet, do they? -- till we *) 23:36 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)


 * The Kurdish Militia claims that there is 50,000.. I've seen news reports that estimate the number much higher (70,00+). I figured 50,000 was a safe guess. Yes, they do fight. 6,000 of them attacked a terrorist camp in Northern Iraq over the last couple of days with US special forces. A hundred or so Iraqis were killed. See for more info. It has been widely reported. There has also been talk of other attacks with Special forces and Kurdish troops. -- 216.229.90.232

Tannin, your insistance on using the term "token" is making the phrase POV. -- Zoe


 * I agree - that wording is not at all appropriate. We already report the number of troops and that is enough. --mav

Perhaps we should describe the "token Iraqi resistance" as well? I think anyone who doesn't see that the Iraqi resistance is merely token, is clearly helping the Iraqi propaganda effort. Er, nevermind... Dietary Fiber

What the hell is wrong with describing a token force as a token force? Or is someone seriously going to stand up and say that the miniscule Australian and Polish forces are genuine and serious attempts to influence the military conduct of the war? Fair go, you guys are so POV it's ludicrous. A token force is a token force is a token force. Why the censorship? What's the point? It's not as if there is anything wrong with sending a token force, is there? Tannin 06:32 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what Poland thinks, but Australia doesn't see it as a token force. I read several Australian articles recently complaining that their role in the war was being diminished by the media. In addition, no force is "token". A handful of US Navy SEALs captured an offshore oil station without firing a single bullet. They didn't overwhealm the Iraqi's with their large numbers, they were just "good" enough to get the job done even though they were a small force. Australian commandos have been conducting similar missions along the coast of Iraq (from what I've heard). They're firing weapons, getting fired upon, taking their lives in the hands, siezing explosives and other Iraqi weaponry.. its in no way just a "token force". "Token force" implies that they're useless or just there for show, which couldn't be further from the truth. They're getting the job done. -216.229.90.232


 * Tannin, I began to wonder a similar thing when the word "invasion" was censored from the main page. I suppose it's something we may just have to live with for a while.
 * "The first casualty when war comes is truth." – Hiram Johnson
 * Hephaestos 06:46 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * The rhetoric on both sides of this would be amusing if it weren't about something so deadly serious. Listen: there's no "censorship" here, nor is is true that "token force" "couldn't be further from the truth". There are just honest disagreements and (sometimes) harsh words.
 * If no force were token, then the phrase "token force" would not exist.
 * IMHO, as I wrote before, in terms of human lives, what the the Australian and Polish commandoes are doing significant. In military terms, they are not significant. There participation only affects the outcome of the invasion in human and political terms, not military.
 * I deliberately put the force numbers in to the entry because I knew that people would argue about whether or not it was appropriate to mention the Polish fighters in the first sentence ad infinitum otherwise. I personally think it's unnecessary to do so, but I can understand that others would reasonably disagree, so I determined what would be a reasonable compromise.
 * And that is how we should be editing this entry.
 * --The Cunctator


 * I agree with Cunctator here. The Polish and Australian (and to a lesser extent, the British) forces weree token in the ordinary meaning of the term.


 * No force is "token" if its used correctly - as pointed out with my Navy SEALs comments above. Polish commandos doing what they're doing, allows other forces to do something else. Thats not militarily insignificant. If those forces were not there, British or US forces would have to spend time doing those missions themselves. Its not POV to list force numbers (although it may be difficult to be accurate and current), but it is POV to say that those forces are a "token" force. I know for a fact that Australia would not agree with that title. -216.229.90.232

216, I am Australian. Yeah, sure, our newspapers are full of stuff about what "our boys" are doing "over there" (and I have not the slightest doubt that they are very highly skilled and as brave as anyone - the guys working blind on the bottom of a muddy harbour defusing mines, for example ... that sort of skill and dedication and cold wake-up-sweating-in-the-middle-of-the-night courage just blows me away) but the cold hard reality is that they are a tiny token force. Count them. Do the numbers. They ain't there in anything like the numbers required to make a substantial contribution to the military situation, and any analysis that says otherwise is blowing hot air up its own fundamemt. Tell me, 216, as compared with the UK or the United States, and allowing for the different populations in the different countries, what size of contribution is Australia making in Iraq? Now let's do the same with Poland. Tannin

Replace the meaningless acronym POV with "point of view" and what you write doesn't make sense. "It is not point-of-view to list force numbers"? What you mean to say is "Listing force numbers presents a neutral depiction of the Australian and Polish combat contributions". And that's an arguable statement. No single sentence can be entirely neutral. In addition, I believe your definition of military significance means that there can be nothing defined as militarily insignificant. But this is not a "for want of a nail..." war. Tell me: do you believe that a "token force" can exist? Do you believe that there can be such a think as a militarily insignificant force? --The Cunctator 08:24 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * First, the use of the acronym POV is of course in reference to Wiki's NPOV policy. (Maybe you should read up on it.) To say something is POV, means that it is a point of view to say it. To say its NPOV, means that its not just a point of view. This is generally understood around here.
 * What I was saying is (if I have to spell it out for you), its not anyone's "Point of View" to list actual numbers. It IS someone's "point of view" to state that those numbers are insignificant, or in this case, only a "token force". The article should, if anything, list the numbers - but not draw conclusions about those numbers. As I and others have said, the term "token force" has negative connotations. It sounds as if the article is saying that these forces are insignificant, worthless or useless. That is a judgement that the article should not make. We have no idea what kind of a role these forces are going to play before the war is over. Let the reader decide if its a "token force" or not.
 * Second, no - I'm not saying that no force could ever be described as a "token force". If say, Switzerland sent troops to Kuwait and they all got dressed up in fancy battle gear and paraded around the streets of Kuwait chanting anti-Saddam slogans and did nothing else... That would clearly be a "token force". They wouldn't be there to help - not even with catering... they would just be there for moral support or simply to put on a show for the media.
 * Third, can there be a militarily insignificant force? Sure. Like the Iraqi soldiers that attack a tank with an AK-47. Australian and Polish forces are doing a lot more than that. They're actually helping the cause. -216.229.90.232

UK approves of the war, too
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/latest-polls.htm http://www.yougov.com/yougov_website/asp_besPollArchives/bes_arcMain.asp?sID=2&rID=3&wID=0&UID=

Two different polling organisations which are consistently showing majority approval in the UK for this war, so I think we can be satisfied that there is no majority opposing it in that country. I'd be somewhat shocked if the US population wasn't even more in favour. Australia or Poland may well still be against, but that doesn't constitute a majority of the coalition. -- Khendon 09:43 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * Latest US polls show support up to 70% at least.. over 80% in some polls.


 * 45 nations are claimed to be in the coalition: that's figures for 2

Firstly, that should be worded better then. Secondly, until you provide solid figures for at least twenty or thirty of the others, it's a wild assertion and has no place here. - Khendon


 * It's not my asssertion, Khendon, I simply restored it after you deleted it. It was referenced (in considerable detail as I recall) by someone else here (on this page or another one - the Lord only knows where everything is now, since Uncle Ed went crazy on the splitting and merging thing yesterday or the day before). Tannin

Too-long quotes
The position of opponents generally reflects the viewpoint expressed by George Bush, Sr. and Brent Scowcroft in their comments regarding the previous Gulf War in the article "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" in the 2 March 1998 editon of Time magazine:


 * "While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well ... Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different&#8212;and perhaps barren&#8212;outcome."

If this article is meant to be a sort of entry for the whole story, please keep it simple and short and to the point. Do not add long quotes; these ones would maybe go very well on one of the many articles about opposition on war. Also, I disagree with The position of opponents generally reflects. That might reflect the general position of american opponents, certainly not the general position of opponents. ant

Oversimplification here?

 * The invasion came after the expiration of a 48-hour deadline set by U.S. President George W. Bush, demanding that Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq.

Is that all there is to it? Um, I thought there was something about chemical weapons, crimes against humanity, and the aim of "liberating" an oppressed populace, too. Shouldn't we at least LINK to these ideas? --Uncle Ed 23:21 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Don't forget those alleged (read "forged") links with al-Qaeda... Martin

Bryan's reversion
I agree with Bryan's reversion -- even though, ironically, I actually agree with "anonymous" 100%! You see, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. We cannot take sides in controversial matters, particularly in politics.

Please help to rewrite the article, mentioning some of the major points of view regarding the 2003 Iraq war:
 * that it was a "hostile invasion"
 * that it was unjustified, illegal, etc.
 * that it was a "war of liberation"
 * that it was entirely justified, that right-thinking people everywhere should rejoice over how it's turning out, etc.

Meanwhile, allow me to say that an "invasion" occurs whenever one country's military forces enter another sovereign territory without official permission. So, I think even Donny, Dick & Dubya would agree that the US invaded Iraq. --Uncle Ed 15:12 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, the U.S. hasn't been searching?
An anonymous contributor believes that U.S. forces have not been searching for WMDs, and that is why they have not been found. For his benefit:
 * After days of intense digging and searching at least seven suspicious sites near Nassiriya, U.S. experts have found chemical warfare protective suits, but no chemical weapons.


 * Chief Warrant Officer Alex Robinson, leading the U.S. search in the area, admitted on Thursday that his list of suspect sites in southern Iraq was "kind of drying up".
 * --U.S. digs, searches in vain for Iraqi chemical weapons, Reuters, April 17, 2003

--The Cunctator 20:02 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * This story is about them following a tip. They've been doing that all along and have found some interesting things - like a mobile chemical weapons lab. But the focus of the troops has never moved into a "search for weapons of mass destruction" mode. THey're still busy with other things primarily.

the most I have heard of was some burried fertilizer Dudtz 8/25/05 5:17 PM EST

Terminology dispute
This is directed towards The Cunctator, and is in regards to:
 * Some of these terms, like the codename Operation Iraqi Freedom are propagandistic slogans or doublespeak; that is, terminology deliberately chosen to force dialogue to express a particular political viewpoint. This also includes the exclusive usage of "regime" to refer to the Saddam Hussein government (see also regime change), and "death squads" to refer to fedayeen paramilitary forces.

Hi cunc, you asked do you debate that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is deliberately chosen to force dialogue to express a particular political viewpoint? Clearly the selection of operational names is a lot more political then it was in the days of "mincemeat" and "overlord". But I think calling the new ones "propagandistic slogans" or "doublespeak" is strong, especially when we aren't quoting some notable critic. I mean, if Chomsky had said this, that would be great, but not just us writing it in the editorial tone of "wikipedia says". I'll take a pass at adding something in place of the deleted passage. Oh, and and  are amusing reads on operational naming. -º¡º

Media coverage difference
ref  Another difference of media coverage in this war was that the U.S. and British media losts its objectivity in many instances.

uh. They didnot lost objectivity during the previous war ? ant

Lots of cites
sorry to put so many refs. It is specifically for º¡º. ant


 * Besides your cites, there is a big difference between saying "The US intervention took place without any international legal framework" (the old version) and "Some of the opponents claim the US intervention took place without any international legal framework" (the new version). -º¡º


 * which is precisely why I changed it. This said, my version is not very good (but at least acceptable). You are welcome to improve it. ant


 * Anthere, I would be happy to help you with it if I knew what you were trying to say. Note that the paragraph immediately after yours says:


 * "Several nations, including Austria, say the attack violates international law as a war of aggression since it lacks the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution that could authorize military force. The Egyptian former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has called the intervention a violation of the UN charter."


 * To me, this seems like the same point. I'm guessing that there is some important distinction that you wish to make in your statement, but I don't know what that distinction is. -º¡º

note that I was not the one who put the initial statement. I certainly would not have. Yes, the two sentences could be merged. I don't understand exactly why there is such an emphasis put on Austria. Why not noting other nations ? Besides, the following paragraph is only about nations (which I interpret as "government") and not about people. I think it would be right to make the difference. For example, this view has been clearly stated in an official text in Algeria. In other countries, the gov may not have stated it, but the idea is widespread among the public point of view, or maybe some well-known public thinkers claim that point of view. Last, a quite common point of view among opponents is not only the agression is contrary to the strict framework defined by international law, but also that is a very serious precedent of a democracy prefering to act in a military way rather than by more diplomatic means. Leading to the feeling USA request from other nations to respect international laws, but somehow "officially" and bluntly state that it is not itself concerned by these laws, rather over them.

Iraqi payoff
I added the section about the Iraqi payoff now that there is confirmation from General Franks. Given how transient media links are, I don't know whether it is appropriate to include them in the article itself, but here are two:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=409090 http://slate.msn.com/id/2083271/

Hieronymous

Biased para
"The accusation that US forces did not guard the museum because they were guarding the Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior is apparently true. The reality of the situation on the ground was that hospitals needed guarding, water plants needed guarding, and ministries with vital intelligence inside needed guarding. There were only enough US troops on the ground to guard a subset of everything that ideally needed guarding, and so some hard choices were made."

This section of the text seems really out of place. Where the rest of the paragraph where it appears has a fairly uniform tone, this stands out as very biased, speaking about an objective 'reality' that is only 'real' from one point of view, that of those in charge of the invasion. All of these statements of 'fact' are actually highly debatable and worthy of more argument than is given them here. Also, the grammar is terrible. Hospitals do not 'need' guarding, in that hospitals are inanimate structures without needs of their own. Need not really the appropriate word. Also, "hard choices were made" is a wonderful bit of Spartan understatement, but in an encyclopedia, we would ideally outline what those choices were, rather than leaving context to fill in the ambiguity of that sentence. I propose changing the above to the following:

"American commanders did not place a high value on guarding Iraq's cultural antiquities, despite international outcry to preserve cultural sites. American commanders instead focused their garrison forces almost exclusively toward holding securely the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior. There have been reports that civilian hospitals and water facilities were secured by American forces in Baghdad during the looting, but these have not been substantiated by sourced evidence, and are contested reports at this writing."

If this body of work is to be taken seriously, we really ought to edit for grammar and clear bias. I don't want to just whip in here and edit that without discussion, so I'll leave this comment up here for a while before I change the public page.

Infirmo

Anyone have good information about the burning of the Iraqi national library while American troops stood by? Quite a loss, since some of the oldest writing in the world was there. ~ender 2003-10-13 19:48:MST

War Resistence
Maybe we should also talk about the strong resistance to the war worldwide and the terrible casualties the coalition is experiencing. Almost 900 dead and the war has not even gone on for 2 years. In addition, more than 10,000 civilians are dead. Is this really better, was it the US's business and does it have anything to do with terrorism and 9/11?

Area of the attacks
"Critics of this "confined" theory point out that the regions where violence is most common are merely the most populated regions."

How about changing this to:

"Critics point out that the regions where violence is most common are also the most populated regions."

Iraqi Resistance
"There is evidence that some of the resistance is organized, perhaps by the fedayeen and other Saddam or Baath loyalists, religious radicals, Iraqis simply angered over the occupation, and foreign fighters. "

The article referenced does not mention "religious radicals". If you're going to mention it, you should document it.

Second, there is no implication that the "ordinary Iraqis" are organized. The organized resistance is the fedayeen/Saddam loyalists/Sunnis, and the foreigners.

Third, the "foreign fighters" are clearly identified in the article as "anti-American al-Qaida-type characters from Syria and Jordan, among other nations, as well as possible agents provocateurs from Iran, who may be fomenting trouble in Shiite Muslim-dominated southern Iraq." The sentence I had is far more informative than "foreign fighters".

Korean analogy
I did not bring up Korea, but if we're going to mention it we ought to explain it fully. Iraq was not strictly a "reanalysis" of past actions, but a response to ONGOING actions. The Korean DMZ reference should be restored, or all references to Korea removed (as well as the POV statement "if a war resolution can be reactivated ten years acter the fact, it would imply that almost any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a ceasefire (such as Korea) could have the war restarted if any other nation felt at any time that they were no longer meeting the conditions of the cease fire that ended that war."

Recent issues
1) I'll agree to that proposed rewording.

2) Good point about the referring article - I didn't post that article, BTW. However, there's as much evidence to suggest both religious radicals, and civilians who hate the occupation, as their is to resistance from former Baath party members and foreign fighters.  Seing as their identity is still highly in question, I think it is best that we show all of the competing theories.  Should I simply provide a better link?

3) "Iraq was not strictly a "reanalysis" of past actions, but a response to ONGOING actions."

Certainly that is a much more apt description of Korea than Iraq. What was Iraq doing that was "ongoing"? Denying the inspectors access? Nope, everything the inspectors asked for they got (albeit with lots of complaining). Building missiles out of range? With a warhead, it's doubtful that the al-Samoud missile could have broken the range - but they destroyed them anyway. SCUDs? Nope. Chemical weapons? Nope. Biological weapons? Nope. Nuclear weapons? Nope. Nothing.

On Korea, however, the PDRK and South Korea regularly are involved in hostilities. Tunnels have been dug across the border, there are firing incidents every few months, all sorts of things. It's been a lot more active of an area of "violation" than Iraq turned out to be.

Again, the argument is "Who is to judge?" And if one nation can judge a nation to be no longer in compliance, there are all sorts of resolutions that can just be resurrected because that nation feels like it.

Does there need to be a statement to this effect in there? Yes! Without it, the statement crediting international justification to the war is left unchallenged. However, if you'll recall, it was *highly* challenged at the time - this was a very controversial issue, and both sides had heated argument. If you don't want the other point of view, then you need to remove *both* parts. Do you not want Korea mentioned? Fine - then let's make it analogous to attacking Germany for a violation of the Treaty of Versailles (never repealed). Hey, they're controlling the Rhine, they're not paying reparations, etc... they're in violation, right? This is the type of argument that was posed by those opposed to the war against the argument that the 1991 treaty could be reactivate - and both sides need to be represented.

Al-Jazeera isn't new
I've rectified the incorrect assertion that Al-Jazeera was recently formed. Also re-worded some of the stuff relating to hypocrisy and Israel, to improve the prose style -- Cabalamat 15:51, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Um, something weird
"The words of lord Enki, firstborn son of Anu, who reigns on Nibiru. With heavy spirit I utter laments; laments that are bitter fill my heart. How smitten is the land, its people delivered to the Evil Wind, its stables abandoned, its sheepfolds emptied. How smitten are the cities, their people piled up as dead corpses, afflicted by the Evil Wind. How smitten are the fields, their vegetation withered, touched by the Evil Wind. How smitten are the rivers, nothing swims anymore, pure sparkling waters turned to poison. Of its black-headed people, Shumer is emptied, gone is all life; Of its cattle and sheep Shumer is emptied, silent is the hum of churning milk. In its glorious cities, only the wind howls; death is the only smell. The temples whose heads to heaven arose by their gods have been abandoned. Of lordship and kingship command there is none; sceptre and tiara are gone. On the banks of the two great rivers, once lush and life-giving, only weeds grow. No one treads the highways, no one seeks out the roads; flourishing Shumer is like an abandoned desert. How smitten is the land, home of gods and men!"

-The Lost Book of Enki, Tablet I

Failed attempt at NPOV
Just a quick comment-without-edit on the current version. I get the impression that most parts were written by people with an US view / pro-Bush opinion, who tried sincerely to write in an NPOV style - but IMHO the result is still skewed in favour of the invaders. (Same goes for some sub-articles, e.g. Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq) To pick out two points at (almost) random:

The section on looting is very apologetic for the US military (they were too busy protecting hospitals - oh really? independent sources for this? lots of hospitals were looted; looting 'far less bad than initially feared'; blaming it on Saddam without proof; 'only about 30 objects of any significance were missing' - many archeologists made different statements. And besides there was looting for weeks and months all over the country of thousands of shops, hospitals, offices, so why does such a long paragraph almost only mention looting at the National Museum?)

An important event in the run-up to the war, which influenced the war greatly and is ignored in the otherwise fairly detailed timeline, was Turkey's refusal to let U.S. troops use her territory for the invasion. This overthrew the Coalition's initial battle plan (which consisted of a two-pronged attack) and kept an entire U.S. division out of the theatre while most of the fighting took place. (It has also been blamed in part for the embarassing supply problems a few days after the start of the invasion, which have also been ignored here for the greater glory of the U.S. military it seems).

Turkey's refusal has also been ignored in the more than 1000 character entry on Turkey in Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq!

Other sections of the main article are more balanced, but I definitely think it could use rewriting in many places. Being a newbie and not having followed the previous discussion I first wanted to state my opinion here.

Have a nice day.

Nov 09, 2003

- I must say I agree wholeheartedly. The effort to be neutral is commendable, but if viewed objectively, one realises that little heed is paid (for instance) to the casualties of war on the Iraqi side. All the same, the opinions expressed do seem, if at times apologetic, yet, severely biased in favour of the 'Coalition' POV.

Operation Iraqi Freedom
Although President Bush declared the war over May 1, 2003, the U.S. State Department is still calling the action "Operation Iraqi Freedom." With that said, should 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq really be separate?

When trying to keep track of casualties on United States casualties of war, I have 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq as separate entities. However, casuality announcements from the State Department do not separate the phases of this war. The numbers reported in reflect total numbers of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Why does wikipedia make a distinction between the two phases when the State Department does not? Kingturtle 04:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Enduring Freedom?
I haven't read all the talk page information on the current Iraq war, but in the beginning of this article is this phrase:

"The U.S. name for the military campaign was Operation Enduring Freedom. The US military operations in this war were conducted under the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Operation Enduring Freedom redirects to the ongoing US war in Afghanistan. Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to this article (2003 invasion of Iraq). With this in mind, A) Are these redirects correct? and B) If so, shouldn't Operation Enduring Freedom be removed from this article? Either way, I think the quoted phrase above should be reworded as it is confusing, but I'm not sure how to reword it because I'm not sure of the answers to the 2 questions I posed here. --Flockmeal 04:29, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * The name is due to an edit by 68.105.250.163 dating from Sep 28, 2003 and is a mistake. Operation Enduring Freedom refers to the US campaign in Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom refers to the US campaign in Iraq. That is to say, the redirects are correct. --Gabbe 11:03, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "Enduring Freedom" line. Gentgeen 16:22, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Theory plausibility
Okay, so the buck-propping theory is beyond WP's pale. Well, an expanded version is here. Can someone tell me what makes Shrub's explanation plausible but this not? - Kwantus 23:15, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. What makes this theory implausible is that since day 1 this administration has been fairly unsubtly trying to depreciate the dollar against foreign currencies in an effort to raise employment and get a recovery in manufacturing. After watching them practically beg China to raise the yuan, do you think they'd cry if the Euro went to $1.40 or higher, making European exports less competitive and coincidentally giving France and Germany a spike in unemployment? - willhsmit 23:15, 12 July 2004 (UTC)

Article's taxobox summary
Need help for this please. Check Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Sandbox for more information. --Maio 16:26, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * The invasion is over; Iraq has already been invaded. Now is the occupation... --Jia ng 03:00, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let's stop the edit war
Ok, Reddi, enough already. I posted a compromise where both of our points are raised. Either list your objections concerning the compromise, or keep having your work reverted. What is wrong with the compromise? I want to get something that we can both be happy with, and that's what I attempted to do with the compromise. You don't get to then take it, keep all of the material that you like, *and* do your original edit on top of it. Rei


 * Rei ... stop the POV ... What is wrong with the compromise? it's not a "compromise" ... I am trying to state the facts ... not qualify them and POV them ... you REPEATEDLY tried to removed the ISG info (becuase it did not meet your POV I believe) and, now, you are trying to "explain" them away ... that is not NPOV ... PLEASE stop. The links are there for the readers to read. Sincerely, JDR


 * First off, I'm defending the original text. You're arguing for a change, you need to defend that change before you make it.  Your "Facts" include extensive use of ellipsis, omission, and it's entirely based on a source which the author has stated that he had it all wrong.  And you think that's a defensible stance?  And, nonetheless, in my compromise version, I *added* tons of references to your article - *not* selectively for my position, but covered pretty much every major point that Kay made in the speech, most of which were in your favor - *and* added article references to points for which it was easy to do so (feel free to add more article references).  What is your problem with that?  Rei


 * First off, your text is POV.
 * I'm arguing for a change? no ... I'm adding facts .. that's it ...
 * You need to defend your POV changes ... IF you just stated the facts objectively AND added the link for the reader to decide the information that wouldn't be necessary ....
 * use of ellipsis? when necessary ... yes
 * omission? no ... the links are there ...
 * Source which the author has stated that he had it all wrong? no ... that is incorrect and a mischaracterization of the facts ... the only "wrong part" is the stockpiles ... the rest are TRUE (and verifiable) ...
 * that's a defensible stance? yes ...
 * compromise version? your "compromise" isn't ... it an attempt @ POV ...
 * added references? yes ... they are still there too [for the reader to read]
 * Your "cover of the points" is explaining away the facts (which does not add accuracy nor NPOV) ...
 * What is your problem with that? several [see preceding line if necessary] ... you have REPEATEDLY tried to removed info that did not fit you POV ... now that you cannot remove it and there is explicit link to the info (someone posted the link in the ISG article; but the information was correct before), you are trying to explaining away the facts to fit your POV.
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * "First off, your text is POV. I'm arguing for a change? no ... I'm adding facts .. that's it ... You need to defend your POV changes"
 * If you're not arguing for a change, then let's happilly agree to use the original version. Oh wait, that's NOT what you want, now is it?  Then you're arguing for a change.
 * "If you just stated the facts objectively AND added the link for the reader to decide the invormation that wouldn't be necessary."
 * Give a reference of what you're referring to (assumedly in the attempted compromise version) that you find to be non-objective. I tried to summarize the article as best as possible, and NOT omit major points or cut out only the sections that I liked (like you did in your heavily ellipsis-laden version).
 * "your 'compromise'" isn't ... it an attempt @ POV"
 * Then *give me examples* of what you're referring to, and why you think it's POV. You might as well be issuing complaints about my text about purple unicorns and undead squirrels if you're going to be claiming that I'm using POV but not stating where.
 * "you have 'REPEATEDLY' tried to 'removed' info that did not fit you POV"
 * First off, are you just typing too fast, or do you not see the grammar errors in that? Secondly, name *one* fact that I removed.  The things that you listed, in *ADDITION* to Kay's other points, are in the compromise version.   Rei
 * "your 'compromise'" isn't ... it an attempt @ POV"
 * Then *give me examples* of what you're referring to, and why you think it's POV. You might as well be issuing complaints about my text about purple unicorns and undead squirrels if you're going to be claiming that I'm using POV but not stating where.
 * "you have 'REPEATEDLY' tried to 'removed' info that did not fit you POV"
 * First off, are you just typing too fast, or do you not see the grammar errors in that? Secondly, name *one* fact that I removed.  The things that you listed, in *ADDITION* to Kay's other points, are in the compromise version.   Rei
 * "you have 'REPEATEDLY' tried to 'removed' info that did not fit you POV"
 * First off, are you just typing too fast, or do you not see the grammar errors in that? Secondly, name *one* fact that I removed.  The things that you listed, in *ADDITION* to Kay's other points, are in the compromise version.   Rei
 * First off, are you just typing too fast, or do you not see the grammar errors in that? Secondly, name *one* fact that I removed.  The things that you listed, in *ADDITION* to Kay's other points, are in the compromise version.   Rei

Goals of the invasion, according to a POV leftist
I think there is an importante error when you state the goals of the invasion. It should say vandalism, more businnes paid with Irak petroleum as said by president George Bush. and we should add eliminate the posibility of Irak selling petroleum in Euros. best regards

Iraqis killed
Nevermind the number of Iraqis and others Saddam Hussein may have killed during his long tenure as dictator of Iraq, which may have numbered as high as 1,131,000+.

I added this line in order to reflect a balanced position on the harm caused to Iraqis by including the previous regime's possible human rights violations. --Systemshocked

Could you provide a new link please? I think this one is dead.

War regardless of ruler?
"advocated war with Iraq regardless of wheter or not Saddam Hussein remained in power"

I see this "fact" sprinkled all over Wikipeida. Yet the document cited makes no such claim. All it says is that the authors' believe having US military bases in Saudi Arabia will remain valuable even after Saddam Hussein is gone. I don't understand the logical leap. Please quote where this is advocated. user:J.J.


 * Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses by PNAC. I'll quote from page 14: "Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Rei

Yes, that is what I was refering to. There is quite a difference between saying America needs a "substantial force presence in the Gulf" and saying "we must ivade Iraq regardless of who the president is." All the document is saying is that there are American security interests in the Middle East which do not involve Saddam, and thus justify an American military presence in the reigon (ie: Saudi Arabia). user:J.J.

Removed edit about the French press - copyright
I removed the section about the French press due to the fact that much of it was lifted straight from other websites. For example, from what the poster posted:

" Hertoghe, a 44-year-old Belgian, said reporters reflected the emotional high in France more than realities on the battlefield, becoming caught up in France's central role in leading the opposition to the war at the United Nations."

From a mirror of an old Yahoo article:

"Hertoghe, a 44-year-old Belgian, said reporters reflected the emotional high in France more than realities on the battlefield, becoming caught up in France's central role in leading the opposition to the war at the United Nations."

It's actually a lot worse than that - the majority of the edit was ripped. Rei


 * Yes, and that is why I changed it. As a new wiki, I have not yet familiarized myslf with all the rules. TDCTDC 20:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

International initiative
Is anyone familiar with this "internation initiative" that was just posted to this page or is this just a user's home page? - Texture 16:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * International initiatives such as http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h0444e1w/massmail.htm protested against the U.S. media for downplaying and misinterpreting protests as antiamericanism and accused them of foul language such as calling Chirac "A balding Joan of Arc in drag", the French "frogeating weasels" (New York Post) or stating that "Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations". 


 * I'm not familiar with that in particular, but there was a lot of European criticism of the US media for using derogatory language, especially toward the French. I remember doing a news.google.com search back then, and being really disturbed by the number of references I got for "cheese eating surrender monkeys" - and not all from obscure sources.  Lots of papers contained rather nasty editorials.  Also there was a lot of criticism in some circles about the media's demeaning attitude toward the protesters - FAIR issued several advisories on this one, and it was widely discussed with disdain on blogs and in some foreign press.  But, as to this particular initiative, I'm not familiar with it.  Rei

"Overt Sympathies For Saddam Hussein"
.... can someone *actually* document such a thing? I mean, I saw a fair bit of anti-americanism (although it was anything but the majority of the protesters), but I never ran into a single war protester who proclaimed *any* sympathies to Saddam Hussein. If noone can support this, I'll take it out, but I figured I'd give people a chance to defend it with evidence. Rei


 * I could provide pictures if that will do. TDC 21:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. Give me a link.  User:Rei


 * Egypt
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38768000/jpg/_38768161_protest_ap_150.jpg
 * West Bank
 * http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_765072.html?menu=
 * Pakistan

http://community.webshots.com/s/image5/2/0/65/68520065BQsumd_ph.jpg


 * I remember seeing several at the DC and San Fransisco raliies last March, but I cannot remember where the pictures are at. I could dig those up if you need/want them and give me some time.


 * Ah, I see the issue we're encountering. Indeed, there have been protesters in the arab world supporting Saddam Hussein.  My context was, however, America, and that's how I read the article, and how I imagine a lot of other people read it.  Perhaps I could add something like "predominantly in Arab nations" to the sentence?


 * I never saw any such signs in the DC and San Francisco protests coverage, and I know people who went to both and didn't see any such signs. Perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of people there might have been one or two (if there were, I'm sure some right-wingers got a picture), but if there were any, they were *exceedingly* rare.  Here in the midwest, I went to protests all around Iowa and in Chicago, and didn't see a single one. |Rei


 * From San Fransico http://216.93.175.73/images/uploads/saddam_elected.jpg, and the sympathies lie more with the organizers.


 * Really? Is that the best you can do, with literally hundreds of thousands of signs?  A sign that more pokes fun at Bush's last election than anything else?  I'd say you completely failed on this front.  Care to back up your new claim, that the organizers had sympathies for Saddam?Rei


 * well, the IAC most certainly did, and they organized/ran most every large rally. Or is this just some delusion.TDC 19:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Certainly if they did, you can present *something* to support that stance, can you not? Rei


 * Are you really so daft as to not see the sympathetic and openly supportive relationship that the IAC and its spin-off ANSWER has with Saddam's former regime. TDC 03:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I hate to be blunt, but put up or shut up. If you don't have any evidence to back it up, I'll continue with the aforementioned edit.  Your "evidence" so far has been a sign that is poking fun about Bush's last election.  There was a lot of slander about antiwar groups in the US, so again, I'll reiterate: Put up or shut up.  Rei


 * I should add that opposing a war is *NOT* the same thing as supporting what the country was waging the war to change. For example, Canada didn't support the Vietnam war, but that hardly meant that they supported the spread of Communism.  If war was some magical pill which had no side effects, the two concepts might be equivalent, but war involves huge amounts of killing even if civilians can be left completely out of the picture and the ensuing lethal and destructive anarchy after a government overthrow.  Consequently, war requires extreme justification, not just an "it'd be better if that government was gone" notion.  And I'll add: Human Rights Watch has publicly stated that the necessary level of justification did not exist in this case (but would have existed in the 80s under the Anfal campaign). Rei


 * The evidence that the IAC and ANSWER, as well as its members, were pro-Saddam should be prima-fascia, but here you go.


 * Ramsey Clark&#8217;s law firm, Clark & Schilling, has been representing Iraqi interests in the United States for over 10 years. Clark&#8217;s law firm was the media spokesman for Saddam and his regime since the end of the first gulf war in 1992 doing everything from lobbying to get sanctions lifted to ending no-fly zone patrols.


 * Clark & Schilling have been paid for their work, as to why they did not have to register as agents of foreign governments it is because they were representing Saddam as lawyers.


 * Clark used to visit Saddam several times a year and was even able to arrange an interview between Hussein and Dan Rather just prior to last years was. Every time he visited Baghdad it was at the invitation of Hussein.


 * Clark, as I am sure you know, founded and runs the IAC and ANSWER. These two organizations organized most of the large anti war rallies last year. In almost every press release relating to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the IAC and ANSWER goes to very great efforts to admonish Iraq of any sins and place the blame for any transgressions on the doorstep of the US. Including the gassing of the Kurds.


 * In this passage written by Clark, the IAC lays the blame for the 1991 invasion of Kuwait at Kuwait&#8217;s feet in a polemic titled &#8220;fire and ice&#8221;


 * Just when Iraq was struggling to recover from eight years of war, feeling the effect of unilateral U.S. sanctions and fearing default on its foreign debts, Kuwait began violating quotas on oil production set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This forced oil prices down at the same time that Kuwait was demanding repayment of $30 billion it had provided Iraq during the war. Kuwait also began excessive pumping from the Rumaila oil field, which it shared with Iraq. Kuwait accelerated its provocative and hostile actions toward Iraq through months of crisis up to the day it was invaded.


 * http://www.iacenter.org/fireice.htm


 * Its not like these criticisms are coming out just from the right. Todd Gitlin, Nat Hentoff, Michelle Goldberg and many other pundits on the left are saying the exact same thing I am.TDC 18:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark is not ANSWER, and ANSWER is not Ramsey Clark. In fact, he's not even a member of their steering committee. He helped cofound IAC, along with a number of other people - he doesn't "run" it.


 * He is the chairperson of the IAC and the first named endorser of ANSWER. He speaks at their conferences [at least the ones I have seen on C-Span], and writes articles for their web site. TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Clark's antics, but who cares? Your challenge was to demonstrate "a supportive relationship" between the IAC and ANSWER with Saddam Hussein. You hardly even touched that - you just posted a diatribe about Clark, and the closest that I can gather to how you take this to be the stance of peace activists in general in the US is that Ramsey Clark is one member of IAC and they list a few of his letters and editorials on their site (among thousands of others); Ramsey Clark supported Saddam Hussein personally; IAC is a peace group in the US that happened to be the organizer of some of the larger protests (despite having little other relation to almost all peace activists in the United States), and consequently, there is a relevant number of US peaceniks supported Saddam Hussein. Please tell me that you see the logic holes large enough to swallow an elephant in that line of argument.


 * Ok, let&#8217;s see here. An organization specifically set up to oppose US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq is set up almost exclusively by members of the WWP and the IAC, as well as Saddam&#8217;s legal representative in the West, and I get the impression that they are just a &#8220;peace group&#8221; with no ulterior motives. I see how


 * How could I have come to that conclusion? After all, a leap like that would be crazy to make.TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, the only thing you've really brought against the WWP and the IAC concerning Saddam thusfar are the association with Clark; consequently, you haven't changed your initial argument one iota. Rei


 * Like I told you earlier, I am not the only one making this accusation. Far left organizations like Infoshop, http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html, are just as critical of the totalitarian leanings of the WWP and the IAC as any conservative is. Every honest individual realizes that ANSWER and the WWP are schills for any government that claims to be anti-american. TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, your line "the IAC and ANSWER goes to very great efforts to admonish Iraq of any sins and place the blame for any transgressions on the doorstep of the US.


 * Of course it is. Nowhere is there even one word of condemnation for Hussein.TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * False, yet again (you don't do any original research, do you?). Here's one: "As the Bush administration races to unleash limitless violence on the people of Iraq, a country of 23 million, the administration and its corporate media cheerleaders are shamelessly painting its critics as either "anti-American" or pro-Saddam Hussein or both. But the truth is that the world is opposed to war and it is the tiny few in the Bush Administration and the Pentagon who are rushing to plunge the Middle East into bloodshed." .  That took all of, what, 45 seconds to get?


 * Ohhh, what a scathing rebuke of Saddam. Why they made him out to be a monster in that paragraph, or the article for that matter, didn't they? Sorry, not once do they condemn Hussein for any of his crimes against humanity. Try again. TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Including the gassing of the Kurds." is not an excuse for Saddam - it is additional blame on the US which definitely belongs there (we accelerated weapons sales as chemical weapons usage increased, and even sold some of the aircraft used for the Halabja attack; we sold the chemical precursors, biological stocks, and all sorts of other things; the Reagan administration even blocked an congressional effort to censure Iraq for their use of chemical weapons).


 * Funny, I did not see any &#8220;righteous indignation&#8221; against France China or the USSR who provided Saddam with well over 95% of all his military hardware and military industrial infrastructure during the 1980&#8217;s. TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Utterly false. You pro-war people have the quality of research of a sea slug - that's why you fell for the WMD line, and why you personally were unaware that the documents against Galloway were discovered to be forgeries, among many other things  :P.  The US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency estimates Iraq's purchases in the Iran-Iraq war at 24B$.  45 Bell helicopters that we sold by Sarkis Soghanglian; 220m$ of trucks; sidewinder components; Radars, tanks, and missiles from American Steel; direct cooperation with the Salah al-Din factory (which helped build the radars that were used against our planes in the gulf war); anti-personell and anti-tank land mines; huge quantities of small arms; etc.  Reagan enlisted the assistance of the Italians, who (with US help) did a whopping 2.65 billion dollar deal to build Iraq's navy, in addition to 165m$ more for helicopters and 225m$ more for land mines.  We also gave them 625m$ worth of food as a loan so that they could spend their money on more arms imports.  France, Germany, Russia, and China all sold to Iraq as well, but Iraq also made very large purchases from Egypt, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Libya, Brazil (which was helped in their sales by the US aid as compensation), Jordan (same), Saudi Arabia (same), and many other countries.  I'll give you any references that you need.  We weren't one of the top suppliers, but we and the countries that we helped sell to Iraq were still a major portion of the sales during the Iran-Iraq war.  France and the Soviet Union, while still important suppliers during the war, played their most major roles before and after the war.  As for WMDs, there were 24 US firms that helped provide components and 17 British companies, compared to only 8 French, 3 Chinese, and 6 Russian. User:Rei


 * Iraq's army was comprised almost entirely of Soviet block, Chinese and French made equipment. Do I need to list off Iraq's inventory circa 1990 from Jane&#8217;s to make this point? Out of the $24Bil that Iraq bought in arms during the 80's, almost all of it was Soviet French and Chinese. There was a bit of dual use technology being sold to Iraq, but I stand by the fact that Iraq was armed almost entirely by 3 or 4 nations. http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.htmlTDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would you accuse any person that blamed countries that traded with and aided the Nazis during WWII, of being a Nazi sympathizers? That sort of logic is preposterous. The very fact that there is the condemnation of the US trading implies that the condemner views the action as an atrocity.


 * First of all, The article implied that the main aggressor in the first Gulf War was Kuwait. Secondly the article in question condemns the unilateral sanctions put in place by the US Senate just after the gassing of the Kurds, not the multilateral sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. Perhaps you should read the reply before making yourself look like a tool. TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it didn't. How did you read that in, if you read the entire article?  They talk about Kuwait's insistance on loan repayment and its increasing of pumping, and then talk about how Iraq began to mass troops on the Kuwaiti border.  That's hardly saying that it's Kuwait's fault.  The main point of that article, actually, was US complicity.  Rei


 * Exactly, Kuwait provoked, the US was complicit and Iraq was, well we don&#8217;t know according to the article. They never mention Iraq's culpability in the 1991 invasion of Kuwait do they? The article gives the impression that Iraq was somehow entrapped into attacking Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and does not put any blame at Iraq's doorstep. TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Trust me: I *was* a peace protester. I met and talked with, at length, *thousands* of others. Your concept of the peace protesters, any measurable amount of them in the US supporting Saddam, is complete and utter nonsense. Hell, new coalitions were formed just so that the taint of Ramsey Clark wouldn't be applied to the peace community through his associations via ANSWER and IAC (UFPJ and Win Without War). At Iowans For Peace (a local coalition that I was involved with), fear of being associated with Clark by the right wing often came up when deciding whether to go to ANSWER-organized events, as it did almost everywhere across the US. And the funny thing is, Clark actually has relatively little to do with the groups apart from editorializing and the like. Rei.


 * Peace advocates sympathetic to Saddam and desiring an Iraqi victory, how preposterous. I mean how could I have even thought of something so bizzare? Seriously now, even the though of the &#8220;peace movement&#8221; desiring an Iraqi victory is crazy and completely groundless.


 * How many times do I have to say that I didn't run into a single peace advocate who was sympathetic to Saddam? And having one member of one group be sympathetic to Saddam is absolutely no reason at all to smear the millions of people who were out protesting in the streets with an ideology that they didn't believe in. Rei


 * Unless we consider the following............


 * "I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings."


 * http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/04/11/liberation/index1.html


 * Gary Kamiya, Salon.com's executive editor. TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * And where did Gary say, "I wished for Saddam to remain in power forever, and I support his government?" There's a mountain of difference between opposing American action (and yes, *some* peace protesters, and I did meet a number of them, wanted to see America fall flat on its face so that it would never try anything like this again), and supporting Saddam Hussein.  Reread that paragraph I wrote talking about the difference between opposing a war and supporting what the war was launched to change - you apparently didn't grasp it. User:Rei


 * A mountain of difference between opposing the actions of the US and supporting its foes, I whole heatedly agree. But is there a "mountain" of difference between wishing a "million Mogadishus" on US troops and supporting its foes, I don&#8217;t think so.


 * like this chap: http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/i-love-newyork.jpg TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chart
We should have a chart like this one:

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.gif

NPOV, of course. We can use as a source.&mdash;Eloquence 04:30, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely second that, if you're willing to take the effort to put it in. :)  Rei

Polish presidents remarks
 and in polish He used the polish word zwodzeni which means mislead but does not imply malice afore-though, in the translation it came out as take for a ride which apperantly sounds bad in english. After the faux pas the polish government declared our troops will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes, and a day (that's longer then american troops will). Kwasniewski has somehow managed to avoid major f*ckups while in office (except for being obviously drunk when attending the opening of a cementry for polish officers murderd by soviets in a neighbouring allied country) so it's fair to assume there aren't any strings attached.

Dispute notices
It would be nice if our March 21 selected anniversaries page could have a line about the start of the Iraq War. But that isn't going to happen so long as there are dispute notices on this page. Unless there is a strong objection, I'm going to remove them in 24 hours. We really do need a policy on when to put these things on pages - there should be a consensus to do so (or at least two concurring people). But since they are added unilaterally, they can be removed unilaterally. --mav 23:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ridiculous
Given the amount of confirmed forged documents coming out of Iraq, given the investigation that cleared Galloway of all bribery allegations, and given the fact that some of the allegations are patently ridiculous, I think it would be silly for us at this time to portray them as having any sort of credence, let alone the "absolute truth" portrayal that you're trying to give them. As if the leaders of Arab ruling familes, for example, could be bribed so cheaply - a couple million barrels of oil is chump change to them. As if Egypt, who gets over 2 billion dollars per year in US foreign aid, would trade it for a few million barrels of oil. As if the *Russian Orthodox Church* as well as a close friend of the Pope are involved in the oil trade. These allegations are laughable. Note how the Bush administration has refused to even comment on them. They better get a whole lot more backed up before we portray them as even having as much credence as the uranium documents. Rei


 * I agree, absolutely groundless! That must be why Kofi Annan is calling for an investigation. http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=880


 * Sorry, its gotta stay. TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't deserve *near* this much text in its current unrepudated form, both since it's making preposterous allegations and since so many documents from Iraq of this same type have been forgeries (that's why it's being investigated - you don't show something to be a forgery without an investigation). I'll trim it down to what it deserves.  Rei


 * It is so unbelievable that people would take, dare I even say it, bribes from a dictator desperately trying to stay in power. So preposterous is the idea that oil for food money would be used to bribe and aid sympathetic voices, that Kofi Annan decided an investigation is warranted. What next, cats sleeping with dogs?


 * I trimmed it up to what it deserves, unless that is, future events prove this to be a hoax.TDC 20:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It *IS* so unbelievable that people who already went through a bribery investigation that covered their personal finances in depth, major world churches, and people for whom the money would be a drop in the bucket, would have taken money - *especially* since the place where the document is from has been rife in similar forgeries. What gets me is why pro war people continually, relentlessly, smear every major figure who opposed the war as if there was some sort of ulterior motive.  It is cruel, to say the least - and to do it with a document for which all signs say "forgery" is all the worse.


 * From the Gaurdian UK


 * Mr Galloway said he was unaware that his financial sponsors were getting oil cash from the UN programme. But he accepts that he knew his supporters had links with Saddam's regime, and regarded that as an inevitable price to pay.


 * http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1149796,00.html


 * The price was working with a dictator.TDC 21:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * And Rev. Sun Myung Moon gets money from the North Korean government, and makes donations to the Republican Party. However, "indirect association" isn't the allegation you're pushing on the main web page: your allegation is that Galloway was getting paid by Saddam Hussein, not that there are as-of-yet unconfirmed allegations that some people were getting paid by Saddam, and that those people made donations to a lobbying group headed by Galloway.  They're radically different things.  And yes, the price of visiting Iraq is working with people involved with dictator.  Guess what?  That's the same price for visiting Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait....  Rei


 * Galloway knew that the people he was getting money from were connected to Saddam. Galloway is supposed to be this shining example of a dedicated warrior for human rights, but here he is cozening up with Saddam. Every day Galloway helped keep Saddam in power led to more deaths than his shipments of medical aid could ever save.


 * And to say that a left wing goody goody would never cozy up with a tyrant is to forget the history of people like Walter Duranty and Paul Robeson.


 * So take your Sun Myung Moon straw man and light it on fire.TDC 22:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. - You still haven't supplied the details of your supposed permission to use that image that you posted a few days ago. Who was over in Iraq to take it?  How did they get you the image?  Where is their permission granted?  Rei


 * A friend in the region emailed it to me. BTW I get 5.


 * "A friend in the region emailed it to me" isn't good enough.


 * "Image guidelines: Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explictly placed in the public domain. Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow a photograph to be used."


 * Get a written statement from your "friend" stating that they took the picture and that they grant wikipedia the right to use it (or that they've made it public domain), or take it down. Copyright is not to be played around with here. Rei


 * He is active duty Army, and although I doubt you are this diligent with compliance issues with all photo's I will write him, but I refuse to share his name or even his unit. TDC 22:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I go after any picture that looks like an AP photo that doesn't have credit on it. Rei

I have made my case with a satisfactory amount of documentation. If you want to edit the paragraphs I have put forth, fine, but don&#8217;t try and bury it because you don&#8217;t like what it has to say.

On a side note, If you think I am going to allow you to come in here and turn this into some one sided anti-war pissing screed, you are sadly mistaken.

So a big "Yoink" to you. TDC 22:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Excuse Me??? "Come in here"?  I've been on this page since August 28th, 2003.  You didn't arrive until Feb 23, 2004 (you know, ONE MONTH ago?), so what right do *you* have to take that sort of attitude?  "Turn it into some one sided anti-war pissing screed"?  *YOU* are the one trying to change the article here.


 * Yeah, I am attempting to bring some balance into this screed.


 * I* am defending the current article,


 * Which is garbage, many parts of it at any rate...TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * trying to stop you from dedicating an entire new 5-paragraph section to a libelous document which doesn't even deserve the 1 paragraph compromise-version that I gave it.


 * And just who the hell are you to say what is and is not deserving? And remember, its only libel if its not true. Galloway may not have taken a personal check from Hussein, but he sure as hell knew where the money was coming from.TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sick of people like you trying to defame antiwar people by launching into tirades on the latest piece of unconfirmed garbage, and then slipping out of the apology when it's proven false - every last time. I'm not trying to stop you from mentioning the document - it should be mentioned.  However, you're putting *way* too many details, and with *way* too much credence, for a patently ridiculous and unbacked document which accuses people like friends of the Pope of engaging in illegal oil trading.


 * First of all, this "unconfirmed garbage" is not just some rumor brought up by knuckle dragging, Jew loving, neo-cons. This story has quite a bit of steam behind it, despite the efforts of people to bury it.TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this line. Why on earth are the words "Jew loving" in between "knuckle dragging" and "neo-cons"?  I'm kind of curious as to how Judaism entered the conversation.


 * Becasue the anti war left has turned it into an issue.
 * http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/articles/adbusters_responds.html
 * http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040321/480/cadd10603210130
 * I am sure you will like the picture, the "actress" is holding up literature from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. And trust me, she aint worried about suicide bombers. TDC 21:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * In case you don't know any better, a neo-conservative in all but the most bizarre usage is a person who is a conservative not so much because they oppose gay rights, oppose abortion, want to ban evolution in schools, etc, but because they believe that the US needs to be more unilateral and more militant. Neocons include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Libbe, and a couple dozen others; PNAC is a neocon think tank. Rei


 * Well, thats not entirely true, but you are entitled to your opinions. TDC 21:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For God's sake, can't even the *church* be anti-war without it being some sort of evil monetary conspiracy to you people, and without you all grabbing for whatever straw you can find as if it's the God-spoken truth to base a self righteous tirade on? Rei


 * Of course it can, but you cannot even bring yourself to admit that mabey, just mabey a rather sizeable portion of the anti-war movement is not in it with the purest of intentions of ending all war and advocating non-violence.TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You'll never accept the truth. Why is it so hard for you to understand that I've *MET* thousands of antiwar people, and discussed things at length with many of them, and NONE of them think the way you think "a rather sizeable portion" does.  Your view of antiwar protesters in general is borderline delusional. Rei


 * Well, speaking of left wing fifth column types and journalism, I though you would appreciate this:


 * "The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have close alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long struggle against the empires of the west, their rapacious crusades and domination. The motivation of those who plant bombs in railway carriages derives directly from this truth."


 * Guess who said it: Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, nope, it was none other than award winning journalist and anti-war stalwart John Pilger.


 * Peddle your garbage to someone who does not know better chief. TDC 21:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

January bribery stories
Summary: Neither version is perfect, and wouldn't most of this content be happier elsewhere?

Both versions, as I read them, make their agendas and intended conclusions crystal-clear. TDC's says to me, "There were allegations of massive corruption in the oil-for-food program, which are probably true, and several people who opposed the war benefitted (however indirectly) from this corruption, so. . .". The last paragraph also seems off-topic, since it's talking about Al-Jazeera (which AFAICT had little to do with the story) and Saddam's personal fortune -- what purpose do these facts serve in this context?

Rei's version says to me, "There were accusations of corruption in the oil-for-food, but they were probably forged, as in a similar case in the past; besides, look at who they're accusing. . .". On the other hand, it mentions the U.N. investigation, which helps the balance a bit.

But then again, since this deals with corruption in the oil-for-food program, wouldn't most it be more at home in the relevant article (with summaries and pointers where needed, of course)? Just a thought.

The summary might be something like this: "In January 2004, the Iraqi newspaper al Mada reported allegations of bribery within the oil-for-food program, sparking an inquiry by the United Nations; see Oil for food for details." -- or something like that, something agreeable to all parties. (I strongly suggest hashing out an acceptable version of the main text before doing this, though.) --anon


 * That might be acceptable. One of the reasons I included this on this page as opposed to an oil for food scandal page is that media coverage of the war and Saddam's regime in general was most definately tainted and skewed by the large and generous contributions that were bieng doled out to Middle Eastern journalists. This is why the Al-Jazeera referenc was thrown in there. Perhaos that should go into the media secion of this enty. I do not know, but I am open to suggestions. TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, give me a break! "tainted and skewed by the large and generous contributions that were bieng doled out to Middle Eastern journalists" - do your payoff fantasies ever end?


 * Well when Nimat wrote about them, he wound up in jail. And I cannot wait to see you eat your word. like so much organicly grown tofu, when this gains more momentum.


 * You don't grow tofu. Tofu is soybean milk treated with coagulants.  The soybeans are grown, but tofu is fermented from the soybeans.  And you're using the fact that Nimat is a Jordanian convict as a character reference?  That's rich.  Chalabi's couple dozen felony counts must make him a saint, then. Rei


 * All you got to see on the news over here was an incessant background of a literal American flag waving, for every major news station, talking about our "heroes" in the middle east with a bunch of retired generals.


 * Well the news coverage in the states was much more accurate, were they not? I mean, how many people outside the US were suprised when the Iraqi army crumbled. And judging by your contempt for the armed forces of the US, you must not know many of them.


 * We found a WMD! They used SCUD missiles!  We've captured Umm Qasr, and it's quited down!  Mission accomplished!


 * P.S. - one of my best friends from college is in the military. Oh, and the most common sign I've seen ever since about 4 months before the war is "Support Our Troops - Bring Them Home!". Rei


 * I mean, how dare Al-Jazeera do the exact same thing for the Iraqi side! Clearly they must all be under the pay of Saddam!


 * When they give their viewers an impression that turns out ot be 100% WRONG, then yes, how dare they mis-inform the viewers.


 * Misinform viewers? Yeah, because all of those WMD finds that we kept reporting were SOOOOOOO accurate.  So was all of that Chalabi propaganda, the fake documents and the obscene distortions that they played for months before the war to get people to support it. Rei


 * People who support the war are altruistic, but those who opposed it, or arab journalists supporting an arab nation are clearly under the pay of Saddam - right? Rei


 * Not all the people who support the war did it out of altruism, but at least no one is going to accuse me of bieng the mouthpiece for Saddam and his fascist regime.


 * BTW, did you like the picture? I am guessing he is a friend of yours. http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/i-love-newyork.jpg TDC 00:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah - because *you* are the people who continually lob the accusations, and we're the ones who have to sit here and take it. And I've seen a hundred more like that one: here, here, here, .... we also had a couple pro-war people at the Chicago protest carrying signs designed to incense people like that to try and make us look bad.  Yes, there are the occasional nutcases (I've far more at pro-war rallies), but can you see why I'm sick of you people treating us like this? Rei


 * Yeah, but the photo I linked to is real. TDC 21:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I may interrupt the flaming again, here's a proposed reworking of the text:

On January 25, 2004, al Mada, a daily newspaper in Iraq, published a list of individuals and organizations who it says received oil from the now-deposed regime. Among those listed is Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American from Detroit, who ran "Expatriate Conferences" for the regime in Baghdad. Al Khafaji also contributed $400,000 to the production of Scott Ritter's film "In Shifting Sands". Al Khafaji also arranged travel and financing for the Baghdad trips of US Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson and David Bonior last fall. Following the trip, al Khafaji contributed $5,000 to McDermott's Legal Defense Fund. This text is remarkably similar to something that appeared in a Weekly Standard article: On January 25, 2004, a daily newspaper in Iraq called al Mada published a list of individuals and organizations who it says received oil from the now-deposed regime. Among those listed is Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American from Detroit, who ran "Expatriate Conferences" for the regime in Baghdad. Al Khafaji also contributed $400,000 to the production of Scott Ritter's film "In Shifting Sands." Finally, al Khafaji arranged travel and financing for the "Baghdad Democrats"--Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson and David Bonior--last fall. Following the trip, al Khafaji contributed $5,000 to McDermott's Legal Defense Fund Copyright laws and basic intellectual honesty seem to forbid use of this section as it currently stands.

Next para: The list included the names of businessmen, diplomats, politicians, and journalists whom the Iraqi government. Amongst these was a charity run by a pro-Saddam member of the British Parliament, George Galloway, whose charity, Mariam Appeal, received an estimated three million barrels of oil every six months, via the Oil For Food Program. The share was between 10 and 15 cents per barrel. Also on the list were President Sukarnoputri of Indonesia and Benon V. Sevan, the head of the U.N. Oil for Food program, adding further credibility to charges of massive fraud in the UN Oil for Food program. The text about Galloway mixes up two of the allegations against him: the earlier charges against Mariam Appeal and the later charge, from the al Mada list, that he took bribes himself. These need to be disentangled.

Some of the transactions were straightforward cash payments, often in U.S. dollars, handed out from Iraqi embassies in Arab capitals--luxury cars delivered to top editors, Toyotas for less influential journalists. "This was not secret," says Salama Nimat, a Jordanian journalist who was jailed briefly in 1995 in that nation for highlighting the corruption. Again, this is ripped from the Weekly Standard.

Estimates of Saddam Hussein's personal fortune range from $2 billion to $40 billion. Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, coalition soldiers found nearly $800 million in U.S. cash stashed in a high-rent Baghdad neighborhood. In an April 2, 2003, speech in New York City, British Home Secretary David Blunkett complained about Arab journalism. "It's hard to get the true facts if the reporters of Al Jazeera are actually linked into, and are only there because they are provided with facilities and support from the regime." The accusation caused a minor stir in Britain, with several editorials in left-wing newspapers calling for Blunkett's resignation.

All copied, with minor modification, from the aforementioned Weekly Standard article. The stuff about Saddam's wealth could go in Saddam Hussein's article (in an un-plagiarized version); the stuff about media bias could go into 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage, with a more accurate characterization of Blunkett's speech (he complained about the general impossibility of getting unbiased coverage from inside Iraq). Most of the facts still belong in oil for food.

Rei, TDC, your thoughts please. --same anon, different IP


 * I reworked the Standard article, this is, I assume because I have done it before, not against Wiki's rules. Categorizing it into more appropriate sections seems reasonable. [by TDC
 * Good, glad you agree with this solution. As for "reworking", your text was a nearly-verbatim copy (with minor reorderings and rearrangings) of the Weekly Standard's, without citation. This is plagiarism, which is against Wikipedia rules. If you've done this elsewhere, I encourage you to go back and fix it: add citations and rewrite in your own words. --anon
 * I'll support where they go, although I'll debate wording and content with TDC on those respective articles. It's not surprising that he ripped from the Weekly Standard.  Not surprising at all. Rei

Debate over relative reliability of sources moved to Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage.

Without wantng to read all the above, can someone please tell me the best place to report on the criticism by former president Jimmy Carter of the Bush and Blair action over Iraq? There now seems no place other than Current Events.... Agendum


 * I think Current Events is a proper location. --Rei

So, here is the solution, I guess. I will re write my latest contributions, and file them under the appropriate sub-sections. If they are not appropriate for this page I will find a home for them somewhere else. Rei can go voer them and modify them to her satisfaction. I am sure that the final additions will go through several iterations. TDC 14:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is an encyclopedia entry and language like "fatten his personal wealth" or "sweeping allegations" are entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, characterizing someone as "a friend of the pope" without even saying who you are writing about shows that you are not at all interested in providing valuable information but just in spreading propaganda. Get-back-world-respect 11:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is no "Father Benjamin" at wikipedia, nor could I find any reliable source for him with google, not even using "frere Benjamin". I think it is entirely useless to include allegations against a civilian hardly known in an entry about the 2003 Iraq war. The only reason I can see would be that some war supporters are still angry about the harsh Vatican criticism. Would it not be wiser to wait with the inclusion of dubious documents after the war was justified at the Security Council with a forged document about alleged Iraqi uranium deals? Get-back-world-respect 23:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I've tried to suggest that to TDC, but he is insistant on pushing unconfirmed allegations like this on the page, despite how many similar ones have been disproven. I, too, would much rather wait on the document.  Rei

Unprotect?
I think the dispute with TDC has been adequately resolved, since (s)He seems to agree as to where the content needs to go, if anywhere. Can we unprotect the page? The army just completed a study of troop morale, and I'd like to link it. --Rei

A few comments.

1. I don&#8217;t know why you continually refer to Galloway as &#8220;acquitted&#8221;. Galloway was never charged in any way by the British gov&#8217;t in connection with Iraqi bribery.

The charges faced by Galloway were:

inciting Arabs to fight British troops inciting British troops to defy orders inciting Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs, threatening to stand against Labour backing an anti-war candidate in Preston.

This is what he was charged with, this is what he was expelled from the Labour Party for. It had nothing to do with bribery allegations, which were a civil matter he took up with the Daily Telegraph UK. There were no criminal charges brought against Galloway in connection to the bribery allegations. The Labour party, btw, found him guilty of the first four.

Also, the documents to not name Galloway, but his charity Mariam Appea. Galloway has also admitted that he knew the charity&#8217;s supporters were linked to Hussein&#8217;s regime.

2. If the documents and allegations behind them are so suspicious, then why is Kofi Annan calling for a formal investigation?

3. I am at a loss to understand why you continually rove the names President Sukarnoputri of Indonesia and Benon V. Sevan head of the U.N.'s Oil for Food program. It would seem to me that these people are much more integral to the Oil for food scam than &#8220;a friend of the pope&#8221;.

I believe that the paragraph should stand as is.TDC 18:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Galloway was aquitted of the bribery allegations (aquitted not in the legal sense, will change wording to make it clear), not of the charges related to labour. The bribery allegations were the only ones that are relevant here, that's why they were being discussed (although the others are ridiculous, as Labour's rules state that no member can be disciplined for  'mere holding or expression of opinions').  Galloway admitted that the supporters were linked to Hussein's regime, but not that they gave regime money to his charity, which is what you're accusing (he's stated that it's a possibility).  I'll put in the Sukarnoputri and Sevan if you'll stop trying to shove so much detail in this article where it doesn't belong.  Rei


 * Update: Ok, ok, I've changed it to a version that is rather similar to yours. Is this satisfactory?  Rei


 * I dont know......... There were two paragraphs in there which one was supposed to be the right one? Go to history to sort out what you were doing. TDC 01:49, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That was a mistake. It was supposed to be the second one.  --Rei

---

I could really care less what ammount of space you feel this deserves. It is more than a "set" of documents, but thousands and thousands of pages of information that KPMG is going through as we speak. And if these allegations have no weight, then what has Annan authorized KPMG to conduct a full audit of the program? TDC 00:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I know you could care less what other people think. That's why you never shut up.  The OFF investigation is largely unrelated to the al-Mada allegations - got that?  Probably not - I'll probably have to mention it 10 more times.  If you had taken the time to read about the investigation, you'd be familiar with this.  The OFF investigation is focusing on the following: 1) Oil smuggling.  2) Imposing surcharges on oil sales.  3) Demanding kickbacks by suppliers of goods for choosing their products.  The al-Mada documents are in their own investigation by the UN's Office of Oversight Services, and is a relatively minor probe.


 * Annan did not authorize KPMG to do the investigation. KPMG was hired by the US-appointed governing council.  Familiarize yourself with the details of the investigation before you start blustering about it.

Oops, my bad. How silly of me to think that the UN would have an independent outisede 3rd party go over its books.TDC 20:10, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

KPMG, by the way, was George W. Bush's 14th largest campaign contributor in 2000 (Enron was only #12), and was involved in accounting scandals similar to Arthur Andersen.


 * And once again, I'll ask you: Will you apologize once you're proven completely wrong? Because I'm sick and tired of conservatives slandering the UN and slandering innocent people.  Heck, if you'll promise never to post on any Iraq-related pages again once you're proven wrong in addition to an apology, I won't contest a word that you put up on the page from now until the UN investigation is finished. Rei

Sounds good to me. What am I getting out of this deal, except for you magnanimous offer of not deleting my contributions? Also, if you are serious about this, write extremely specific conditions for such a deal.TDC 20:10, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) If both the UN and IGC investigations don't agree about the bribery allegations, no action is taken.
 * 2) If both the UN and IGC investigations are ambiguous or give mixed results about the bribery allegations, no action is taken.
 * 3) If both the UN and IGC investigations agree that the bribery allegations were vastly overblown or that the documents were forged, you will apologize and cease to post on Iraq-related topics.
 * 4) If both the UN and IGC investigations agree that the bribery allegations were largely true, I will apologize and will never again contest anything that you write on Iraq.


 * Deal? --Rei

Bribery and corruption are not really the same exact charge, its mych the same argument as campain dontations. If, for example, people like Benon Sevan were offered and took oil contracts, we could argue if it was a bribe, but it was most definately an act of coruption. The accusations are not limited to bribery but deal with irregular commissions, weighted tenders, circular deals, and smuggling.

I am also suspicious that the UN will not alow an independent outside body to investigate these claims, but rather is using an internal pannel. I will agree to the four points mentioned above, with the understanding it is not just bribery but also other allegations involved with the corruption charges. TDC 18:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not discussing the "corruption" charges (I'm not sure what you're lumping under that term) - I'm discussing the nonsensical bribery allegations.

Are you still trying to defend Galloway?


 * He's already been defended once against this sort of libel. --Rei

There are two sets of charges that you're merging into one: that individuals across the world took bribes to support Saddam Hussein; and that there the allegations of oil smuggling, imposing surcharges, and demanding kickbacks to get contracts. They're two separate issues. --Rei

That is part of my point. Is it considered a bribe for the head of the UN oil for food program to accept contracts for oil sales if he were to turn a blind eye to Saddam skimming of the top of the fund? Would it be considered a bribe if a journalsit or politician recived oil contracts with the understanding that they would defend the regime and attack its critics?TDC 21:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Those are the al-Mada allegations. The al-Mada allegations have nothing to do with smuggling.  They have nothing to do with surcharges.  They have nothing to do with kickbacks of the style being investigated (the "If you want my contract to purchase food, I'll pay more than you're asking for it but you'll have to give me, personally, the extra of the money that I paid, under the table" type of kickbacks).  The al-Mada allegations have to do with granting individuals oil contracts in exchange for support.  You know, claiming that journalists and churches do oil trading - those are the al-Mada allegations.  The bribery allegations.  They're libelous smear, and they'll be shown to be so like all of the other fraudulant allegations to come out thusfar.  As for the general corruption allegations - smuggling, surcharges, and kickbacks - those probably have truth to them, although it still would be irresponsible to report them as being more than allegations at this point. --Rei

So, let me get this strait. If it is true that Galloway, or anyone else on the list is found to have recieved oil contracts and these individuals provided political support to the regime, you would not consider that bribery ?!?!?

What category would that fall under then? TDC 19:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to point out that those are the allegations from the al-Mada list? The al-Mada list is about bribery.  YES that would be bribery.  I'm contesting the al-Mada list, not the general OFF investigation, which, for hopefully the last time, is about things unrelated to the al-Mada list: smuggling, surcharges, and kickbacks. Rei

The first one is nonsense; the second one may well have truth to it. Lastly, the UN has not refused to have an outside body investigate it - it hasn't been asked to, at least in any public forum that I can find. If you can find any major governmental body who asked the UN to use an outside investigation instead of an internal one, please list it here. Rei

Negroponte has asked the UN to have an outside agency conduct the audit. TDC 21:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said yesterday that the United States completely supported the U.N.-led investigation." press conference, article. Besides, the Office of Oversight Services often appoints outside investigators anyway, so I wouldn't be shocked if they did that this time, too. --Rei

Ambassador Negroponte said he had been assured that the investigation would be led by an independent and professionally competent individual from outside the United Nations.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=ABDA9129-E16F-477F-B50BB5E19360D203

In a letter to Annan, Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Committee, also said the committee plans to request U.N. documents as part of its own inquiry into the allegations of corruption. The committee plans a hearing on the program this month, and Hyde said he would ask that a U.N. representative testify.

Hyde, R-Ill., said that the independent investigation's ``structure and scope is a matter of great concern to many in Congress.'' A copy of the letter, dated Thursday, was provided to The Associated Press.

TDC 19:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Factual accuracy?
I'm curious about the message at the top of the article. The factual accuracy of what, persay, is being disputed in this article? If there is an accuracy issue, shouldn't we be working to resolve it? I have no problem with the NPOV notice, since it's going to be hard to get something that we're all going to agree is NPOV... but we can deal with any accuracy issues, can we not? --Rei

Mass Graves
I removed the comparative reference to mass graves because I didn't think it belonged here, after thinking about it. However, you apparently missed the fact that Blair was found to have sexed up the mass graves body count just like he sexed up everything else. First off, Blair claimed that the figure came from the UN. It did not. It came from Human Rights Watch.

So, Human Rights Watch claimed that it's counted some 300,000 bodies, right? Nope. HRW only has two staff in Iraq, period. HRW stated that there were 290,000 people who are missing and may be killed. They don't even have a list of names. Using these sort of counts, HRW overestimated the deaths in Kosovo 8fold.

Well, these are their own sources, right? Nope! The biggest contributor of numbers (not names!) is... the Kurds! Probably one of the most politically-interested sources in the conflict, second only to Saddam's govt. itself, is the Kurdish political parties. Not only that, but the Kurds seem to have included many of the deaths that were the result of their fight with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

The largest mass grave found in Iraq contained under 2,000 bodies, and was from the 1991 crushing of the shiite uprising. Last I checked, there were almost 30 mass grave sites discovered in the country, most of which had only a few dozen bodies. Most of them were from 1991, although not all, and some of the 1991 bodies appeared to be summary executiuons. --Rei


 * "Rei: [...]under 2,000 bodies[...]" "[...]only a few dozen bodies[...]" Cecropia 16:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What did you mean by that last response? --Rei


 * I didn't think it needed explanation. People are disagreeing over the number of bodies found or not found. But the general deprecating nature of your discussion, even shrugging off HRW, which is hardly pro-U.S., seems to make light of what happened in Saddam's Iraq. Especially a phrase like "only a few dozen bodies" begs the response: "oh, so it that all." I suppose the further response is "look what the U.S. is doing." That's a separate discussion. Some things stand on their own; the world is not just a huge tally sheet. Do you agree? Cecropia 16:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I was pointing out that Blair was flat-out incorrect. There were not 300,000 bodies as he claimed.  There weren't even UN reports of 290,000 missing.  There were rough HRW reports on how many "may" be missing which includes counts from the Kurds losses in the Iran-Iraq war.  That's the facts; contest them if you like.


 * For a "mass grave", a few dozen bodies *is* a small amount. A single grave from the Convoy of Death after the Afghanistan war, for example, contained between 1k and 2k bodies (and those were all slaughtered prisoners, baked alive in metal shipping containers).  In cases of genocide, mass graves often contain tens of thousands of bodies.  It's all tragic - all unnecessary death - but the fact remains, the number of bodies found is relatively quite small, and most were from the 1991 uprising.  --Rei

Mercenaries
I'm not arguing with use of the word, and left it in my edit. Like terrorism, mercenary can be descriptive. I do not necessarily consider the word perjorative. But like terrorism, it is a value-laden word which requires a descrption of its application. Cecropia 16:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to move some of these sections out of this article to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, specifically the Withdrawal section and the Spring 2004 uprisings section, neither of which belong in an article on the 2003 invasion. If there's no objections I'll do this tomorrow. Graft 17:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea.   --Rei

Iraq War Overflow
I find it plainly ridiculous how many entries this encyclopedia has regarding the war in Iraq. There are 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, Iraq disarmament crisis, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq, Popular opposition to war on Iraq, Global protests against war on Iraq,  American popular opinion of war on Iraq, American government position on war on Iraq, Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1990-1996, 1997-2000, 2001-2003, Iraq crisis, 2003, U.S. plan to invade Iraq, Public relations plans for war on Iraq, The UN Security Council and the Iraq war, Predicted effects of invading Iraq, September Dossier, Dodgy Dossier, 2003 invasion of Iraq casualties, List of U.S. helicopter crashes in Iraq, Iraq Body Count project, Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein, List of people associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 2003 occupation of Iraq timeline, Torture and murder in Iraq, Iraqi resistance, Baghdad Bob, Disarmament of Iraq, Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Polish contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Catholic Church against war on Iraq, U.S. list of most-wanted Iraqis, Operation Bulldog Mammoth, Operation Rifles Blitz, Operation Iron Hammer, Operation Red Dawn, History of United States Imperialism, Iraq after Saddam Hussein, Human rights violations in Iraq, United Nations actions regarding Iraq, Iraq Survey Group and I guess this list could be continued endlessly. How about some mergers?


 * I think it's just a side effect of there being lots of interest on this subject from both sides. If anyone can see any good ideas for mergers, I'd support it, but it also seems like have a *ton* of content.  I guess the "where peoples' interests lie" factor is a downside to the wikipedia style of content generation. --Rei

For example, I do not see why there need to be separate articles about Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq and American government position on war on Iraq. I do not see why there need to be articles like Torture and murder in Iraq and Human rights violations in Iraq while there is no Torture and murder in Myanmar, Torture and murder in Sudan, Human rights violations in the US, Human rights violations in Guantanamo, or Human rights violations in Belgium. Amnesty International has information about all of these. Iraq after Saddam Hussein is fully covered in U.S.-led occupation of Iraq and will be covered in History of Iraq once it has all calmed down. I listed Predicted effects of invading Iraq for deletion, Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein should follow, and I am going to open The United States and weapons of mass destruction, The United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction, Russia and weapons of mass destruction, China and weapons of mass destruction, and France and weapons of mass destruction. Get-back-world-respect 01:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Your suggested mergers, deletions, and creations sound good to me - anyone object? --Rei


 * Appropriate consolidation is always a good idea, in order to rationalize content. But I would object if significant material is removed or removals are POV selective. We need to know if there is any consensus for general reduction in accurate material. Cecropia


 * I suggested to merge Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq and American government position on war on Iraq and listed Iraq after Saddam Hussein for deletion since, as I explained above, it is fully covered in U.S.-led occupation of Iraq and will be covered in History of Iraq once it has all calmed down. I still think it is ridiculous to cover Torture and murder in Iraq and Human rights violations in Iraq while torture, murder, or at least human rights violations happen almost everywhere but probably no other country has similar articles, except Israel. I am not sure though where the information should be included, maybe history. I think the overflow will happen with any country that is so much in the focus of the media while this encyclopedia is created. That will lead to a bias towards coverage of recent events while past events will be neglected even though they might be more important. Get-back-world-respect 01:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

use of the term "coalition" POV
There is a brief discussion of and a link to an article on the term "coalition of the willing", but in the remainder of the article the term "coalition" (sometimes capitalized) is used without quotation marks. This term was coined by the powers that invaded Iraq to describe their alliance. I think it is POV, since the term has been used extensively by the governments of these powers in attempts to create the appearance of a broad alliance. "Coalition" is a positively connoted term which these governments would be unlikely to apply, for instance, to groupings of their opponents which they call "networks". I'm aware that it may be difficult to avoid usage of this term altogether, as it has found its way into acronyms like "CPA", but I feel there is a lot of room for improvement. I'd like to make corresponding edits but will wait for objections first. Fpahl 13:34, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but can't agree. Alliances in wartime take on commonly used terms, "allies," "triple alliance", "triple entente", "axis", etc. The prominent presence of the U.S., Britain and Poland alone make it fit the definition of "coalition," and "coalition" is the common usage. To remove the term coalition becomes more politically freighted than leaving it in.


 * As a significant aside, if we begin to play with common terms because they are POV, we would have to start altering the official names of countries: some would argue whether China is a "people's republic," do we have to decide whether Thailand is free enough to be called "Land of the Free" (Muong Thai) and so on. Cecropia 14:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you should bring this up – I thought about the issue of country names while I was posting the comment. My response is that, yes, if a country's name is POV, there may be cases where this should be remarked on and the name used with care, but, no, I don't think there are any cases where this is currently as important as in the case of the "coalition". This is because, as far as I'm aware, few countries are currently succeeding in manipulating public opinion by such a choice of names. I'm not sure about China, but I know that the name of the former German Democratic Republic influenced relatively few of its citizens in their assessment of the democratic nature of its government. By contrast, the US government is currently highly (though decreasingly) successful in portraying itself as the vanguard of "the civilized world", and terms such as "coalition" are an essential element of this manipulation.


 * I'd like to understand better your argument that removing the term would be more political than keeping it. I think this might depend on the specific sentence. Some uses of the term are completely gratuitous; e.g., on the page on Muqtada al-Sadr, "a revolt against the coalition of forces occupying Iraq" could easily be changed to "a revolt against the forces occupying Iraq", and I think this would be less POV. On the other hand, I can imagine contorted efforts at avoiding the term "CPA" to end up more politicized than the term itself – but please elaborate on this argument.


 * You argue that the "coalition" fits the definition of "coalition" – but this takes into account only the denotation, not the connotation of the term. It also fits the definition of "a bunch of powerful nations that ganged up to invade Iraq", but I'm sure that no-one would want an expression like that in the article. Fpahl 14:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think "occupation" has its own problems (e.g. "Nazi occupation of Southern France" comes to mind) and I don't think this can be entirely avoided. It's necessary of course to use the term CPA at least occassionally. That the term "coalition" is warm and fuzzy (while the occupation is not) may well be true, but I don't think it can be avoided; "occupiers" is equally POV. I think glomming them together wherever possible is the best compromise (occupying coalition, etc.) And, of course, a dispassionate rendering of the facts and (use of neutral terms for the oft-demonized "Saddam remnants" or "terrorists" or what have you) should remove any illusion of warmth or fuzziness that official labels might imply. Graft 15:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see "occupation" and "coalition" as alternatives set against each other. If you think "occupation" is POV, we can discuss that separately. In his press conference, Bush said yesterday that "of course they don't like being occupied. I wouldn't like being occupied either", so I don't think he'd mind us calling it an occupation. That "Nazi occupation of Southern France" (did you mean Northern France? Vichy France remained unoccupied) comes to mind is something different from a term being tainted by manipulative misuse in the very context we are writing about. If someone does something that has certain common characteristics with something the Nazis did, that's not a reason for not calling it by the name that it had been called by before the Nazis existed -- the Autobahn is still called "Autobahn" although this may make Hitler come to mind. Fpahl 15:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The primary thing is to write so that people understand what is written. Coalition is the term best known; it shouldn't carry any moral connitations: in general coalitions can be good or evil, depending on what they are doing. DJ Clayworth 16:06, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's very important that the text remains clear and concise. I've already given an example where my proposed change would not make the text more difficult to understand. This objection only applies to specific changes, not to my general proposal.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the term "shouldn't" carry any "moral" connotations. I was arguing that it does carry connotations. I don't think that this particular grouping of nations can be simply characterized either as "good" or as "evil", but I do think that the term "coalition" is being used in an attempt to portray it as something it isn't. Fpahl 16:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * In Talk:Muqtada al-Sadr you counterposed "coalition forces" and "occupation forces", so I assume that these are the two alternative phraseologies we're weighing... Also perhaps a better example (I suppose I did mean Northern France, although I didn't know it) would be the Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank, which has severely negative connotations. However, your comments above suggest you're more concerned about something like "American-led" vs. "coalition" - yes? Graft 18:24, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * But even the US military admits that this is an occupation; the CPA is sometimes even referred to as the "occupation authority". Likewise, even Israel admits that their operations are an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.  Consequently, I would support the use of the term "occupation forces"; it is more accurate and descriptive, by all standards.  It's the same reason I oppose the term "homicide bomber" - it takes out the key descriptive element concerning the type of attack to add in a largely redundant word.  People with a particular ideology about the conflict shouldn't get to pick and chose what terms will be used; the terms used should be the most simple and descriptive available. --Rei


 * US-led forces... how about that? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:11, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Simple but descriptive, and without a particular bias... works for me. :)  --Rei


 * How about "war criminals", just to tease Cecropia 8^p Get-back-world-respect 01:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd go along with "US-led forces" (not "American-led", which is US-centric) if that turns out to be the only solution we can agree on, but I still feel that "occupation forces" is preferable and NPOV. I agree with Rei's comments on this above. Graft, your argument would convince me only if the associations you cite were the only relevant ones and had given the word a biased connotation beyond its original meaning. Perhaps you dislike the implication that the occupation forces are not welcome, as the Israeli forces are obviously not welcome in the West Bank. I grew up in West Berlin when it was still formally occupied by the US, the UK and France (until reunification in 1990), and these were referred to routinely as the occupying powers, without any perceived contradiction with the fact that they were viewed as West Germany's best friends. The two examples (West Bank and West Berlin) span the spectrum of styles of occupation, and I feel that calling the US-led forces "occupation forces" leaves everyone free to decide what style of occupation they think it is.


 * Two arguments against "US-led forces": 1. It might be considered POV in the opposite direction, biased towards those who view this basically as a unilateral US operation. 2. People from the UK (and possibly other countries) might feel that it doesn't do justice to their "contribution". I'm not particularly concerned about either of these, just thought I'd bring them up.


 * So, to summarize, I'd like to remove references to the "coalition" as far as possible (taking care not to make the text more difficult to understand), and in so doing I would prefer to have "occupation forces" as an option. If there are still objections to that after the counter-arguments from Rei and me, I'll stick with "US-led forces". Fpahl 16:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I am ok with the term "occupation forces" but don't you see better ways to waste your time? Get-back-world-respect 16:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Removing language that I think is tainted by the world-view of dangerous ideologues from a text shared by a large community seems worthwhile in comparison to a lot of other things I can think of -- but I'm open to suggestions :-) Fpahl 16:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * How about joining my efforts to silence abusive TDC who tries to spread propaganda about Oil for Food Allegations (listed for deletion), who is known to be abusive by getting banned and engaging in edit wars before, who tries to put his personal opinion in the article about The United States and weapons of mass destruction (listed for protection), writing that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions, although as several sources proove the neccessity of the usage of the bombs remains controversial. TDC also commented on the talk page that only "limp dicked" historians question his claims and on his talk page, just after getting banned for suggesting someone to "suck his own dick", he wrote "believe you me that you have met in TDC the biggest most stubborn prick on the face of planet earth, and I will not stop until your stomach churns with bile at the site of [TDC]. I dont feel that this is a waste of time, I get a great deal of satisfaction out of this." Get-back-world-respect 17:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll be away for the weekend, but will consider your suggestion when I get back -- thanks :-) Fpahl 17:29, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oil for food
I removed the specific mentioning of some individuals figuring in the Al Mada list given this has no relevance to the invasion, which this article is about. Get-back-world-respect 13:21, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article is about the invasion, but the subheading is about support and opposition to the invasion. Does it not seem relevant that many of the names of oil for food contract recipients were also some of the most vocal opponents to the war, i.e. Father Benjamin, George Galloway...... TDC 15:07, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * TDC, your one track mind is getting *very* annoying. Why on earth do you not have the patience to wait for the investigations to pan out before plastering the same stuff on every other article about Iraq, and trying to get an incredibly disproportional amount of content compared to the relevance to the topic at hand?


 * Let me give you an example. Let's say that you have a career as a national or international figure of some kind.  You've been falsely smeared for your views many times before.  Some random person makes an allegation about you, saying for example that you raped a teenager or something similarly damaging to your reputation.  *Whether or not it is true*, posting tons of one-sided content about the allegation against you all over the place, without being content to wait for the accusation to pan out and simply reporting that the accusation exists, would be damaging to you, and grossly irresponsible.  It would be an extreme example of journalistic bias.  Now, if the accusations were found to have been true, it would then be responsible to post the incident around all over the place.  However, if it were found to be false, but you had already had the allegations against posted all over the place, your reputation would be very tarnished, despite no wrongdoing on your part.


 * Please understand this. Please gather together the tiniest bit of patience, and wait for the investigations to conclude, OK?  And please quit trying to post the exact same content in every Iraq article, regardless of the relevance.  Even if the allegations were proven to be true, this excessive replication is bad form and damages the value of Wikipedia's content.  --Rei

Casualties
I think it is to the shame of wikipedia that this article has no photo of any of the thousands of Iraqi victims of the war. Now at least we have a picture of american victims but this just emphasizes how US-centered this article is. Get-back-world-respect 11:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It certainly could, but there are no pictures of US/British casualties either. The coffin pictures can be considered as anti- as pro-U.S. policy And there's no picture of Saddam's mass graves, and which and how many casualty pictures do you want. Iraq soldier casualties of the Coalition? Civilians killed by Coalition? Killed by suicide bombers? The contractor's bodies defiled against Muslim law? The Italian shot in the head? And the very title shows how non U.S.-centric the article is. Do we call D-Day the "1944 invasion of France?" The all-seeing eye sees all, but cannot see itself. -- Cecropia 11:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There were by far more Iraqi than US or British casualties. I do not say it is pro- or anti-US, we all agree that an encyclopedia should be neutral. But it should also not from the point of view of mainly one country. Saddam's mass graves were no part of the invasion, and I think I saw pictures of them in another article. War is about death and misery, not about clean coffins and air planes with a humanitarian mission. Graphic covrage should be appropriate. The suicide bombers and the Italian were no part of the invasion but the occupation. By the way, France was not invaded but liberated from occupation, just as Kuait some years ago. Get-back-world-respect 12:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that war is all about suffering, in addition to the interests of the combatants, but there are problems and POV, anyway, in the coverage given. The Iran-Iraq War lasted eight years or so and killed perhaps a million, and for what? A zero-sum game. But many are only interested in that war for the U.S. involvement. The pictures on that page are just of Khomeini and Saddam. Khomeini looks fierce and Saddam looks young and happy in his spiffy uniform. The Rwanda Genocide, one of the incredible massacres of our time, doesn't even seem to have a separate article, no less a picture.


 * As a practical matter, I will note that it's difficult to get appropriate public domain pictures. Cecropia 13:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Already noticed that practical problem. I see it as an ethical problem as well, I would not like to have a photo of pieces of my relatives in an article about WW II. But there should be some sort of gaphical coverage of destruction and misery rather than lunatic leaders and clean planes for huminatarian purposes and hi-tech weapons. The war in Afghanistan created a lot of refugees again. It is well known that the Taliban got a lot of support from the refugees in the refugee camps in Pakistan.
 * By the way, a zero sum game is when one can only win at the expense of the other. In the case of a war there are always losses on both sides.
 * I will create an article about the Rwandan genocide as soon as possible, thanks for the information. I only hope TDC will not show up and creat UN Rwanda allegations and report that it was all Annan's fault and he should be sent to Guantanamo. Get-back-world-respect 15:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There are four pages about the Rwandan genocide in the article History of Rwanda. I do not think we need an extra article for everything. Only sad how few we have about Rwanda before the genocide. Get-back-world-respect 10:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian support
The New York Times wrote: "operations from at least three air bases (...) Between 250 and 300 Air Force planes staged from Saudi Arabia (...) The Saudis provided tens of millions of dollars in discounted oil, gas and fuel for American forces.", why does 69.138.236.221 turn this into "Saudi Arabia provided airbases and tens of millions of dollars in supplies, including jet fuel, for over 300 American aircraft that flew missions over Iraq."? Get-back-world-respect 10:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kay Report and NK
Rei, if you actually read the Kay report, it states quite clearly that Iraq had many active WMD related programs. I also never stated that Iraq was purchasing Nodongs from NK, I stated that they were purchasing a turnkey production facility from the NK's which is also in the Kay report. TDC 14:09, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've read the Kay report. Kay accuses them of having programs that could possibly be related to WMDs.

Despite trying to put the most sinister face on it, it is completely unconvincing. A network of laboratories and safehouses. Ooooooh! A prison complex "possibly" for testing BW agents. A scientist having biological agents in his home, of which *one* could possibly be used in a biological weapons program!


 * Kay makes it clear, in the &#8216;&#8217;&#8217;most simple of terms&#8217;&#8217;&#8217; that Iraq had many WMD related programs:


 * &#8216;&#8217;We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002&#8217;&#8217;


 * He does not say possible, or probable, or mabey or could be or might be. In no uncertain terms Kay makes it clear that Iraq had WMD related programs. TDC 18:13, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * See below. --Rei

What's next? I can just imagine the next report: " * - We found a dog in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces. They could have surgically implanted bags of anthrax into the dog for secretive transport". The best that I will accept is a line to the effect of "The US's investigation, led by Bush ally David Kay, concluded that some things that were found in Iraq could possibly have been used toward WMD programs." ("Bush ally" is putting it lightly, to say the least). Of course, the article already says things to the effect of how things found *could* have been used toward WMDs, but almost any lab equipment *could* be used toward WMDs. There are literally thousands of things within a 100 foot radius of where I work that could easily be used toward a biological warfare program, for example (I work in a hospital).


 * Lets look at where this "See Only Evil" argument has gotten us. The Niger Documents.  The idiotic, incessant "aluminum tubes" claim.  The thousands of tons of chemical agents and biological stocks claims.  The concealed SCUD missile claims.  All of it - all completely wrong.  This is a *country* we're talking about.  If you could make a country the size of California, with 25 million people, contain *nothing* that could *possibly* be used for long range missiles, chemical, biological, or nuclear facilities, while trying to build weapons to defend itself against an upcoming invasion, that would be a truly incredible feat.  How little they ended up finding is, to me, the amazing thing.  At the very *worst*, it is inconclusive.  At best, it is effectively nothing.


 * Kay's recent comments say nothing about "turnkey facilities".  To quote the Washington Times (I figure that's a paper that you would trust),  "Saddam Hussein's government paid North Korea $10 million for medium-range Nodong missile technology in the months before the Iraq war, but never received any goods because of U.S. pressure" (emphasis mine).  Let's quote Kay himself: Iraq was to receive ""missile technology for the Nodong, a 1,300-kilometer missile, as well as other nonmissile related but prohibited technologies."  Note that he doesn't even state what "tech" it was.  Missile tech involves everything from engines to fuel pumps to thrusters to spin up the missile for accurage reentry - very little missile tech is applicable only to a specific range of missile.  Iraq was working on a missile program (the al-Samoud, among others) - of course they want missile technology.  What sort of country that was working on missile systems would *not* want missle technology?  The al-Samoud programs (note: the al-Samoud variants only violate the limit if you don't give them a warhead or guidance system) were one of the Iraqi military's key development projects - and yet, they *destroyed* them under the inspections, even on the day before the invasion.  We destroyed their best defense, and then invaded.  Nice.

From an interview with David Kay and Tony Snow

You mentioned that there are four classes. You had cruise missiles. You had the attempt to buy the Nodong missile from North Korea that can have a range of up to 1,300 kilometers, about 800 miles...

KAY: Right.

SNOW: ... and a series of other things. You had rocket propellants, correct?

KAY: Well, the rocket propellants are really an interesting story I'm surprised no one has picked up on. We have Iraqis now telling us that they continued, until 2001 or early 2002, to be capable of mixing and preparing Scud missile fuel.


 * That contradicts what Kay stated in the Times. Furthermore, point to where in Kay's report where there was an attempt to buy a whole Nodong.

Scud missile fuel is only useful in Scud missiles, no other class of missiles that Iraq has. And yet Iraq declared that it got rid of all of its Scud missiles in the early 1990s. Why would you continue to produce Scud missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds? We're looking for the Scuds


 * That shows you how idiotic Kay is being (they did the same thing with the aluminum tubes - their "only" use was centrifuges, remember? Complete nonsense).  Scuds are liquid fuel rockets using the fuel kerosine and the oxidizer red fuming nitric acid.  Clearly Kay isn't dumb enough to claim that kerosine is banned, so he must be talking about red fuming nitric acid.  But fuming nitric acid is used in *everything*.  For some background, nitric acids of over 86% purity are "fuming", and there are red and white types (red has substantial dissolved NO2).  It's used to make explosives (gee, why would Iraq need those?).  It is used in etching.  It is used in all sorts of refining processes.  It is used everywhere.  I mean, how dishonest can Kay get with his reporting?

So Iraq was trying to acquire the Nodong missile, not just components of it.


 * Point to where in the report that actually is stated. I think Kay misunderstood the question.

And As far as other prohibited missile technology goes:

&#8216;&#8217;Iraq also was working to convert some of the 300 Chinese-made HY-2 Silkworm antiship missiles into land-attack cruise missiles. The most ambitious program involved replacing the liquid-fueled rocket motor on the Silkworm with turbine engines taken from Russian-made Mi-8 and Mi-17 transport helicopters. This was designed to be a 1,000-kilometer cruise missile that would have carried a warhead of about 500 kilograms, a significant warhead with a large range,"

-From Kay&#8217;s Report


 * LAF, I remember that claim. What of the missile would be left after replacing a rocket engine with a turbine engine?  That would be a brand new missile, it would have little in common with the Silkworm.  I'm betting that this is one of Tamimi's brainchildren.    - he had tons of designs that he did.


 * In short, 1) Kay's claims cannot be used to represent a definitive claim, because they're not anything close to definitive claims. 2) To the best of what I can find in conservative newspapers (your favorite), Kay only stated that Iraq was buying Nodong tech, not Nodong missiles.  Consequently, your edits do not stand.  --Rei


 * I find if difficult to believe that you read the entire Kay report, because he most definitely states that Iraq had WMD related programs, and was intent on restarting a full WMD program once sanctions had ended.


 * Despite not finding any WMD, Kay said his team found that the Iraqi senior leadership "had an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities. That they, in fact, had a large number of WMD-related activities."


 * Kay predicted investigators would find that Iraqi scientists were "working on developing weapons or weapons concepts that they had not moved into actual production." TDC 18:13, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Kay claimed that they were WMD programs. It's entirely specious, though, if you read his report.  Have you not read it?  I just listed the first several examples of the "programs".  It's nonsense.  Consequently, it can't be stated as if it's some sort of fact, that a Bush ally claims that these things which could, however remotely, be related to WMDs were in fact definitive proof of WMD programs.  Of course a Bush ally is going to see everything as insidious.  But where is the evidence?  Where was the actual WMD work?  Where are the results?  Where are the parts?  And why on earth is this idiot claiming that red fuming nitric acid has only one purpose?  --Rei

BTW, you sweating the Oil For Food bet yet? TDC 14:12, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Laf, the bribes bet? Oh, I'm so scared that the Russian Orthodox Church was dealing in oil trading.  :)  --Rei

We shall find out soon enough. TDC 18:13, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

The line in dispute:


 * No weapons of mass destruction or related programs (the claims of the Bush administration - click here for a list) were found by the Iraq Survey Group, headed by inspector David Kay;

This is in direct contradiction to the report and David Kay's Satetments. TDC 19:00, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * How about "No weapons of mass destruction have were found, but the Iraq Survey Group, headed by inspector David Kay, claims to have found evidence of WMD-related programs - a hotly disputed claim."


 * Also, are you going to ref your Salmon Pak claims? BTW, if you want more evidence of Kay's dishonesty, I can start quoting from the Biosecurity Journal's panel set up to independently analyze the evidence.  You know, they point out little things like "Bacillus thuringeinisas as a simulant of B. anthracis was previously documented as well as spray drying capabilities and ricin or aflatoxin processing".  And other organizations as well.  --Rei

Here is the thing, the original text was factually incorrect. It said that David Kay and the Iraq Survey group stated that there were no WMD related programs. Kay&#8217;s report refutes this, because the report does indeed state that they found WMD related programs.

As far as this being a hotly disputed claim, who is disputing this, no pundits please, and what specific claims of Kay&#8217;s report are in dispute. You must site your sources for this in full accordance with Wiki policy.

As far as the Salmon Pak, claims I have that material at home somewhere and will cite that and insert it when I dig them up. TDC 19:14, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I already gave you one. How many respectable orgs that dispute it do you want? BTW, the plane found at Salmon Pak by US forces was a Tupolev 154, not a Boeing 707. The INC defectors (Khodada amd Zeinab) simply read an erroneous old UN report, and cited it in their made-up claims. The plane was actually used for *counterterrorism*, and was from the Iran-Iraq war, designed to protect against Iranian hijackings. At least, if you believe the British, who trained Iraq on counterterrorism using the plane until the early 90s. Khodada and Zeinab claim that it was "later converted". Like essentially everything else the INC (to quote Chalabi, the "heroes in error"), it was completely false. --Rei

Does [ this] look like a Boeing to you? That's what you get for listening to the INC. --Rei

Could be a 727 or a DC-8, it is a bit tough to tell from that angle.TDC 19:34, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? A DC-8?  Didn't you even notice where the engines are mounted, for starters?  A 727?  Yeah right, even the wheels are.  The front angle of the wing is wrong on all of them.  Not to mention that the INC folks said it was a 707, which is even more ridiculous. It's a Tu154 . --Rei

Simmer down there zippy, I told you I did not know what it was. So its a TU154, what is the big deal? Are you still going to stick to the story that it was used by iraqi special forces as a counter terrorism tool (isn't it almost too funny to say)? TDC 20:56, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's so amazing, because, I mean, Iran never hijacked airliners, right? It's not like in 1986 that Iranian hijackers hijacked an Iraqi airplane and crashed it killing 65 people, right?  It's not like the M16, since the west was helping Iraq, went over to help train Iraq at Salman Pak, right?   Oh wait... (mirror - can't find the orig.)


 * And of course, it makes so much sense to train for hijackings in an area visible to spy planes and satellites.


 * Like it made alot of sense to invade Kuwait in 91? Or hows about Lybia training terrorists in the desert out in the open. These people are not known for their common sense.TDC 23:33, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, invading Kuwait made a lot of sense and was done very carefully. Kuwait was excised from Persia by the British specifically to deny access to the Gulf; Persiraq has wanted it back ever since and made no secret of it. Kuwait was provking Iraq by slant-drilling into an Iraqi oilfield (ie stealing). Saddam felt out his pals in the US very thoroughly about the matter and they tied themselves in Turksheads avoiding a clear "don't do that". It was only after the invasion that "this will not stand" and "nobody thought he'd take all of Kuwait" talk started. There is evidence that the US encouraged Kuwait in its provokations. IE Saddam thought the time was right to manifest Persiraq destiny and had good reson to think his best ally was okay with that, but he'd been baited and lied to. 142.177.17.9 16:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The INC claimed a particular type of airplane was being used... and they don't even know what it was? And the particular type that they claimed just happened to be the same as the UN's mistake? Gee, no, they weren't making stuff up, no way....  ;)


 * Give it up. The claim is laughable.  --Rei

Has any one noticed
Just as a matter of interest has any one noticed that all we hear is that the Iraqis have been freed from Saddam's terror. But no one has actually asked the Iraqis whether or not they're happy?
 * WTF? I asked them yesterday. They said yes, they are very happy. Graft 01:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Odd. I talked to them yesterday, too, and they mentioned that actually they were a little peeved about a city of 350,000 people being flattened and about its former inhabitants having to get identity cards from a foreign army in order to re-enter. They also seemed a little testy about the whole tens-of-thousands-of-dead civilians thing. But maybe they just had a bad day. Things like that wouldn't bother folks with clean consciences like you and me, right? BrandonYusufToropov 11:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Naming
The two reasonable titles for this entry are 2003 invasion of Iraq and U.S. invasion of Iraq (add alternatives if you strongly believe either is deficient). See Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan for a (possibly) comparable discussion.

The first avoids (potentially contentious) questions of the nature of the invasion and is permanently unambiguous.

The second follows the standard set by U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, makes a (potentially contentious) definitive statement about the nature of the invasion, and is unambiguous (as long as the U.S. doesn't invade Iraq in the future).

The naming issues affects other entries as well, and is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war) - please use this as a central place for all your naming convention-related discussion.

Another possibility is Second Gulf War or maybe Third Gulf War. Or even "Fourth Gulf War" if you count the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 invasion of Kuwait/Iraq as separate military episodes. For this reason I (Cabalamat) consider all names of the form nth Gulf War to be horribly ambiguous and should not be used.

Nature of Coalition/Invasion
Is the phrase "U.S. invasion of Iraq" misleading or not? This question depends on the nature of the coalition and reasons for the invasion. The nature of the coalition is discussed at coalition of the willing.


 * if you think "U.S. invasion of Iraq" is on the right track, then I would argue that it does not go far enough. "U.S. conquering of Iraq" or "U.S. toppling Baathist Iraq" or "US-Iraq war" or "U.S. liberation of Iraq" is more normal. Nobody refers to WWII as "U.S. invasion of France".


 * I quote from Battle of Normandy: "The Battle of Normandy was fought in 1944 between the German forces occupying Western Europe and the invading Allies". I rest my case. Rama 20:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nature of Coalition/Invasion

 * content moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war)

Many of these countries are supplying medical personel, chem/bio response teams, ships, airbases, overflight rights and other support.

this sentence needs more precision. What is "other supports". Besides, placed where it was give the feeling only coalition forces brings humanitarian help. Could we keep separate notions of war support, from notions of humanitarian support please ? ant


 * Considering the fact that some of the nations request not to be named - it'd be difficult to compile a "complete" list or to list exactly what every country is doing.


 * If some nations that alledgedly were part of the Coalition don't want to be named, then that's going to make it difficult to establish who did what, and we oughtn't to report something as fact unless we can get confirmation -- Cabalamat 15:51, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * re: humanitarian help.. feel free to add that other countries and organizations are also providing humanitarian help. I don't see how the above sentence suggests that its only coalition forces.

Dollar and the Euro
I reverted an extensive original research and speculation based on a single POV source, alleging that a major reason for the invasion of Iraq was to restore US dominance over the Euro. Aside from the fact that there is no general constituency for this belief, it flies in the face of ordinary economics. Currencies fluctuate based on economic factors that usually defy manipulation. In the past 20 years or so the GBP has been as high as about USD 1.85 and as low as about USD 1.10, IIRC. But more importantly, the US at this point has no reason to want to beat down the Euro. A cheap dollar improves trade positions for the US, and is probably contributing to recovery in the US while Europe is not faring as well. When US interest rates rise, so will the dollar, without the need for international conflict. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This is much more then speculation - especially in academic circles it was one of the major explanations offered for the US war drive before the invasion. Importantly there is very good evidence that it was actually a considerations of the US government, from a source you'll respect I think.Republican-voting Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who was an analyst on the Pentagon's Near East South Asia department, later "Office of Special Plans" in the run-up to the war, started talking a lot about what went on in the Pentgon at that time: . From an interview with LA Weekly :
 * ''So if, as you argue, they knew there weren't any of these WMD, then what exactly drove the neoconservatives to war?
 * ''KK: The neoconservatives pride themselves on having a global vision, a long-term strategic perspective. And there were three reasons why they felt the U.S. needed to topple Saddam, put in a friendly government and occupy Iraq. [...]
 * ''The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 -- selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren't very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.
 * The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it's not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq's oil back to the dollar.
 * don't have time now to work on this unfortuntely.... pir 11:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am not now (and have never been) a Republican, and insofar as some of my beliefs are similar to those of some neocons, the imprimeteur of a Republican and/or a neocon does not impress me, per se.


 * The flaw in including such material in an encyclopedic article is based largely on its source, and its recondite nature. If we are to include vaguely plausiable theories (especially sometimes quoting verbatim a long rant from a POV site) we can place a lot of material in a lot of contentious articles. These articles are of the "ah-ha!" variety (so beloved of many political radicals, left and right) where they read a heretofore novel explantion for an international incident, it appeals to them, and that must therefore be "the reason."


 * This argument reminds me of people who told me quite firmly, in the 1980s, that Japan was now the world superpower, at least economically, to which I responded: "when the Japanese economy has a problem, the world coughs, when the US economy has a problem, the world gets pneumonia; when those positions are reversed, then talk to me about Japanese dominance."


 * I expect, if the EU stabilizes to the point where the citizens of member nations begin to think of themselves first as Europeans, rather than French, German or Italian, that the Euro will be a reserve currency; but I don't see the currency denomination of oil sales as being an issue. Euros, like dollars, will always be purchaseable on the world market at market rates. U.S. dollars held in international depository have a limited impact on the U.S. economy, because they are always a liability. To see them as "providing goods and services for free" turns economics on its head. The U.S. economy is better off having those dollars purchasing export goods to boost the economy.


 * It is government instruments of the U.S. that represent short-term international subsidy to the economy, but that is not the same as "printing money." If the U.S. were to "print money" in the classical sense, the dollar would rapidly inflate, and this in itself would destroy the dollar as a reserve currency. -- Cecropia | Talk


 * I completely agree that the dollar/Euro thing was as unlikely the number one reason for the invasion as were weapons of mass destruction. However, the dollar as the main currency in oil trading has a great importance. Given the massive U.S. debt and the tremendous trade deficits we have seen for so many years it is counter intiutive that the dollar still serves as a reserve currency. The trading of a good with pivotal importance in that currency is a major reason why the trust in that currency has not declined more dramatically. There are two sides of the medal of a strong or weak currency. A weak currency is good if you have debt in it or if you want to sell your goods. On the other hand it is bad if you have to pay your imports and it makes you more vulnerable for foreign takeovers. Since the US are heavily dependent on imports it helps if it can pay a major import good in their own currency, without the risk of currency fluctuation. I think the point should be mentioned, not prominantly though. Get-back-world-respect 20:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You just have to ask "Why does the world want dollars?" The answer isn't in the first place "So that it can buy American goods". It's "So that it can buy oil, which is traded in dollars". If the world did not need US dollars to buy oil, it might start not to hold them. This would cause devaluation (because instead of everyone's wishing to buy dollars, they would be wanting to sell them) and the US' already enormous current account deficit would inflate. The adjustment that America already faces, which can at this point go either way -- painfully or easily -- would be excruciating. It's rather unlikely as the primary casus belli, because the Iraqis don't influence other oil-producing countries or those nations that hold large amounts of dollars all that much; but it would certainly have irritated the US. It would also have suggested to the US that were Iraq permitted to get back onto its feet under Saddam, the latter might seek to increase his influence over world pricing of oil.

Mental Health Problems after Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan
How do you think should we include the following article? Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care 17:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Coalition order of battle
Hi, It would be a good thing to show the coalition order of battle during the 2003 offensive in this article. Indeed, it is very complicated to understand american ODB nowadays. Was the 3rd ID under V corps command ? Or just the 101st ? I don't know but I wish I would.

Iraq/Al Qaeda & 911 Commission
I am removing the following paragraph from the entry because it is false and misleading:


 * However, the 9/11 Commission has since confirmed that there was indeed a long-term relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. The report indicated that Hussein on numerous occasions after 1998 offered Osama bin Laden refuge in Iraq. Hussein also expressed his willingness in the future to possibly help al Qaeda in operations, but more generally gave his moral support to bin Laden, stating that the two groups have common enemies.

I went over the 9/11 Commission final report and do not see this claim anywhere. I realize some politicians and pundits continue to maintain it is true, but there is little in the final report to actually back this up. Below are a few passages that come close, but they don't support the claim above. If you want this in there, please be accurate about it, and I think there should be a sentence or two that notes that on balance there is no evidence of any significant cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that while Saddam may have made overtures, al Qaeda rejected Saddam as an infidel and even as an American stooge. In addition, al Qaeda was actively funding and training Kurdish terrorists in northern Iraq (an area controlled by the U.S. military, not Saddam) who were dedicated to removing Saddam Hussein. It turns out that most of the evidence the US relied upon to support the claim of such cooperation came from discredited sources like Chalabi and Libi. Quotes from the 9/11 final report follow:


 * 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 18:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The following quotes are from Stephen Hayes' book: The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.
 * According to the Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." (Page 114.)


 * In what the CIA nicknamed "Operation Dogmeat," two Iraqi students who lived in the Philippines tried to demolish U.S. Information Service headquarters in Manila. Iraqi diplomat Muwufak al Ani met with the bombers five times before the attack. His car even took them near their target on January 19, 1991. Their bomb exploded prematurely, killing Ahmed J. Ahmed, but his accomplice, Abdul Kadham Saad, survived and was whisked to a Manila hospital. Saad, carrying documents bearing two distinct identities, asked staffers to alert the Iraqi embassy, then recited its phone number. (Page 39.)


 * Around this time, according to former high-level CIA counterterrorist Stanley Bedlington, Hussein paired Iraqi intelligence operatives with members of the Arab Liberation Front to execute attacks. "The Iraqis had given them all passports," he said, "but they were all in numerical sequence." These tell-tale passport numbers helped friendly governments nab these terror teams. (Page 41.)


 * "In 1992, elements of al Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein," Abu Aman Amaleeki, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, said on ABC's Nightline on September 26, 2002. Speaking from a Kurdish prison, he added: "And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri," bin Laden's chief deputy. "I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad." (Page 43.)


 * Former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi, reports a reliable foreign spy agency, supplied blank Yemeni passports to al Qaeda in 1992. (Page 66.)


 * Mohammed Salameh, a 1993 World Trade Center attacker, called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Salameh's June 1992 phone bill totaled $1,401, which prompted his disconnection for non-payment. After the blast ? which killed six individuals and injured 1,042 ? Yasin fled to Baghdad, where records and multiple press accounts show he received safe haven and Baathist cash. (Pages 11 and 50.)


 * Based on a 20-page IIS document discovered in Baghdad, the Defense Intelligence Agency reports that "Alleged conspirators employed by IIS are wanted in connection with the [June 25, 1996] Khobar Towers bombing and the assassination attempt in 1993 of former President Bush." (Page 180.)


 * In an October 27, 2003 memo, Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith explained Hussein's bonus pay for terrorists: "Iraq increased support to Palestinian groups after major terrorist attacks and...the change in Iraqi relations with al Qaeda after the [1998 east African] embassy bombings followed this pattern." A top Philippine terrorist also said Iraq's payments to the al Qaeda-tied Abu Sayyaf grew after successful assaults. (Page 120.)


 * ABC News reported on January 14, 1999, that it "has learned that in December [1998] an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden." Hijazi "went to Afghanistan in December with the knowledge of the Taliban and met with Osama bin Laden," former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro told National Public Radio's Mike Shuster on February 18, 1999. "It's known through a variety of intelligence reports that the U.S. has, but it's also known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place." (Page 124.)


 * On January 5, 2000, Malaysian intelligence photographed September 11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar being escorted through Kuala Lumpur's airport by VIP facilitator Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi recommended to Malaysian Airlines by Baghdad's embassy there. The pair soon were photographed again at al Qaeda's three-day planning summit for the October 2000 U.S.S. Cole and 9/11 attacks. Three separate documents recently unearthed in Iraq identify an Ahmed Hikmat Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in Uday Hussein's elite Saddam Fedayeen. (Page 4)


 * Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani is the former Iraqi diplomat suspected of meeting September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta in Prague on April 8, 2001, and possibly June 2, 2000, the day before Atta flew from Prague to Newark, New Jersey. Top secret Pentagon records cite a Czech intelligence report that al Ani "ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." During the summer of 2000, $99,455 was wired from financial institutions in the United Arab Emirates to Atta's Sun Trust bank account in Florida.(Page 129.)


 * After evacuating an al Qaeda training camp he ran in Afghanistan as U.S. troops approached, Ansar al-Islam founder Abu Musab al Zarqawi eventually had his leg amputated and replaced with a prosthesis around late May 2002. He was treated in Baghdad's Olympic Hospital, an elite facility whose director was the late Uday Hussein, son of the deposed tyrant. Zarqawi is implicated in ongoing attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and is believed to have sawed off American businessman Nick Berg's head. (Page 167.)


 * U.S troops inspecting an al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Islam camp in Iraq discovered, Hayes reports, "several hundred passports belonging to suspected Ansar and al Qaeda fighters, dozens of them bearing visas issued by the Iraqi regime." A passport found on one dead terrorist listed his visit's purpose as "jihad." (Page 172.)


 * The following quotes are from the 9/11 Commission's Report:


 * 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.


 * In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.


 * Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.


 * 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. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.


 * Your very selective choice of quotes from the 9/11 Commission's Report is disingenuous and misleading. Perhaps you would like to rephrase the paragraph you deleted, rather than delete it out of ignorance.  --G3pro 31 July 2004

I don't think my choice of quotes is disingenuous or misleading. What you have quoted tells us this: The 9-11 commission found that there may have been overtures but that these overtures amounted to nothing. It is not surprising that al Qaeda had contact with Iraqis and Iraqi intelligence -- importantly, not with Saddam Hussein, as was alleged in the passage I removed -- but it would be surprising if there were any direct cooperation between them. All you have established is that there were contacts, which nobody denies. (In fact, one can find far greater evidence of such contact between al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, etc.; some of this is in the report too). Hell, there were al Qaeda contacts with the CIA!

I'm happy to have something in there about what the 911 Commission found, and I quoted what I removed above precisely so that it would not be "deleted out of ignorance." That's why I looked through the Commission Report again and quoted that too. But the statement as it is written is false and misleading. If you want to say Stephen Hayes believes in the al Qaeda-Saddam conspiracy, fine, but I don't think that's worthy of attention in this entry. If you want to say the 911 Commission said something, I think it should be more accurate than what is there. The report did not find a "long term relationship" between Saddam and al Qaeda; at best it found sporadic contacts that never came to fruition. And most of the stuff in Hayes' book has been explicitly refuted by US intelligence analysts as well as journalists. --csloat 01:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Grammar.
Please note that a nation, such as Turkey, is not to be refered to as "They". Although a nation does consist of people who could be referred to as "They", the nation itself is singular, because it is one nation. Misuse of pronouns is quite a common error, but it should be quite obvious as well.

NPOV disclaimer
Sarge Baldy added a NPOV disclaimer without comment. Is the neutrality still disputed? If so, what parts are in dispute? If none, we should remove the disclaimer. Quadell (talk) 16:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Since there don't seem to be any updates on this even after a week, I'll remove the dispute notice. -- Schnee 10:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article should more closely resemble standard military battle/war article rather than focusing on minutiae of political arguments.

Saddam and Hamas??
Aside from the contentious allegations of Iraq?s relationship with al Qaeda, the former regime is know to have had strong relationships with many other terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East including Hamas and Islamic Jihad.


 * Can anyone provide evidence to support this claim? I find this statement very hard to believe, as Hussein's regime and Hussein himself were secular; Hussein considered Islamic fundamentalists to be enemies, and vice versa. Revolver 09:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that you don't know that Saddam rewarded suicide bombers and their families with large cash sums (around $25,000 I think). Saddam has many more ties to terrorism than you give him credit for.  G3pro


 * Here are a few sources for the claim.


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm


 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-i.htm


 * To dismiss charges Hussein's regime supporting Islamic militants on the basis that he is/was a secularist overlooks the fact that Hussien was an opportunist, not an ideolouge. Alliances of convience happen all the time. TDC 14:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends how you interpret "strong relationships". Yes, there was connection and support between the regime and terrorist groups, (some more than others). I would say the way you put it is more accurate: "ties" or "alliances". A "strong relationship" to me implies something more, something like a shared goal or values. Replace the Baathist regime with the U.S., which was involved in supporting in many ways right-wing dictatorships in Central America in the 70s and 80s. We also openly supported Afghanistan against the Russians. Would you say the U.S. had a "strong relationship" with these dictators or with Afghanistan at the time? I wouldn't, even if I thought the support was justified. The U.S. has a strong relationship with the U.K., with liberal democracies of the West, etc., but had only "alliances of convience" as you put it, with Noriega or bin Laden. Revolver 10:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Somewhere between ties and alliances is where I would define "strong relationship". I also do not know where you are going with this. TDC 15:08, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's where I'm going: my point is that "strong relationship" may mean different things to different people, or leave differing impressions. I think it's better to talk in specifics. For example, I think it's better to say, "reimbursed families of suicide bombers" or "had known financial ties to " or "provided refuge for ". These are much more specific. And, BTW, they're much easier to provide evidence for, because they're specific. Let the reader infer what they will from this. Many people might read "strong relationship" and assume an ideological alliance, esp. if they're unfamiliar with the region. Similar statements about the U.S. and Noriega, e.g. could theoretically lead unfamiliar readers into thinking we were once ideological allies. In this case, ideological differences could be mentioned, emphasising the alliancies are primarily strategic. And of course, that some terrorist organisations have refused to deal with Saddam. None of this undercuts the point you're trying to make, it just makes it more clear and more specific. Revolver 19:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see. Well there is quite a bit of info to intorduce here and I do ont know the most efficient way to do that. Let me see what I can do. TDC


 * Though Saddam supported and gave money to Palestinian fighters, as far as I know he never gave money to Hamas or its followers. Graft 15:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

France and Iraq
TDC, this article you gave as a reference is crap. It's full of nonsense. For example, Roland 2 missiles made in the past few months by a French-German partnership? The Roland 2 was developed in the early 80s, and was obseleted by the Roland 3 developed in 1988. It went out of production in 1993. Totally impossible for it to have been recently manufactured. Find a better source that does some actual fact-checking, or else I'm striking that sentence. Graft 15:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

number of casualties
"157 KIA (approximation), 4,524 U.S. troops wounded in action [1]"

the site linked to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/ says 7,026 wounded in action and 1,154 killed (not necessarily in action). does this just need to be updated? - Omegatron 19:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   02:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

terrorist connections
someone just cut a lot of material on terrorist connections. while everyone but dick cheney now admits there was no operational al qaeda connection, i thought there were acknowledged connections with palestinian terrorists. shouldn't these be mentioned, as they were the technical basis for the terrorism allegations? or have they been discredited? Wolfman 02:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Iraq certainly did have connections with Palestinian terrorism, but had severed them by 2003 - except for Saddam Hussein's financial compensation to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The other stuff was all nonsense, and in fact very few people ever tried to claim that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11 - it wasn't really used as a pretext for the war.--XmarkX 10:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Saddam had connections with al Qaeda, e.g., the conconclusion of PIPA is "Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.” --Silverback 14:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * PIPA? Haha, sponsored by Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford & Co. A little conflict of interest don't you think. That a PIPA document mentions in passing that there is "some evidence" of, ohhhh, "contact", while presenting evidence that their respondents are very stupid really isn't an example of good evidence Silverback. Anything's worth throwing in the mix though ay? Something has gotta stick sooner or later!!! —Christiaan 15:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was fun to use them as a source given their liberal bias, although they downplay the extent of Iraqi support for al Qaeda and their non-peer reviewed "study" was poorly done. 8-)  --Silverback 15:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Liberal" bias, "conservative" bias. It's all the same Silverback. Some of us know it as "big business" bia. Christiaan 17:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to crash this party, but the PIPA report Silverback is referring to is called Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War. It's a 2003 poll of the US public's perceptions on matters pertaining to Iraq. I might be missing something here, but how does a result from a public poll tell us anything about the actual connections the Hussein regime had? confused=Plek 02:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't (it mentions "some evidence" in passing), that was the point I was making when I referred to their respondents. —Christiaan 09:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

control of oil as a reason for invasion
This is an important POV and deserves more than just a sentence. I know of any "evidence" that US invaded to control oil but this is expected as it would look bad for the party in power. With the big Iraq debt and the setting up of American oil companies in Iraq, the US will end controlling the oil. 209.197.154.26 22:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * there can be little doubt that control of oil was the reason for the invasion, but you don't need some corporate conspiracy theory. The object was to remove the control of oil from a man of Saddam's demonstrated character.  His resources were the threat, without them, Iraq would just be another Sudan.  al Qaeda is contesting Iraq much more than Afghanistan precisely because of the oil, although the closeness of easily perverted human resources in the neighboring countries and in the parentless, irredeemable faydeen also make it easier to cause trouble in Iraq.  Fortunately al Qaeda resources are being diverted against hardened US military targets instead of innocent US civilians.--Silverback 03:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me put my objection this way: Saddam Hussein's Iraq wanted to sell Iraqi oil. France wanted to lift the oil embargo so Iraq could sell oil. The U.S. wished to keep the embargos in place. How is this evidence of the U.S. coveting Iraqi oil? If the U.S. wanted access to Iraqi oil, all it had to do was agree to lift the embargo and Iraq would have sold all the oil it could pump. Yours is a kooky conspiracy theory that does not make sense. —208.54.14.17 22:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a straw man argument, and a careful one at that. It's not about "coveting" oil, it's about controlling as was correctly and initially commented on. It's not surprising that you took pains to avoid this word. —Christiaan 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * sorry, but you have to do better than that: give us your argument why "control" is such an important word whose use must not be avoided. I don't seek "control" of the oil in my gas tank, I seek to burn it, and I seek to pay as little as possible for it. Please explain why "control" is so important to people who expect to buy it and burn it, when the people who control it want and expect to sell it at market prices anyway? I think you are making an archaic "Opium Wars" argument, but I have no idea since you don't say. A much stronger argument is the superficial one that does not entail a conspiracy theory: Iraqi oil was going to be sold on the world market, and the U.S. did not want Saddam Hussein to control the resulting money. It's simple, it lets you hate the U.S. just as you do, but it does not require fussy wording. In any case, to be honest and NPOV, you need to include my objections while making your POV argument.


 * Most of the petrol coming out from Iraq goes to Europe, Russia and Japan, not really to the United States. If you sit on the tap, you can threaten to close it anytime you want -- say, for instance, if you get too much competition on some markets for your taste. Another thing is the control of the currency in which the petrol is traded -- Saddam Hussein seems to have wanted to trade in Euros, which would have short-cut the exchange of dollars.
 * That's not to say this is "the" reason for the invasion of Iraq, but there are undoubtly things to say about this, and it makes a better case than some other theories. Rama 19:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You did not explain why "depriving Saddam of the cash so he could build nuclear weapons" is not a good enough theory. Why can't you accept the simplest, and stated, reason? Why do you insist on a hidden reason? I will, however, explain why your arguments are not good enough. Euro v. dollar? This is a subtle economic argument that even the world's leading economists would simultaneously dispute and admit they don't know the answer to. But, "Iraq oil goes to Europe" indicates to me that you don't even understand rudimentary economics since facts like that just don't matter in a commodity market, so I'm not apt to nod along when you make subtle monetary points. (There is one world price for oil, then it is shipped the shortest distance to cut costs. Whenever that does not happen, as with Alaska oil, somebody is losing money, but world oil markets are not affected.) In any case, the Iraqi oil tap had been shut off for more than 10 years, so how can you claim that the threat of turning off Iraqi oil is soooooo dangerous, and you seem to imply, dangerous to Europe, the same Europe that did not want to invade?
 * So again, my two points are: I don't get your argument, it doesn't make sense. And at a minimum, to achieve NPOV, you should be rushing to at least include my criticisms.

Photograph of Bush and Blair at Camp David
Where can this go? Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 18:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How to incorporate Charles Duelfer's final report
Specifically, his report states the following
 * At the time of the invasion Iraq had no WMD's, and had no production since 1993.
 * According to interviews with Tariq Aziz and other Iraqi intelligence officials, French influence in the UN was bought with bribes via the UN's Oil for Food program. A memo to Hussein dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."
 * Russia and China were also lobbied via Oil for Food bribes and contracts to oppose the 2003 invasion.
 * Iraq had plans to restart all banned programs after the lifting of sanctions.
 * Iraq had also targeted a number of activists, journalists, and diplomats to aid in the removal of the Sanctions.
 * Hussein convinced his top military commanders that Iraq did indeed possess WMD's, in order to use this threat to keep Iraqi dissidents in check.

TDC 18:31, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's weird... I though that Duelfer was an expert in weapons... So how comes his report includes things about Iraq relations with France, Russia and China concerning International diplomacy and the Oil for Food program ? I would have expected it to be very technical about weapon systems but nothing else (in the style of Hans Blix). One of the ideas I would drop is to explain this very clearly, because I find it quite non-intuitive (and therefore others might also be surprised).
 * the other thing I would be very keep to see is a classement of these informations accprding to the extend of their speculative nature, and good references to the underlying hard facts (sorry if I sound a little bit paranoid there, but I still have trouble swallowin the way this "mobile chemical weapon production facilities" story was pressed on the UN, the world in general, and the US public in particular) Rama 19:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Although Duelfer is an expert in WMD's, several hundred people with various backgrounds contributed to the final report. The aim of the report, initialy was not only to find banned WMD's but also give a detailed account of Hussien's WMD program. The findings of a more speculative nature were gathered from interviews with regime officials as well as the many millions of documents captured after the invasion. You can read the entire report here . TDC 20:06, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * My apologies for my clumsy formulation. I meant to rise the question of the mandate of this investigation team under Duelfer's orders. I would not have though they were mandated to investigate things like these alleged contacts between France and Iraq concerning votes at the UN, which have quite a distant relationship to a weapon engineering program. SO if it indeed the case, it might be interesting to explain, or least mention, the exact mission of this team. Besides, if the interviews of these Iraqi officials are cited as references (Tarek Aziz, for instance), would it not be revelant, for concistancy and for ensuring we have good sources, to mention the reserves with which the US had treated previous declarations by these same officials ? Rama 22:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The alleged contracts were, according to the report, relevant to the investigation because they had to do with the sanctions. After reading the report (the summary actually, the actual report is several hundred pages long) Iraq had intended to reconstitute it weapons program as soon as it could do so. This planned reconstitution had more to do with Hussein?s fear of Iran and his personal belief that the chemical attacks again Iran during the Iran Iraq war were the biggest contributing factors in turning the tide in the war. The report states that is why Hussein led outside observers to believe that he did indeed still possess WMDs. He also led the top leaders his armed forces to think he still had them because he believed that they would overthrow him if they believed that they had to fight the coalition in March of 2003 without them. It also seems clear from the report that he thought the international pressure applied through his allies in the UN would prevent the invasion.


 * Fundamentally, the bribes were about lifting the sanctions, which would lead to a reconstituted WMD program (within months after the lifting of the sanctions), which would defend Iraq against Iran.


 * As to the exact mission of the ISG: find WMD's, if none are found explain why pre-war assessments were wrong. TDC 06:17, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this clarifies quite a lot of things to me. I think that including parts of this in the article would be nice. The bribe section still seems a little bit unclear to me, because on one hand we have quite "speculative" informations (the will of Saddam Hussein to restart his projects from scratch, so calculating right now to get the materials, so needing the sanctions to be lifted, so bribing France, Russia and China...), some thing, formulated like this, are unverifiable ("bribe", for instance, seems a very harsh formulation, France, Russia and China, along with lots of other countries, had supported the lifting of the sanctions (which some at the UN say were mostly a nuisance -- "Oil for food" was some way of bypassing these sanctions to re-create a normal, legitimate economy); these countries are all powerfull enough not to need assistance from Iraq in exchange of their support; accusations of personal corruption should be backed up with strong evidences and referances; and, by the nature of international relations and trade, it is not fair to qualify any deal as "bribery" -- else we're going to have people qualifying the implementation of US companies in Iraq of "looting"). Also, if these alleged plans have been told by people like Tareq Aziz, they are the very same people whose word was considered worthless when it was to be decided wether Iraq had weapons; are they now fully trusted ? If yes, why ? If not, what other proofs are presented ? As for the papers, here again, caution should apply... remember the contract about Iraq buying Uranium in Nigeria. And this all seems to dangerously mix the sanctions issues with the weaponry issue (it's probably my formulation which is clumsy, but we'll have to guard against mixing everything in the final article). Finally, these "bribery" things seem to suspectfully match highly speculative figures which had come up before the war at the most heated period of the discussions ; not that this could prevent them from being true, but again, backing them with hard and strong factual information and putting them into perspective seems very important to me to avoid any suspection of bias.
 * Sorry, I'm not sure I understood your last line...
 * Thanks again for the clarification Rama 07:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be sections comparing the invasion and the means by which it was fought to other wars
Based on my and Fpahl's discussions, I think there is a contribution to be made organizing the facts that would be used in a just war analysis.--Silverback 19:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As an example of an illegal and unjust war? Alberuni 11:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No as one of the most moral wars in US history, since conscription wasn't used and civilian infrastructure wasn't targeted (unlike Gulf War I and Kosovo), most of allies were fairly moral (unlike stalin), goals noble, etc. See the archive of my and Fpahl's discussion. --Silverback 15:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Silverback - I had to laugh as well when I read this. As for conscription, you just need to wait until after the elections for the draft to be reintroduced in the States. From what you write it's quite obvious that you think the Iraq war is over.... I'm afraid - it's just beginning. - pir 02:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Pir, if having to laugh is a source of information to you, you should retrain your intuition. It is a bias that distorts reality. Yes, it is meant to shock you that I claim to and believe I can defend the latest gulf war as more moral than most any in US history.  As to the draft, you may be right if Kerry wins.  He is a nationalist with the hubris to beleive he knows what is best for others.  Look at his "100 Day Plan to Change America", he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school.  He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service.  His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not ...".  The look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft.  Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968.  Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age.  While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area.  You have been duped by scare mongering.  I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him.  Bush is more predictible than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe for personal reasons.  Note that he chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty".  Now perhaps you think that is admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also.--Silverback 06:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha. You must be joking. Your American imperialist POV is not shared by most of the world. If war is ever justified, it justified only as a last resort and for self-defense against aggression or invasion. Iraq was not threatening the USA. The USA was not forced to attack Iraq in self-defense. Iraq was the victim of a concerted campaign of US lies and aggression. More than 12,000 civilians (so far) have been slaughtered by Americans using high tech weapons on civilian areas with callous and heinous disregard for human life. Many thousands more innocent Iraqi civilians have been maimed, injured, incarcerated, tortured and humiliated by American "liberation" forces. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq represents a blatant series of war crimes. That anyone could consider this sordid chapter in US history as a moral example of "just war" is a sad example of brainwash. Alberuni 15:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I see you didn't look at the archived discussion. You forget how many lives the sanctions were cost.  So the war is justified on a net-lives-saved basis also.  Why not protest the US "War on Drugs" instead, it is far more unjust.--Silverback 15:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The Iraq sanctions regime was imposed by the US, with a UN fig leaf, and enforced by siege conducted largely by the US military. The imposition of "No-Fly Zones" and continual bombardment of Iraq over the past 13 years were also acts of war conducted by the US against Iraq and those crimes were not even carried out with a UN fig leaf. To spuriously compare the human costs of US war crimes before the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq with the human costs of the war crimes committed by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in order to minimize the atrocities committed by the US represents a failure of logical reasoning. It's akin to a murderer claiming that breaking into the house of his victim is not as bad as murder so he shouldn't be charged with breaking and entering. Read the definition of Just war and think again about why the US invasion of Iraq does not qualify. Hint: "War can only be waged for a just cause, such as self-defense against an armed attack." Alberuni 20:43, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I already read just war theory and contributed to the page, and I disagree with it. It is a sad commentary that it is the best thing Christianity could come up with after 2000 years, Christain pacifism is far more inspiring.  I see no reason why the standards for taking innocent life in war, should be higher than in peacetime, when net lives saved is the standard.  Your limited standard for war leaves dictators in power.  The US had every bit as much right to rule Iraq as Saddam, which is of course, none.  The US just had more power and a world of good intentions, which is more than can be said for Saddam and the UN fig leafs he bribed. Perhaps we should compare the 2nd Gulf war with the 1st one, which slaughtered over 100 thousand innocent Iraqi conscripts in the bunkers.  That is what happens when the UN is considered to qualify as a legitimate authority under just war doctrine.  I think a comparison section, even applying just war theory, on the page would show this latest Gulf war in a remarkably good light, which is probably why it will be vehemently opposed.--Silverback 23:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion probably will be opposed because Wikipedia is not the place to promote your POV. Aside from that, the invasion of Iraq was an act of unprovoked military aggression, a war crime. You see it as a noble act of self-sacrifice by big-hearted, well-intentioned civilized Americans bringing freedom and democracy to a world you think you own. Most of the rest of the world sees the US invasion as a high-tech slaughter of thousands of civilians by arrogant, oil-hungry American imperialists. Neither POV has a place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia endeavors to present facts, not opinion. Alberuni 23:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Saddam's treatment of Iraqi's, harboring of terrorists, rewarding of the families of terrorist bombers, attempt to assassinate an ex-president, failure to comply with sanctions, and firing upon places implementing the no fly zone were "provocation" enough. The attempt to bring freedom to an Iraqi people that you think Saddam owned is noble.--Silverback 01:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Alberuni's point is valid, though. Judgements of right or wrong, moral or immoral, have no place in an encyclopedia seeking as factual a stance as possible.  It doesn't matter how skillfully you may be able to defend your opinion that this is a just war, it would still be your opinion, which has no place in the wiki.--Blackguard 04:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blackguard. This encyclopedia is no place for uncritical hagiography (nor for blanket condemnation). We should try to set out the facts. The US government has put out so much self-serving propaganda here that I think some of its supporters have begun to accept the nonsense as fact.

Is this the "main" article?
Is this the "main" article on the Iraq war? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 06:38, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * yep.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   13:08, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Report of the International Institute for Strategic Studies
I deleted the statement about this report, because the article pointed to did not support the statement that the Iraq war increased the risk of terrorism. It stated that it had helped recruitment and increased motivation, but also stated that al Qaeda had to learn to get by on less money. Even though the article called the 1000 foreign fighters a "minute fraction of its potential strength", it should be noted that the study put the potential strength worldwide at 18,000, so this minute fraction is over 5.5% In order to actually increase the risk of terrorism, at least of the kind cared about in the United States and Europe, it is not enough to consider the quantity of the terrorists, but also the quality and the article does not discuss that. Absent such evidence, there is no reason to conclude these new terrorists, probably produced in wahabi run madrosses are comparable to the sophisticated, multi-lingual, US or European educated cadre that planned the 9/11 attack. No specific skills other than bomb making, frugality and use of the hawala system were mentioned.--Silverback 08:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. The Guardian article is entitled "Thinktank: invasion aided al-Qaida". The report itself says, in part, "Overall, the risk of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003". (source) That's pretty unambiguous. A look in Google News shows many news outlets that have similar headlines to the Guardian's. ("Westerners at greater risk after Iraq war, says UK think tank", "Westerners at greater risk after Iraq war: report", "Report: Iraq war increases terrorism risk", etc.)


 * I also think some of your statements above are misleading. The Guardian article doesn't say that al-Qaida "had to learn to get by on less money", but that they now need less money to carry out terrorist activities. That's very different. Also, your 5.5% figure is way off. The article says "up to 1000 foreign jihaddists" infiltrated Iraq, and that al-Qaida "has more than 18,000 potential terrorists." 5.5% is would only be correct if all foriegn fighters in Iraq are al-Qaida members (they're not) and if all al-Qaida members were potential terrorists (they're not), and if the 1000 maximum and the 18,000 minimum were both exactly right. So how many al-Qaida members are fighting in Iraq? A minute fraction, as the article says.


 * Because of all this, I'm going to put the statement back in the article.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * This think tank is so biased that if it could have said the invasion increased the risk of terrorism, it would have. Instead I have qualified the statement, as against westerners and assets in arab countries.  You appear to be being fooled by this groups spin, they did NOT say that al Qaida now had MORE money but could get by on less.  As they stated it, the statement is meaningless, other than the information that al Qaida now had less money.  What do you expect al Qaida would look like with less money, if the COULDN'T get along with less?  Would you expect them to file for bankruptcy or something?.--Silverback


 * Do you even know who the IISS is?? It is a very conservative think tank.  Any bias they have is far likelier to get them to lean in the other direction, and claim that the Iraq war helped the fight against terrorism.  --csloat 11:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No I am not familiar with it. So I went by the supplied link, it that article did not support the original wording, but this latest wording is acceptable.  If you look at the quotes in the article, with words like miniscule, it did not seem unbiased. BTW, I have since looked that their web site, and found this quote in their newsletter, "As with last year’s launch, many journalists seized on – and some misconstrued or exaggerated – the IISS’ assessment that al-Qaeda was gaining strength."--Silverback 12:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lancet Study of Iraqi excess deaths from 2003 invasion
Silverback removed this:


 * A more recent study published in The Lancet gave an estimate of 100,000 deaths in eighteen months based on a survey of 990 households; the mortality rate in the sample in the Falluja area, where the US forces had conducted repeated aerial bombardment in a built up area, was very high, and this sample was discarded in constructing the estimate.

Reason given: ''See discussion of lancet study in talk current events. There was no methodoly for distinguishing bombardment from air defense from motar damage.''

I accept that the study's methodology should be subject to criticism (this is how science works), however it's the best we've got to date and it should be taken at least as seriously as any other estimate currently listed--not just ignored. I propose restoring the text and adding a statement of the following form.


 * Although this is the first attempt to produce a scientific estimate of excess deaths caused by the Iraq Invasion, the methodology and conclusions of this study are subject to ongoing critique.

--Minority Report 18:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The study is already referenced on the page, you were merely adding it again in a different section, with less specific links to the study itself (you only linked to the lancet home page), apparently with the intent of supplementing a 100,000 death estimate with a criticism of the methodology (the excluding of Falluja) that would make that estimate higher. While it is admirable that  research was attempted in such dangerous conditions, the results are not encouraging, with a 95% confidence range of 8000 to 194,000 based on random sampling assumptions alone, without even taking into account the possible sources of error in the data and mothodology.  You attempted to bring in the aerial bombardment issue which was also among the conclusions of the study.  Note that the study had no methodology to base that conclusion upon, since it is based on the recall of civilians, when even people more experianced people would have difficulty investigating whether "bomb damage" was due to the aerial attack, falling air defense munitions or errant motar attacks.  Despite considerable flaws, the Lancet chose to publish this paper, apparently with influencing the US election instead of research in mind.--Silverback 19:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand that you don't like the Lancet study. Certainly the study is not perfect. A more accurate count could have been done by U.S. forces in the region, but they stubbornly refuse to give any estimate of civilian casualties. ("We don't do bodycounts" is the infamous quote.) So the Lancet study gives the best, most accurate estimate that we have available. The Lancet study is "referenced" already on the page, in a footnote, but it is not mentioned in the article text. It should be. It's certainly noteworthy, whether you like its conclusions or not.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   19:45, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, there is no dispute that massive aerial bombardment has taken place. Your criticism that the study provides no "methodology" for distinguishing aerial bombardment from mortar fire seems to be an attempt to cast doubt on the fact that aerial bombardment is a significant cause of death. And whilst it is true that mortar shells can be mistaken for rockets, use of mortars seems unlikely in the context of an ongoing aerial bombardment. What would the mortar emplacement fire at? A jet plane?


 * Motars might fire at marine enplacements and miss quite wildly, especially since it is safer for attackers to stand off at the limits of their accuracy and their training and equipment are not up professional standards. Recall how ineffective Iraqi air defenses were during the conflict, yet still they sent up explosive munitions that had to come down, many munitions that landed in civilian areas far away from any military targets could be mistaken by the civilians for US attacks, especially when Saddam regime propoganda refused to accept blame for immorally firing inaccurate and ineffective munitions (an unjust means).   Even when an attack or explosion was due to US munitions, it is probably unlikely that any civilians near the explosion saw the planes, since they can standoff many miles and even over the horizon, so they would get accustomed to attributing attacks to planes without any evidence to support it. --Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You refer to "a 95% confidence range of 8000 to 194,000". This is rather better than anything else we have. Iraq Body Count is based on press reports and cannot pretend to account for unreported deaths. The Project on Defense Alternatives is also limited in its data sources, taking data from journalistic compilaitons from hospital and morgue visits, and the reports of military commanders. Only the Lancet study attempts to interview a representative sample of Iraqi households, and a respectably large one at that, to find the familial mortality rates and causes.


 * The 95% confidence interval is the statistical evidence for how "respectably large" the "representative sample" was and such poor statistical strength does not justify the risks to the interviewers even before the methodological errors are taken into account.--Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You say "you attempted to bring in the aerial bombardment issue." But clearly we cannot discuss civilian casualties in the context of a war fought with a large aerial component, without discussing aerial bombardment. And I only brought up aerial bombardment to explain the much higher mortality rate in the sample around Falluja. I do so because Falluja has been bombed very heavily and is the most likely cause of death in this outlier.
 * Air "defenses", errant motars, etc. are just as likely to be the cause.--Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And the paragraph in question is about civilian casualties. Two estimates are given, and their flaws are well known. Please explain why you think this section is best without listing a third estimate, whose flaws you rightly list. I have no objection to adding words to the effect that "some have criticised not only the methodology and conclusion, but also the timing of this publication as an apparent attempt to influence the results of the US Presidential Election."


 * This qualification would make it much more acceptable, but I still don't see the point in bringing up the Falluja sample which was specifically rejected by even the authors of the study (perhaps under pressure of peer review). It might be appropriate to bring it up in a fully discussion of the study, but to mention it in this context and not other problems with the study, seems POV.--Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The question, as far as I'm concerned, is not whether the article gives much weight to Lancet study in a paragraph on mortality. It's whether that study is mentioned at all alongside the other estimates. I think that if they are mentioned, then it should be too. --Minority Report 20:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The article is mentioned in the table below, along with the confidence interval, I'm not sure I see the point in mentioning it again, but properly qualified it could be acceptable.--Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * errant motars, etc. are just as likely to be the cause.

You have not supported this claim, merely asserted it. Whether or not the Iraqi civilians can see the planes is immaterial; the planes are bombing and heavily so. To try to write this off as careless use of mortars isn't really defensible. Nevetherless it does not justify your excision of the reference--you could have added your observation.


 * The article is mentioned in the table below,

And it should also be mentioned alongside the other estimates. I don't understand why you want this particular estimate to be omitted from a paragraph that includes the other two--do you not see that this incorrectly summarises the state of research?

--Minority Report 21:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although we clearly won't all agree about the report itself, I think we can come to an agreement on how to mention the report in the article. I'll attempt to insert the information in a NPOV and mutually-acceptable way. – Quadell (talk) (help)  21:36, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to the Falluja sample is at best superfluous. --Minority Report 21:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * errant motars, etc. are just as likely to be the cause.

Here's something to think about: the average mortar shell wont have more than a few kg of explosives, and an AA missile will probably top out at about 50-60 kg. Compare this against the 450 kg of HE carried by a JDAM and several other free-fall (ie, less accurate) bombs dropped by US bombers. While HE bombs are usually fuzed for impact detonation, AA missile fuzes are designed to trigger on proximity to an aircraft. They are not likely to explode on impact with the ground.


 * unsigned one, If you read the study, you will see that bombs are only mentioned in the conclusion, there is no evidence in the study that they even gathered information on it, although undoubtedly people would have mentioned what they thought. It was very strange to see something mentioned in the conclusion that wasn't studied.  That said, in my statement, I did not particularly have AA missles in mind as difficult for civilians to distinguish from RPGs or motars.  I had the antiaircraft shells in mind, that are similar to tank rounds and must come back to ground.--Silverback 08:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Story about BBC directive. Source?
I'm moving this out until we can establish its veracity. A brief Google search didn't give me much reason to believe it.


 * Last December, after Saddam Hussein's capture, the BBC issued a directive to all of its journalists that Saddam Hussein no longer be referred to as the "former Dictator" and be referred to as the "deposed former president" in all news stories. The BBC's reasoning for this was because Hussein had been elected with over 99% of the votes, it would not be accurate to refer to him as a dictator, since according to the BBC, he was the elected president of Iraq.

On the other hand, it's easy enough to find counter-examples:

"He said the capture of the Iraqi dictator was an important day for the country - as the figurehead of oppression had been removed." -BBC News, December 15, 2003.

"The London based organisation Indict, which has gathered evidence against Saddam Hussein and his associates, has published one eyewitness account of the dictator's personal behaviour." -BBC News, December 16, 2003.

"And unlike Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden does not have to answer for years in power. The latter was a deposed dictator with many enemies." -BBC News, December 17, 2003.

"Mufid Madisaleh says the capture of the former dictator brings hope" -BBC News, December 18, 2003.

"The end of freedom for the Iraqi dictator could not have been more ignominious." -BBC News, December 26, 2003.

Opposition regardless of the merits?
In a recent edit by User:Silverback summarized as "the intellectual dishonesty [sic] of the UN extends far beyond oil for food, it is definitely more a political than a deliberative body" this sentence in section 4.2 Legality of the invasion:


 * "In the countries whose governments supported the invasion, governements and media have called the good faith of the Council into question on this matter, on the grounds of the issues raised by the corruption of the Oil for Food program."

has been changed to:


 * "In the countries whose governments supported the invasion, governements 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 a resentment of the dominance of the USA that led to opposition irregardless of the merits." [emphasis added]

My question is: is that a neutral point of view to so strongly state in the encyclopedic article that the opposition to the invasion was meritless, even notwithstanding the outrageous comment about "the intellectual dishonesty of the UN" in the summary clearly showing a very strong bias? I am asking this question not only because that seems factually incorrect, I am mostly asking about the loaded pejorative style.

Well, I claim no responsability for the part you mention, but I think there are arguments in favour of the sentence, provided it is featured in such a way which makes it clear that it presents one side of the question. The "Oil for Food" question in arguably an important component of the popular understanding of the matter in the US.

I would more frankly worried if the informations were vastly more favourable to the invasion, or if the information was mixed in a series of contradictory arguments contradicting each others (like it is a little bit in the part about Kofi Annan. I would be in favour of removing the end of this paragraph from "However, non have..."). Rama 12:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You are correct that it is presenting one side of the question. It should come as no surprise, since there is broad support within the USA for the war, that public opinion here assumes that the USA was correct and justified on the merits and therefore the UN must have been corrupt and have ulterior motives.  It is more informative for readers to see that both sides can articulate and defend a view that they were right in their actions.  If the coalition nations don't believe that the UN security council opposition was intellectual dishonest, the likely alternative would be to see the opposition as stupid.  The coalition nations do not believe they were doing something wrong, so when their positions are presented it should in terms that show they thought they were right.  Merely mentioning the corruption of the Oil for food program, does not capture the sense of betrayal, backstabbing and dishonesty felt by those who thought the war was necessary.--Silverback 13:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, don't you feel that this perticular example of a view is rather extreme ? feelings of "betrayal, backstabbing and dishonesty", as you mention, are usually traits of people who are unsure of their own position. More nuanced positions, like explaining the opposition by a slowness of action, binding by local popular opinions or bad information, for instance, might improve the presentation of the side favorable to the war (I believe that people like Colin Powell or Condolezza Rice are likely to develop such points). As it is, I tend to feel that the article would present the supporters of the war as very simplistic people, which all were not . Rama 15:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Silverback, you say:
 * "there is broad support within the USA for the war, that public opinion here assumes that the USA was correct and justified on the merits and therefore the UN must have been corrupt and have ulterior motives. "


 * I'm sure that you're right in characterizing US majority public opinion in this way. However, the US and one or two other countries are really out on a limb in claiming that the war was justified in international law.  Resolution 1441 had resulted in the setting up of a process of inspections.  The inspectors were asking for "months, not years" to complete their task, and the USA was in a minority within the Security Council in wishing to deny the inspectors the time they requested.  Chirac, much-demonized in the USA, plainly said that the inspectors must come back and say either "we're happy to announce that verified disarmament is being achieved", or "we're sorry, we cannot achieve disarmament."  Then the Security Council should decide whether to go to war.  This is in the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory.  Most other members of the Security Council agreed with that line--hardly surprising as it's the basis of international law.


 * The US public can be as sure as they like about rightness of their cause, but in such circumstances it is pointless to discuss at length their sense of betrayal, which is clearly stems from their ignorance of international law. I appreciate that you're trying to articulate a feeling, but it's really not one worthy of discussion because it is not logically defensible. It flies in the fce of the known facts. --Minority Report 15:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The US public is no more sure about their rightness than the leftest elitism of Europe and the American left. You are wrong about the inspectors asking for months not years, you are neglecting the context of a dozen years of Saddam's non-compliance and the inspectors being thrown out in 1998 which many in the US thought also justified enforcement (see PNAC).  The inspectors were only allowed back in, in response to a USA troop build-up and the inspectors interim report showed that Saddam was still not forthcoming and was trying to delay and frustrate the inspectors.  Chirac was demonized for even trying the inspectors again after the years of non-compliance.  He was part of the reason the UN had lost credibility.  That said, the real blame belongs to Saddam, Chirac was just an enabler.  Iraq could have been peaceful and prosperous years earlier, if Saddam had been willing to step aside, and give up his sovereign right to oppress, corrupt and obfuscate (which evidently the UN respects).  With the UN it clear that a "few more months", was more likely a prelude to another "few more months", based on past performance and a loss of credibility.  Unfortunately, law is implemented by humans, and when they are corrupt, one is only delaying the inevitable, by giving it undue respect.  The US made the mistake of forming an "international consensus" in the first gulf war, that murdered over 100 thousand innocent Iraqi conscripts, but left a dictator in power that we had to fight again.  Europe should have learned the leasons of appeasement long ago.--Silverback 20:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "leftest elitism...appeasement " Could we have a little less of the extreme rightwing party line here?  Your claim that I am "wrong about the inspectors asking for months not years" is bizarre.  That is precisely what Hans Blix asked for in his speech.  Please, a little less rhetoric, a little more factual discussion. And if you're going to claim that someone is wrong, please do try to provide evidence to support the claim.  --Minority Report 01:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As bizzarre as it may seem, Saddam's lack of cooperation and intimidation and attacks on anyone who cooperated, gave the distinct impression here in the US, that the next few months were not likely to be anymore productive than the last few and that more time would be requested ad infinitum. During his captivity Saddam revealed that he wanted neighboring countries to believe he still had weapons of mass destruction, to explain his lack of cooperation.  Several of his scientists have revealed that the intent was to restart the programs once the sanctions were removed. So even if the inspectors had discovered that his obfuscation was a ruse, in the grand scheme of things, it was better to take advantage of the troop deployments that had already taken place, rather than to have to go through the whole process again later.--Silverback 02:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Silverback, the PNAC is most definitely not a NPOV, seeing as the list of founders includes almost all the current Bush Administration, the President himself excepted. I think that citing it as a source when describing US popular opinion is inaccurate.  Furthermore, seeing as that body advocated invasion of Iraq as far back as it's formation in 1997 in order to lobby Clinton's Administration, including it in the discourse automatically undermines any of your own assertions, re: rationale for the invasion, by implying that ANY rationale is merely a justification for an event planned a half decade before the Bush Administration even came to power.--Blackguard 02:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Blackgard, the PNAC view was broadly popular in the US, in the immediate aftermath of the first gulf war at least a significant minority in the US thought the job was incomplete, that leaving Saddam in power was immoral, and the US would just have to fight him again. Some have looked at the PNAC publications and the high positions the members of the think tank were given within the administration as indications that war with Iraq was inevitable even if 9/11 had not occurred.  The war clearly was not inevitible, yes,  Bush's appointments indicate he was not going to let Saddam continue to defy the no fly zone and fail to comply with sanctions, however, the war could easily have been avoided if Saddam had changed his behavior.  Those who maintain that war was inevitable, must also be making conclusions about Saddam's character and his likelyhood of reform.  I agree, but then I was suprised that Kadafi changed.  You fail to present your reasoning, how are my assertions undermined?--Silverback 09:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you took the PNAC view, where Iraq is the staging point for a larger campaign against all the problem nations the US faces and culminates with 'broad spectrum global dominance' of the US over all other nations, including US allies, you are worlds away from a simple moral justification for taking out Saddam. Does the US public know the extent of their plans?  No.  Virtually all US citizens would be hard pressed to name the group, find their web site or quote some of their policy stances, so linking the PNAC with a sizeable minority opinion simply based on both groups wanting Saddam out is disengenious.  A claim could be made that the 'reason' the Bush Administration invaded Iraq was to further the PNACs stated goals for global spectrum dominance, but that the 'excuses' were Saddam's beligerence, WMDs and supposed ties to Al Quaida.  Citing the PNAC in your post invited people to learn more about their policies, which can only weaken the validity of the excuses, because at the site they find the reason explicitly stated.  The point is moot, though, and was an aside from me to you - the PNAC is stil not a NPOV, seeing as they support one side of the argument.  As such, my recommendation would be to exclude any value statements they may have to make on the issue.--Blackguard 18:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that so many people say that the US attacked Iraq against UN because Iraq failed to comply with UN sanctions (just like Israel, nota bene, only to a much lesser extend). Actually, every supposed reason of this invasion would be almost funny if we weren't talking about a war. Failing to comply with UN sanctions--what about Israel? Weapons of mass destruction--what about China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, et al.? Removing an evil dictator--again what about China, North Korea, et al.? -- Meanwhile, no weapons of mass destruction were found (surprising only to those who said "UN inspectors didn't find anything, therefore Saddam must have hidden it"), the supposed links to Al-Qaeda have already been disproved countless times, the evil dicatator has already been removed irregardless of the merits, and yet the Iraqis keep dying and those who are alive are hardly "free"... What I find the most depressing is the fact that people still keep making up excuses. Personally I blame the cognitive dissonance resulting from the "we are good, they are evil" bifurcation fallacy, but understanding the underlying mechanism doesn't make it any less depressing. 83.31.25.90 21:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Popular view
This looks a little odd.


 * Although Iraq was known to have pursued an active nuclear weapons development program previously, as well tried to procure materials and equipment for their manufacture, these weapons and material have yet to be discovered. This casts doubt on some of the accusations against Iraq, despite previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons, and that Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production. However, some believe that the weapons were moved into Syria and Lebanon.

Firstly it is my impression that the only nuclear weapon development program "previously" pursued was some time ago--before 1991.

Secondly, the situation has gone beyond "doubt on the accusations". They've been discounted by every person and agency that has been given the task of looking for those weapons. The most that can be said, according to the US's own inspectors, appears to be that Saddam Hussein, like nearly every head of state in the world, had the intent to obtain weapons of mass destruction.--Minority Report 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Really now, "nearly every head of state"'?--Silverback 02:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you question this; I almost omitted the word "nearly". New countries join the nuclear club regularly, some in violation of the Non-proliferation treaty to which they are signatories.  All major victor nations of the Second World War obtained nuclear weapons inside the decade, and most have hydrogen bombs.  Yes, I think we can state that it's the intent of nearly every head of state to obtain nuclear weapons. --Minority Report 03:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Really, which european union countries besides those that already have them (France and Britain) do you think are seeking nuclear weapons or even would bother with them if offered them on a platter? Which countries in north or south america?  There might be Islamic countries with a militant bent that would like to have them, but most third world countries can barely keep their social fabric together and can't afford to even think about nukes.  The only democracies that might be tempted are those that are threatened by existing nukes, such as S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc.--Silverback 09:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What nonsense. Britain, France and the USA obtained nuclear weapons when they were democracies.  And as you admit yourself, democracies may have good reason to obtain nuclear weapons.  India is the most recent pertinent example.  Israel also, though it has never been threatened by existing nuclear weapons, obtained them and even spread them to the odious apartheid RSA.  You're living in cloud cuckoo land matey.

Thirdly, the claim that there were "previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons" seems a little far-fetched. Has a UN agency ever claimed that it was likely that Iraq had usable nuclear weapon technology?

Fourthly, on the claim: "Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production"

This was not the case in March, 2003--at least according to El Baradei.

Finally, some people may think that Iraq shipped the WMDs out to Syria and whatnot, but it might be nice if we could muster some evidence for this opinion. I mean, some people think there are little green men from Mars, but their opinion amounts to doodly squat without some justification. --Minority Report 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That line serves to illustrate the possibilities. Absense of proof is not the same as proof of absense.  Given that the total access of an occupying force can't provide much reassurance that some of the chemical and biological weapons don't remain, a few months of inspections wouldn't make much difference. --Silverback 02:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You can't prove a negative. I've changed the line "However, some believe that the weapons were moved into Syria and Lebanon." to read "Some believe, based on the circumstances, that the weapons were originally present in Iraq but were moved into a sympathetic country (or countries). However, there is no hard evidence supporting this theory." --Ben 19:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Your wording is acceptable, thanx. Yes, the inspectors would never have been able to prove a negative, but Saddam could have opened up "his" weapons programs and country in such a way that credibility and trust could be engendered.--Silverback 01:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the present wording. Although I have reservations about giving credence to what I consider to be crackpot theories, I think the reader can make that evaluation --Minority Report 03:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now I'm not looking for a debate on the politics; I don't expect to agree with all opinions expressed in an encyclopedia entry, but we're supposed to be adopting a neutral point of view here, not peddling somebody's party line. I do think it would be nice if we could be sure that the truth of the statements of fact can be established and are an accurate and full account of the known facts. --Minority Report 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you talk about Powell intervention at the UN ? He was stating that he has evidence about WMD in Iraq, and all the document he showed were proven falsified. This is a major issue in the cause of the war, and shows how USA lied to the U.N.


 * There is something about this in The UN Security Council and the Iraq war. It is true that some info is not very evident in this article, notably the rationals which led to the war. I had seen an article about it in the past, but couldn't find it... comments anyone ? Rama 16:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Senate Committee on Intelligence Report
I think this article should include information from and reference to the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, part 1 of 2, which was released July 9, 2004. One of the main conclusions of that report is:


 * "Most of the major key judgements in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularily in the analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

I think it is just as important to include this report as it is Duefler's report. --Ben 18:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This was also one of the conclusions of the Butler Report on British use of intelligence prior to the Iraq War, 2003. --Minority Report 03:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Second study
Silverback asked "where is the second independent study?", and reverted the text from saying "Two independent studies" to mentioning only the Lancet study. The second study is a John Hopkins University study. It's linked to from right next to where you reverted:. I'm going to change the text back to refer to the other study as well.

If wish you would ask any questions you have here, and wait for an answer, before reverting. It's rude. – Quadell (talk) (help)  03:31, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have been reverting while you were writing the above, or at least before my watchlist was updated. However, you have made an inadvertent mistake, the two studies are one and the same.  The John Hopkins study is the one published in The Lancet.--Silverback 07:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Um. . . oops. I was misinformed. Sorry.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   13:45, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of chart
Silverback, why are you removing the entire chart? You said you thought it was POV; please explain. It doesn't seem POV to me to say that the commander of the coalition forces was Tommy Franks, or that Iraq had 300,000 soldiers. If there are parts you find POV, let's discuss them here. But don't just unilaterally delete an entire chart without an explanation. – Quadell (talk) (help)  03:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * The titles don't make sense. "Opposing parties", "Invaders", "Defenders", for casualties among the "Defenders", the Lancet estimate of civilian casualties is used. Why not have the "Opposing parties", be "Liberators" vs. "Oppressors", and the Iraqi army other than the republic guard, for the most part did not fight, why are they listed on either side?  Where would the Kurds and Shiites go, however they feel about the occupation, they were not supporters of Saddam.  I just don't see the chart as useful or reparable, nearly every entry would have to change, what is the value of it?--Silverback 03:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I see your point Silverback, but "Invader" and "Defender" are a lot less value laden than "Liberators" vs. "Oppressors", seeing that not everone regards the coalition forces as liberators and the point is generally up for discussion in the public at large. I agree that the Kurd Militia should be listed with coalition forces seeing as they were a large part of the action in the north, but as far as I know, there were no Shi'a forces dedicated to the conflict, but I can definitely be corrected.  I don't see the problems you have with the chart being insurmountable, so what do you say to placing the chart back and working on some mutually agreeable solutions, i.e. removing the Lancet study or clearly defining it as civilian in nature?--Blackguard 20:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We should be able to work out something. I only proposed Liberators and Oppressors, as an example of how POV the existing titles might seem to others.  I don't see why casualties are needed in this chart however.  It duplicates the chart below and duplicates the effort required to keep them consistent.  Since civilian casualties will have an admixture of irregular fighter casualties among them, it will be difficult to come up with an equivilent figure to the coalition casualties.  For the most part the civilian casualties, as presumably innocent third parties, should not be in either category.  Anyone who restores the chart, should have an idea that they implement at the same time that is an attempt to make it less POV.  I can see the motivation and usefulness of having something succinct like a chart at the top of a longer article like this.  Perhaps this chart is overloaded, why not move the casualty chart up there also, instead of overloading this two column chart?--Silverback 23:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Suggestion One: "Coalition Forces" vs. "Iraqi Forces".  More or less neutral and the list will show the few coalition members with actual troops on the ground, so there would be no need to further clarify with a title like 'US-led Forces'.  If we were ambitious, this could become the Order of Battle requested above in the talk.  Suggestion Two: captions of a sort on the entries, so that you can indicate which forces barely participated, where we have made estimates of numbers for irregular troops, etc.  Suggestion Three:  Keep troop casualties on the chart where they are relevant.  Suggestion Four: Small chart nearby (underneath?) so that it is linked visually, citing the population of Iraq (perhaps broken down by ethnicity) and the estimated civilian casualties to date, but with a disclaimer on the accuracy of the data.  I would suggest 'estimate based on best possible data available as of x date' and include all the referenced estimates (Iraqi Body Count, Lancet, etc.)  With the disclaimer, we shouldn't have to go into detail on how each estimate is flawed specifically.  Just seeing the wide range of numbers will be enough to show how inaccurate civilian body counts can be.  Comments?--Blackguard 08:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Check my suggestion on the disclaimer. I re-read the one already there and consider its wording acceptable.  I still think two charts are necessary (military and civilian) but that they should be kept together in the same section.  Including the troop numbers in the chart would allow a re-write on the section about the "Coalition of the Willing" to be more concise.--Blackguard 09:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think a disclaimer is even necessary, disclosures of the sources are the disclaimer in a sense. The 100,000 estimate is so outrageous that I oppose its use without the confidence range, but I think you were intending that anyway.  If the chart is to include the occupation as well as the initial invasion, then I don't think the "Iraqi Forces" label captures the significant foreign component of the insurgency, and the participation of the provisional Iraqi government forces as part of the coalition.  Frankly, I am concerned that the situation is too complex to do justice to capsulize in a table, although success in such an accomplishment would be an admirable contribution to the page.--Silverback 11:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we need to stick to a date, though, seeing as casualties are still coming, even if we omit the disclaimer. The disclaimer was an olive branch seeing as you have issues with including the Lancet study and I personally don't like assuming that people are intelligent enough to understand confidence intervals, myself.  I see your point about how Iraqi forces are now part of the coalition, in a way, and can cause problems.  How about a separate Order of Battle chart prior to the invasion listing forces and then a comprehensive chart on casualties with two entries for the Iraqi military, during and after the actual invasion?  I don't think it would be THAT hard to do.--Blackguard 16:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How about Bush's Cessation of Hostilities date splitting the casualty chart into two charts, pre and post? Pre would have the Iraqi miliary in the con position, post would have them in the pro position.--Blackguard 17:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a format that could accomodate any objections. It also sounds like it'll take some work, but you appear to have a vision, best wishes.  On the lancet study, I ordinarily don't think statistical details like the confidence interval add much, but in this case, it is so wide that even the naive will percieve that the 100,000 is not a statistically strong number.  If the Lancet had published it, despite its weakness, out of respect for the dangerous work the researchers had done, I could understand it, but to also rush it out in advance of the election diminished the journal.--Silverback 17:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You call confidence interval a detail ?? Rama 17:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Chill, dude. Just because it's a detail doesn't mean it's unimportant. We all think the CI should be included. Think lovely thoughts.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   18:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
I added this page to because right away in the first few paragraphs the article seems to draw a connection between Iraq, September 11th, Saddam, and bin Ladin. It should be made very clear that no such connection exists or existed.


 * I've reviewed the first few paragraphs, there is not even a mention of 9/11 or bin Laden, this must be anonymous vandalism, there is a connection between Saddam and Iraq, but that is not POV.--Silverback 01:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You right-wingers, always trying to allege links between Iraq and Saddam when none have been proven to exist. ;)    – Quadell (talk) (help)   02:08, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanx, sometimes we even get agreement on that one. 8-)>  --Silverback 03:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Major NPOV problems upheld only because Rama has more time than anybody else. First off, articles should inherently not have "absence" statements. Whether the invasion had UN approval or not is a debatable point. Inherently, one doesn't put debatable points in articles. Moreover, stating something didn't have something can be done for any and all war/battle pages even if absence is acknowledged. For example, World War I did not have UN Security Council approval=that is, technically, a true statement. Should statement be included? Next: Article should inherently be about the invasion, including military and political details as necessary, but not a point by point debate of every argument against the war. Put all the political debate on a separate page, and retain article as standard military battle article. Rama your work elsewhere seems pretty professional. Try to acknowledge your own strong anti-war bias.-Naif 13:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UN Sanctions Usefulness
I largely rewrote the last paragragh in "Weapons of Mass Destruction", replacing:


 * However, the facts also remain that the sanctions could not be kept in place indefinitely, and that Saddam's ongoing efforts to sway certain UN Security Council members with oil bribes were almost certain to, in the absence of American intervention, result in the dropping of the sanctions by 2006.

because it a) does not mention the humanitarian crisis that prompted fresh approaches to the sanctions, b) projects a date for the raising of the sanctions, which can only be conjecture (as would the reasoning for them being raised) and c) implies that US intervention was the only solution to prevent the raising of the sanctions, even though other alternatives like directed sanctions had been tabled by other parties. As it sat, this passage implied that the US was the only ethical actor in a corrupted system, which isn't particularly a NPOV.  I also added links showing international discussion of the sanctions and showing evidence of the Oil for Food bribery.  Suggestions are welcome.--Blackguard 10:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

casualty charts on both pages look good
I think you found the right balance [Quadell]. Footnotes do the trick on the small chart, and on the other page, having the qualifications in the chart itself, because footnotes would be too far away. --thanx, --Silverback 23:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

April 15
I notice that the summary box gives the end of the invasion as April 15, 2003. Why is this date used and not, say, President Bush's May 1st announcement? --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 17:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TDC's edit 06:17, 17 Dec 2004
I looked at this edit, which is described thus: "(Causes of the Invasion - removed POV irrelevant material)"

The removed sections are as follows: 1. Removal of section describing the context of Kay's explanations of the pre-war US perceptions in the media.


 * either Iraq did or did not have WMD programs, the Kay report and the Duelfer report both conclude that Iraq did have WMD development programs, but was not producing WMD's. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

2. Removal of section describing Kay's political donations, which clearly provides context for his current stance.


 * Kay's personal and private activities and political leanings belongs in the David Kay article, not this one, it is a not too subtle insertion of POV and is designed to question Kay's objectivity. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

3. Removal of mention of Rumsfeld's meeting with, and praise of, Saddam Hussein as Reagan's special envoy.


 * Once again, Rumsfeld's meeting with Hussein is not relevant, or that is to say it is of no more relevance than Hugo Chavez's or Jacques Chirac's meeting with Hussein and the position they took on the war. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

These omissions are factual in nature and not obviously counter to NPOV. Accordingly I am reverting this edit for now, pending discussion of its rationale. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response.

On point 1, the removed text states: "when it actually had minimal to no programs concerning mass destruction." That is, is it not, an accurate description of the findings on the state of affairs in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion.

On point 2, I think you must have misread the section in question. Kay's position is contrary to that of the administration. His prominent support for the administration disposes of the suspicion that he could simply be axe-grinding.

On point 3, I don't think any of those matters can be described as irrelevant. In particular, the Reagan administration was attempting to get bigger loans for the Iraqis at a time when Congress was pushing through a bill condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons at Halabja (the administration opposed the bill). Rumsfeld's praise for the Iraqi government at that time is, I think a highly significiant part of the history of US-Iraqi relations. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * significant in that it points to the embarrassing compromises made when one embraces enemies of one's enemies (Iran), certainly Roosevelts meetings with Stalin, etc. should also be mentioned in those articles, and are of far more significance. The policy significance of the meeting was not significant.  Embraces and complements are common in diplomatic circles.--Silverback 00:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kazvorpal's edit
The following text has been reverted by TDC, with a request for documentation.


 * Before the attack, the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq, and doubted they existed. Former top American weapons inspector to Iraq, Scott Ritter, an long an advocate of more thorough weapons inspections previously and considered an anti-Iraq hardliner, said that he was now absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, most of the international community outside the US/UK came to some form of this conclusion, 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.

TDC, would you perhaps state which parts of the text you think need explicit references ?

Most of the text is confirmed in Hans Blix's book Disarming Iraq. I suggest the possible following links for the above text :


 * Before the attack, the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq, and doubted they existed, . Former top American weapons inspector to Iraq, Scott Ritter, an long an advocate of more thorough weapons inspections previously and considered an anti-Iraq hardliner, said that he was now absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction . In fact, most of the international community outside the US/UK came to some form of this conclusion, 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.

As for the "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" part, there are several instances in speeches by Georges Bush Jr. Significant parts of the President Bush's State of the Union (28th of January 2003) address these question, quoting extremely dubious intelligence (to say the best), including allusions to chemical materials which should have been decayed by the time; "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"; "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."; "From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves"; "From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."

A few other quotes follow :


 * "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." --President Georges Bush Jr., 17th of March 2003 )


 * "Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one" --President Georges Bush Jr., 12th of September 2002 )

We also have declarations by Colin Powell:


 * "There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth. One of these lies is graphically and indisputably demonstrated by intelligence we collected on June 27, last year." --Colin Powell, 5th of February 2003

If there are other parts of the text which you think are not factually established yet, please report them. Otherwise, do we consider the problem solved ? Thanks ! Rama 10:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I searched on "weapons" in your Hans Blix links and did not see him explicitly say he did not believe they had any. If he says it in his book, was that published before or after the attack?  The statement you propose states he "says" that before the attack.  In the same sources you site, Blix does say that if Saddam had make a stronger statement and resolved some "issues", the war could have been avoided. --Silverback 12:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure we understand each other, I do not propose any statement; give to Kazvorpal what belongs to Kazvorpal.
 * As for Hans Blix, he did say that until quite late, his personal feelings were that Iraq did have some sort of forbidden items (the originial LA Times article unfortunately requires subscription). However, his opinion on this subject might have somewhat weakened immediately before the war (I'd have to re-read Disarming Iraq about this); this is suggested by statements like  "it would prove paradoxical and absurd if 250,000 troops were to invade Iraq and find very little."
 * Also, Blix questionned the further operations in terms which suggest doubts on the existance of significant prohibited items : "I think the Americans started the war thinking there were some. I think they now believe less in that possibility." (Hans Blix, about US officials ). By September, Blix was convinced that Iraq had not been in possession of forbidden items.
 * The question of when exactly Blix changed his mind might be addressed in Disarming Iraq (I'll check); if we don't find conclusive informations, or if we find that Blix's opinion changed after the war, we might alter the sentance in the article to something like
 * "Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq, and retrospectively doubted they existed".
 * Would this sound acceptable ? Rama 14:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've restored the curiously broad reverted segment, making the changes (suggested here) to the actual areas apparently in question, at least until I can find a way to document the statements I watched Blix make on CNN. Specifically, he said that the teams had been unable to find any evidence, that he doubted the existenced of such weapons, but (this could be what lent an impression that he thought there were weapons) that the Hussein regime had not sometimes dragged their feet in cooperating, and that it was therefore possible they were hiding something. "Something" need not be actual WMD, of course. Kaz 16:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Silverback has commented on one of my questions already, specifically when did Blix state with certainty that Iraq had no WMD's and whether his past incompetence in Iraq could also be called into question here. See Hans Blix for a primer on Iraq's nuclear program slipping under Blix's radar when he was inspector in the 80's.


 * That would definitely be an NPoV problem, especially since Blix passed the test of prediction. It's a bit late to call into question his competence, when it turns out that he was correct. Kaz 19:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also have a problem with In fact, most of the international community outside the US/UK came to some form of this conclusion, or at least were ambivalent.. It was my understanding that the vast majority of the worlds intelligence community did indeed believe that Iraq was hiding WMD's. TDC 17:19, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any agreement with the Bush administration position, outside of Britain and Poland...which is part of why nobody else was willing to send troops. One fact I had actually left out in an effort to keep the article neutral is that on a couple of occasions a Bush official claimed to show some national leader the "Secret evidence" which I mentioned uncritically, only to have that official then say "I've seen no real proof at all". Kaz 19:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"revert, please learn how to be selective if you have problems"
(moved from User talk:Susvolans)

Look who is talking, you revived the old "regime" issue that the community had settled long ago, and you mixed it in with some html fixes, and your derogatory portrayal of the insurgents as "guerillas". Please learn to be selective if you want to really make a contribution.--Silverback 12:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as the word &ldquo;regime&rdquo; is concerned, quoting from the article:
 * This campaign has featured a variety of new and weighted terminology, much coined by the U.S. government and then repeated by the media&hellip; Also notable was the exclusive usage of "regime" to refer to the Saddam Hussein government&hellip;
 * Then using the word in the article is an admission of POV.


 * As for doing changes in bulk, that was done to save load on the servers. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I will remove that. It is obviously an untrue statement, the use of "regime" is by no means new.  Also the use of regime is not exclusive to Saddam, it has been used with American presidents.  Regime does have a sense of personality, but then government has negative connotations at times in American politics.--Silverback 14:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have complete confidence that larding articles on American politics with references to "the Bush regime" would be quickly reverted. The word carries strong negative connotations as applied to a government.  It's unacceptably POV except in direct quotations or in a reference to a specific program, such as "the sanctions regime". JamesMLane 15:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It was last raised only by Susvolans back around Oct 29. If you look at this talk page and the Popular_opposition_to_war_on_Iraq talk page, you will find both sides comfortable with the term regime, this article uses "Allawi regime".  The fact that you classify "Bush regime" references you found as perjorative, doesn't mean the language has changed, although if it gets used enough in a perjorative sense, it may change.  Language is not static.  In the US we happen to use "administration" more.  The Iraqi government doesn't have a long history of regular change of leadership, so governments are more identified by personalities, because it isn't as if there is a tradition of general Iraqi policies that transcend their administrations.  "The main achievements of the Bush regime have been the liberation of the Afghan and Iraqi peoples and a medicare drup program."  That doesn't sound perjorative, and the dictionaries don't say it is perjorative.  It may be attributing more credit to Bush than we usually do in our strong cabinent based system, which is why we are more likely to use administration.--Silverback 17:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Bush government" would be more likely to get reverted. Regime is not POV or perjorative, look in the dictionary.  When used perjoratively orally the voice must be inflected to convey the perjoration, "regime" alone does not carry it. Note, that the US uses the term "regime change" even though the new regime they intend is democratic.  They would hardly do that if they considered it perjorative.--Silverback 15:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Responses:
 * OK, I looked in a dictionary, "our" dictionary in fact, and found this: "Note: This word is often used as a pejorative." -- Retrieved from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Regime Following up with a Google search for the phrase "Bush regime", I found all the hits on the first page to be pejorative.  Skimming the next couple pages suggested that the same is true of them.  The top hit is for "The Bush Regime Card Deck", which concerns "the emergence of a new regime that threatens Liberty in America and Peace in the rest of the world."
 * This has been corrected please see the discussion on talk:Regime. No authoritative sources label it as perjorative, there is a secondary definition in one source that says it sometimes implies an "oppressive" government.  This may be why it is sometimes viewed as pejorative when applied to governments you like, but this is being properly applied to Saddam's regime.--Silverback 14:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Your example of usage will be more persuasive if, after the Iraqi elections, Bush is using a phrase like "the Allawi regime" to praise the new government. In the meantime, while we await the flowering of Iraqi democracy, how often has Bush actually used such a phrase about a particular government he supports, as opposed to one like Saddam's that he's decided to overthrow?
 * You said that Susvolans had 'revived the old "regime" issue that the community had settled long ago...' I didn't see this point addressed in the talk here.  Was there a prior discussion that ended in a consensus that "regime" is NPOV?  If so, can you direct me to it? JamesMLane 16:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It was last raised only by Susvolans back around Oct 29. If you look at this talk page and the Popular_opposition_to_war_on_Iraq talk page, you will find both sides comfortable with the term regime, this article uses "Allawi regime".  The fact that you classify "Bush regime" references you found as perjorative, doesn't mean the language has changed, although if it gets used enough in a perjorative sense, it may change.  Language is not static.  In the US we happen to use "administration" more.  The Iraqi government doesn't have a long history of regular change of leadership, so governments are more identified by personalities, because it isn't as if there is a tradition of general Iraqi policies that transcend their administrations.  "The main achievements of the Bush regime have been the liberation of the Afghan and Iraqi peoples and a medicare drup program."  That doesn't sound perjorative, and the dictionaries don't say it is perjorative.  It may be attributing more credit to Bush than we usually do in our strong cabinent based system, which is why we are more likely to use administration.--Silverback 17:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's what I find checking the available Wikipedia pages:


 * You're correct that, on October 29, Susvolans edited this article by changing "regime" to "government", noting that the former was POV. You reverted a few hours later.  Susvolans chose not to get into an edit war with you (and in fact didn't make any more edits to the page until January 11).  That history hardly makes it an "issue that the community had settled long ago" -- and even if it were, such points are open to reconsideration.  The listing on RfC by Susvolans is a good initial step.


 * It was settled if all sides were using it without objection, the community settled on that term with no problems associated with it.--Silverback 21:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The article Popular opposition to war on Iraq doesn't use the word. On Talk:Popular opposition to war on Iraq, there's no discussion of whether "regime" is POV.  The usage of it on that page is that it's applied to Saddam's government by people who are hostile to Saddam.  Its only other usage is with reference to the coalition governments, in a comment by Christiaan criticizing them: "It's not just that our regimes ignored the plight of Iraqis, it's that they actively oppressed them ...."


 * Thus, it's still clear that the word is used exclusively or at least overwhelmingly to express disapproval. Your hypothetical example ("The main achievements of the Bush regime....") struck me as strange.  I wouldn't expect to find an actual Bush supporter writing that except, for example, as an ironic usage in response to someone who had criticized "the Bush regime". JamesMLane 19:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorise war. Therefore it did not."
Hmmm, more than these three passed the resolution. Why do these three and not the others get to decide what it meant? Acts of war, like the no-fly zone and the sanctions had already been authorized and were still being "implemented". Are you saying there was no threat in 1441? The UN when it uses sanctions commits itself to follow through and back them up every so often, otherwise its threats become meaningless.--Silverback 22:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added that paragraph. It is a simple matter of legal interpretation. All contracts in normal civil law and in public international law are to be interpreted according to what the parties intended. It's a basic tenet of legal reasoning. I'm afraid you're wrong about the Security Council (which I expect you mean when you say the UN). The charta requires explicit and positive sanction for an invasion. It did not take place.


 * A simple matter of legal interpretation. So, you are a fan of strict constructionism then? As in, you agree with the methodology used by Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in "interpreting" the United States Federal Constitution? Excellent.

The debate around this always is between people who do have an understanding of law (ie. war was illegal) and those who do not (ie. split between both opinions). But an opinion of moral rectitude is not the same as legal right. Sorry.


 * What is law? More so, what is law without the ability to enforce it? Is it law? Then, what is international law if that international law cannot be enforced? Who should/may/must enforce it? What so many people refer to as international law is not law in any legal sense of the word. In particular coming from my American point of view regarding law, in that the mere fact that a legislative body passes some statute does not make it law. Rather, it is the application of that statute to particular facts in a particular circumstance by a court which makes law. Law is grey, mutable, and only of concrete meaning in concrete applications. The fact that the international police aren't going to come and haul you off to the international pokey to await trial before the international court prior to your incarceration in the international prison points convincingly to the fact that what is popularily called international law and considered to be a concrete, understood, black and white thing is not. International law is a complex web of voluntary treaty obligations amongst sovereign nations, each of which has sovereign immunity, and is anything but a simple matter of legal interpretation. Except to the simple.

...Oh, I see what you just complained about. Then I should add that contracts wouldn't bind people to something EXTRA that they hadn't intended, but would fall on the side of not obliging people. Pick up any good Public International Law book. Promise! (and I agree that Kofi is a bit of a tool. He could've objected earlier!)


 * (Dunno who wrote the above -Tony Sidaway|Talk)

To interpret the wording one has to look at former resolutions legalizing war under Chapter VII. None of these use the wording "serious consequences". They include "by all means necessary" and often explicit authorize the use of force to "restore international peace and security". This fact is also recognised by the US, as they legally justified the war not with res1441 but claiming breach of the 91 cease fire. Here's an article discussing res 1441. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0317sorryblair.htm A lot of other law resources regarding the Iraq war can be found here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

UK ambassador to the UN: "the matter would return to the [UN Security] Council"
Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN, made it plain that in the view of he UK government, 1441 was not war-enabling:


 * We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about &#8220;automaticity&#8221; and &#8220;hidden triggers&#8221; &#8211; the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities. Jeremy Greenstock, 8 November, 2002, addressing the UN Security Council.

I was told the US ambassador at the time said something similar. I'll try to track it down if it's true. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An online source for the Greenstock statement quoted above is:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/FCO/uk-fco-greenstock-110802.htm

Oh, even better, you can get both the Greenstock and Negroponte statements, in full context, from the UN website:

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.4644&Lang=E

This was the 4644th meeting of the Security Council, on November 8, 2002. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John Negroponte, US ambassador to the UN, "no hidden trigger"
I found it.

"It is a resolution that sets out two stages, that if there are reports that Iraq is not complying then that matter will come back to the council for consideration." John Negroponte, US State Department communique, November 6, 2002.

So it wasn't just the other members of the security council. All of them agreed that the Council itself would have the last word, should it decide that Iraq was still in breach of its obligations (which Blix and El Baradei were not reporting in any case). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "not reporting", Blix stated that there were still issues. What is the "last word", the security council did get to consider it, and Iraq still was not in compliance, that is why some wanted the US threat maintained on the border so that inspections would continue, and the U.S. and U.K. decided they needed to act before the full heat of summer.--Silverback 04:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The last word is of course the decision to go to war--a decision that, under the UN Charter to which the USA and UK are signatories, only the United Nations Security Council is empowered to authorize in the circumstances pertaining prior to the invasion. Blix described Iraqi cooperation as "active or even proactive" and in no way stated that Iraq was not in full compliance--indeed the USA and UK were reported to be furious with him for not presenting them with a case for war. The coalition clearly believed that Iraq was still in breach, but this belief did not find much support in the Security Council and indeed was convincingly refuted by the final reports of Blix and El Baradei. Both specifically requested more time so that full compliance could be verified. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This information about what the U.S. and U.K. ambassadors said contemporaneously is very interesting and should be included in the article. Do you have hyperlinks to an online source for either?  Failing that, can you provide a fuller cite for a printed source?  The simple "US State Department communique", with a date, wouldn't enable most readers to find the document easily. JamesMLane 02:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry I took so long to get back. I picked it up from this document in, of all places, the website of the US Embassy in New Delhi:

http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/wwwhpr110702a.html

See the Greenstock section (above this one) for the original source of Negroponte's statement.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please document the source of Kofi Anan's "formal invalidation" power.
Is his power a "veto"? a peer reviewed formal proof? What? How does he exercise his power, does he do it by answering a question in an interview? Does he have to issue a formal statement the meets certain standards and has gotten certain approvals? Does he also have powers as a "judge" to determine matters of international law?--Silverback 17:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kofi Anan has no formal power of invalidation. Like anybody else, however, he is free to observe that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to the United States' commitments under the UN charter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just realised I might have unwillingly created confusion here; I meant something both "official" and "with no ambiguity"; it seems that my formulation was not adequate and actually had a different meaning, sorry for this. The present formulation ("Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the UN charter, declared ...") is quite close to what I intended to say. Rama 15:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

U.S./International spelling
Please see Manual of Style regarding spelling. Of particular interest, 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. This article is predominantly written in International English. —Christiaan -  &#9742;   02:09, 18 Jan 2005


 * Actually, it was written in American English, but the Guerilla English trolls have been visiting the site, intentionally "provoking conflict by changing to another". Kaz 02:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'm afraid I am the culprit here, sorry. Actually I just reverted a "defence -> defense" edit which was not documented. Usually this sort of edits is done by people who are not aware of the "Manual of Style" and is only an honest mistake. The later argumentation of Kaz sort of puzzled me. Of course if he had said that the article was mostly in American English I wouldn't have reverted a second time. Mea culpa and sorry about this. I actually did a quick survey: "defense" is used mostly in American titles (such as "Defense Secretary") but there are lots of other Americanism everywhere, so I agree that it is safe to say that the article is indeed "American English". By the way, the "Guerilla English" is a joke, of course. I'd just like to finish by saying sorry again for the unintended increase of heat, no harm meant, not to much done I hope, and happy editing to all ! Rama 09:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Security Council consultation (lack of)
Silverback has changed my note on consultation on invasion or Iraq being forestalled by US and UK abandonment to read:

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; in the event such consultation occurred before the US and UK's eventually abandoned of the Security Council procedure and invaded Iraq.

I don't think this claim is supported by the facts. While I believe it's true to say that the US and UK planned to consult the Security Council on the invasion, they openly abandoned this path once it became clear that they wouldn't get a Security Council majority for a resolution authorising invasion, and on top of that at least two Security Council members thought that, in the light of the inspectors' very positive reports, the inspectors should be permitted to continue the verification of disarmament--in short, they would vote against, which would automatically veto the proposal.

Chirac had said (I translate loosely from memory) "It is necessary that the inspectors say either 'we can continue and we're happy that in a period of some months we shall be able to verify the disarmament of Iraq' or else 'we're very sorry, but it is impossible to guarantee disarmament; Iraq is no longer cooperating fully.' In the latter case, it would be for the Security Council to decide; but of course in that case war would be inevitable.  That isn't the case now." (interview in French with France 2 reporters at the Elysee Palace, Paris, March 10, 2003)

I'd like to revert to my wording, but would prefer to get agreement first. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, the revelant part you cite is

Mais ce n'est pas à vous ou à moi de le décréter, c'est aux inspecteurs à qui l'ONU a confié la charge de désarmer l'Iraq de le dire. Il faut que les inspecteurs nous disent : "nous pouvons continuer et, dans un délai que nous estimons à quelques mois, je dis quelques mois parce que c'est ce qu'ils ont dit, nous aurons achevé notre travail et l'Iraq sera désarmé". Ou alors, qu'ils disent et qu'ils viennent dire au Conseil de Sécurité : "nous sommes désolés, mais l'Iraq ne coopère pas, les progrès ne sont pas suffisants, nous ne sommes pas en mesure d'atteindre notre objectif, nous ne pourrons pas garantir le désarmement de l'Iraq". Cas auquel il appartiendra au Conseil de Sécurité et à lui seul de décider ce qu'il convient de faire. Mais dans ce cas, naturellement, hélas, la guerre deviendrait inévitable. Elle ne l'est pas aujourd'hui.


 * Which translates into (no responsibility is taken for the correctness of this translation)

It does not lie upon us the decide on this [wether the cooperation of Iraq is sufficient], it is the inspectors, to whom the UN has given the task to disarm Iraq, to say it. The inspectors must say : "We can carry on and, within a few months, I say a few months because this is the figure they produced, we will have completed our task and Iraq will be disarmed". Or else, they say and come and speak before the Security Council: "We are sorry, but Iraq does not cooperate, we are unable to complete our objectives, we cannot guarantee the disarmement of Iraq". In this case it will belong to the Security Council, and the Security Council only, to decide what has to be done. But is this case, of course, war would become inevitable. It is not today.


 * Now for the matter itself, I think that it is, as often, a matter of wording. Like it is now, the article is not blatantly wrong: it is true that "such consultation occurred before the US and UK's eventually abandoned"; hey, I remember, back in 1991... Of course, this is not revelent.


 * I think we need something like "Such consultation, immediatly before the invasion, was innitially planned by the USA and UK, but was eventually forestalled by US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and invasion of Iraq.''" Rama 15:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The US and UK did far more than "plan" to consult, they worked very hard both openly and behind the scenes, to get the votes necessary for security council approval. If was a full court press, for several days.--Silverback 15:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats' common knowledge. But still the did not make the consultation. They chickened out when they realised that even with pressions upon some countries, they would not gather a majority, not even a significant minority, which would have allowed them to claim that they had been blocked by a veto only which had countered the legitimate will of the international community. What happened is that, it the USA and UK had indeed made the consultation, they would have been diplomatically slaped in the face AND would have blatantly countradicted the Security Council with their invasion. By refraining from doing the consultation, they still can argue that previous resolution allow them to strike. It is actually very important or the US rethorics that the consultation did not happen. Rama 16:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I certainly cannot agree that the US and UK (and Spain, to be complete) engaged in the consultation that they had been promising back in November. Yes, there was a lot of maneuvering, a lot of discussion as well as a lot of arm-twisting, but in the event the Security Council was not consulted prior to the invasion. Rama's summary above amounts to a statement that, had the US and UK put it to the security council then the invasion would have been unequivocally illegal. This indeed appears to be the gist of the advice that UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, gave to Mr Blair in March, 2003. The US and the UK settled instead for an invasion of very questionable legality, with the consequence that the other Security Council members of the time tend to regard the invasion as illegal--and this belief is certainly justifiable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you using "consultation" in some technical sense? The plain english meaning is little more than a discussion of the issues or an exchange of views.--Silverback 17:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Silverback, this is not "plain English"; this is diplomatic talk. In the context of the Security Council, a "consultation" means requiring a meeting of the Council; submitting a text; and then vote about the text. Mere corridor talks and phone calls to presidents of the countries of the council do not qualify for "consultation of the Security Council". Rama 17:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is what Negroponte and Greenstock told the Security Council on 8 November, 2002:


 * As the sponsors pointed out in their statements earlier, the purpose of the resolution is to achieve the disarmament of Iraq through effective inspections. The text no longer includes automaticity for authorizing the use of force. According to the resolution that has just been adopted, only upon receipt of a report by UNMOVIC and the IAEA on Iraq’s non-compliance and failure to cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution, will the Security Council consider the situation and take a position. -John Negroponte.


 * We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities. -Jeremy Greenstock.

In particular, Mr Greenstock could not have been more clear. In order for a decision to take military action to be taken, two things had to happen:


 * Iraq must be found in further breach of its disarmament obligations
 * The Security Council in session must discuss the matter under Operational Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441 and (Negroponte's words) take a position.

As a body, the Security Council can only take a position by voting.

Paragraph 12 said:
 * 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Paragraphs 4 and 11 read as follows:
 * 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;


 * 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

I believe that the conclusion that both Mr Negroponte and Mr Greenstock were fleshing out a clear pathway leading to disarmament, backed up by a mechanism in which the Security Council would make a decision on enforcement of compliance, is inescapable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"France advised the U.S. that US had sufficient UN support..."
FYI, here is the passage with wikilink, that used to be the header:"France advised the U.S. that it (the USA) had sufficient UN support to launch a war and that it (the USA) need not return to the UN for a second resolution". --Silverback 11:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rama, my source is the reference wikipedia article. I don't know who put that in, but I recollect hearing something similar on the news, so it does not seem incredible.--Silverback 09:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The text was added around Sep 23, 2003 by User:King brosby. Unfortunately, he does not appear to have been active since Dec of that year. It was not controversial at the time, i.e., no edit wars or talk discusion, perhaps that was when it was in the news and generally known.  We should assume good faith, absent a thorough search to dispute it.  If you read the quote in its context in that article, it seems plausible.  France may not have wanted to go on the record more explicitly, it was Blair and the U.K. that needed more explicit language for domestic consumption. --Silverback 09:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been leafing through Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack to find any indication of France's acquiescence that resolution 1441 was sufficient to launch a war. I don't think the information in the book supports that assertion:
 * Pp. 221-227 describe in some detail the bickering between Powell and de Villepin about the exact wording of 1441, during October-November 2002. It says that "It got so tight and so tense that the final disagreement boiled down to the use of a single word. For about five days Powell and de Villepin argued. As participants remember it, and records indicate, the French position was that a false declaration "and" a general failure to cooperate could constitute a material breach. The "and" meant Saddam would have to fail two tests. Powell's draft said a false declaration "or" a general failure to cooperate could constitute a material breach."
 * P. 225 describes that Rice, the principals and Bush all wanted to stick with the "or" version. Powell argued, however, that unanimity in the Security Council would be seen as a victory and that France could come on board if they went with the "and" version. In the end, Rice and the others relented and then "and" version became the offical one that was approved by the Council.
 * Pp.234-235 picks up the thread: "On December 7, Iraq submitted an 11,807-page weapons declaration... Cheney proposed to the NSC that the president declare it a material breach... None of the other principals including Rumsfeld and Rice seemed to agree that the declaration on its face was sufficient grounds to abandon inspections and start a war... The U.N resolution required a false declaration "and"&mdash;the word Powell had allowed the Frence to include in the final resolution&mdash;a faillue to cooperate. On the surface Saddam appeared to be cooperating. It was just wat Cheney feared. They were in the inspections business."
 * On p. 240: (about Bush's December 18 conversation with Aznar) "In fact, the five permanent members of the Security Council always have a veto, and the French especially did not think they had made an agreement that Resolution 1441 locked them into war."
 * Pp. 284-285: "On January 20, Powell attended a United Nations Security Council meeting... In a press conference after the session, French Foreign Minister de Villepen declared, "Nothing! Nothing!" justifies war."
 * P. 315: (February 10) "Chirac, Putin and Schroeder issued a strong joint statement the same day calling for extended weapons inspections. "Nothing today justifies war," Chirac said. "Russia, Germany and France are determined to ensure that everything possible is done to disarm Iraq peacefully." So much for Chirac&mdash;and Putin and Schroeder."
 * Pp. 357-358: (about the March 16 Azores meeting) "Chirac had taped an interview for the CBS television show 60 Minutes to be aired that night, and someone handed the British prime minister a summary of Chirac's remarks. Blair told the others that Chirac was calling for U.N. weapons inspectors to be given another 30 days in Iraq. Forget it, Bush said, it's a delaying tactic."
 * P. 365: (March 17) "At 8:55 A.M. Bush met with the NSC. Powell reported that nothing had changed overnight. The French were not going to bend."
 * And that's about it. If all this is accurate, I don't really see when and why France would have said that they thought 1441 alone was enough. Of course, other sources might shed some more light, and I for one would be very interested to read about it. --Plek 10:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I don't know what source King brosby was relying upon, but the news stories I recall were based on an unidentified administration source, who claimed that France thought that 1441 was all that was needed, and that at that time had wanted deniability and did not want to go on the record with more explicit authorization, and was angered when the U.S. was trying for something more explicit in order to aid Blair. Of course, the desire for deniability shows that France never intended to participate in the coalition and does not present them in a favorable or courageous moral light, since they were unwilling to do the right thing despite the opinions of their population.  Subsequently, France and the others have not pressed their claims of illegality, they got to keep their populace happy and a free ride while others took care of Saddam.--Silverback 12:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All the public statements that I have read by Chirac and Villepin from before and after Rsolution 1441 are pretty unequivocal: the Security Council decides. We should not ignore this statement by King brosby if it can be sourced and shown to be true, however at present that is not the case. A guy on wrote it in an article on Wikipedia and you recall the Bush administration making a similar claim (needless to say the US would not presume to speak for the French government). Earlier in this talk page I cited (and Rama quoted and then translated) an interview given by Chirac with France 2 reporters where he said what (to the best of my knowledge) he has always claimed. US administration sources may well have wanted to put their own gloss on this, they certainly wouldn't be the only government to engage in damage limitation and spin doctoring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the report was a garbled version of this:

Chirac pledges to veto new resolution:

Tony Blair's options for going to war on Iraq were shrinking last night after Jacques Chirac publicly pledged that France would veto an early second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising military action.


 * "There is no need for a second resolution today, which France would have

no choice but to oppose," Mr Chirac said.

It was then, the newspaper reports, that Jack Straw the Foreign Secretary 'appeared to be moving to the government's fallback position, saying that resolution 1441 "gives us the authority we need".'

It still puzzles me why the US and the UK pushed so hard for war; the inspectors were clearly of the opinion that progress was being made. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to have a citable source for it too. It should not be a surprise that Chirac's statements and ambassador press conferences contradict it and play to their public.  This french "position", if true, was specifically not for public consumption.  It doesn't promise any public support for subsequent U.S. action, and perhaps could even be interpreted as fair warning that this was all the U.S. was going to get from them to hang its hat on, a disputable resolution that each side can read it's intent into.  After all, the U.S. didn't need a clear authorization, just something that gave it some cover for what it wanted to do.  1441 has served that purpose admirably.  I am reading a lot into this obviously.


 * As to why the US and UK pushed hard for war, I think it was because the inspectors were not even allowed back in until the buildup for war began and was continuing. The no fly zone had been stretching US resources for years, and now an expensive buildup.  There was no guarantee that Saddam's cooperation would continue if the build up slowed or was withdrawn, and he had a past history of jerking the coalition around, only backing down in response to threats.  Only full and transparent cooperation was going to prevent the war, because allowing Saddam to cooperate for awhile and then turn resistant again, only hurt US and UN credibility, and encouraged others to try the same game.  What cooperation was being obtained from Saddam was basically with a gun to his head, and France and Germany made sure the trigger would be pulled by giving Saddam false hope that he could keep playing his games.  Thus he prepared another incomplete and unresponsive report and continued imposing conditions upon interviews and airborne monitoring.  Frankly, we had achieved what cooperation we got only through threats, threats that were supported by the security council.  Once you threaten you have crossed the moral bright line, even if you don't go to war this time, you will have to every so often or else there is no point in threatening, because it has no credibility.--Silverback 16:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Er yes, I think it's fair to say that you're "reading a lot into this." :) I just don't see that France had any reason to pussyfoot in private while saying the opposite in public.  France absolutely did not agree with unilateral action by any country on this, or any other issue.


 * You're wrong to claim that "the inspectors were not..allowed in." The inspectors were never expelled, they withdrew on the eve of bombardment in 1998.    You describe the response of Iraq as "incomplete and unresponsive" but you must know that this is not what Blix and El Baradie told the Security Council.  Looking at the inspectors' final reports it is difficult to see why the US and the UK continued to claim that Iraq was still not cooperating. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The inspectors thought they were making progress despite the lack of full cooperation, for instance they thought they were getting to sites that did not have warning before the got there, and were discovering things Iraq did should have disclosed but didn't. Despite this Blix in his book admited that "issues remained".  Of course, since the war we have learned from his scientists that Saddam intended to restart his WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted, and he also was not complying with the oil for food program requirements.--Silverback 17:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Lack of full cooperation" was not the message the Security Council got. Both El Baradei and Blix were very clear on this, but the US and the UK inexplicably kept making preparations for war.

You've often used the term "issues remained" and it's been wielded rather ambiguously as if it were some kind of get-out clause. I note that following the Iraqi WMD declaration Blix said that "issues remained" about which he would be tackling Iraq, concerning anthrax, Scud missiles and VX nerve gas. Is that what you're referring to? The claim that Saddam Hussein "intended to restart his WMD program" is neither here nor there. Nobody doubted for a second that he would have to be subjected to constant random weapons inspections. Neither that nor his maladministration of the oil for food program makes up for the grandiose claims made by the US and UK about the existence of mobile WMD labs, the ability to launch WMD attacks on Cyprus within 45 minutes and the like.

But we're getting off the topic here. Evidently we have no source for the extraordinary claim about France's opinion of 1441, while we do have a good public source for the US and UK's UN ambassadors' concurrence, in November, 2002, with Mr Chirac's position of early March, 2003. All that had changed in the meantime was that inspections had resumed, the inspectors were happy and the US and the UK decided to go to war anyway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Who was going to supply the military buildup to achieve Saddam's cooperation with the "constant random weapons inspections"? Did France or Germany step forward to volunteer? Saddam, absent threats, was very jealous of his ill gotten sovereignty.  If the US and UK were to have to continue to threaten, then they might as well give their threats credibility right away, so they don't have to have military build-ups outside every country the UN decides to sanction.--Silverback 18:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * May I kindly suggest you people continue your discussion about who did/didn't save the world on your personal talk pages? I don't really see it leading to any clarification about the issue this section was created for (then again, I might be wrong). --Plek 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Popular view...some contentious unsourced statements

 * , despite previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons, and that Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production. Some believe, based on the circumstances, that the weapons were originally present in Iraq but were moved into a sympathetic country (or countries). However, there is no hard evidence supporting this theory'

I have problems with these unsourced statements.


 * 1) I think it matters which UN statements those were, and who said them. A Security Council resolution is different from an inspector's report, etc.
 * 2) "Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production" is a false statement as far as I am aware. The inspectors in March reported great satisfaction with the procedures for access and the degree of cooperation.
 * 3) This speculation about weapons being moved, I think it should be there but it should be much more specific. As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong on this) nobody outside the Bush administration's closest apologists could be said to have given this idea a moment's serious thought.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

David Kay said it TDC 22:39, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * This January 17, 2005 Associated Press story, reported by MSNBC (among others), might yield some additional clues: . Note that the sources that deny there was any evidence of the Syria move are all anonymous. I guess we'll have to wait for Duelfer's report to get some more data.--Plek 22:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'll wait a while for this plum to drop in my lap. I'm a patient guy. Number 3 was only one of the points I queried, though. There are the other two. And they're stated as fact in our article--which isn't right if they're not known to be fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fourth unsourced statement:
 * Some individuals have claimed that European coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not as unbiased as leading European press agencies led their readers and viewers to believe, claiming that people in the US were generally not too terribly surprised by the swift victory of the Coalition over the Iraqi army, and that most people in Europe and the Middle East were "dumbfounded" that despite "a steady stream of negative press coverage on the Coalitions successes", the Iraqi army was defeated in just over three weeks. ... It is not clear on what basis the critics claim that the US was not surprised by the swift end to the war, nor on what basis they claim that Europeans were "dumbfounded."

What "some individuals" are we talking about here? Journalists, politicians, WP editors? Grandma's cats? If it's just a couple of people then they should be named, so the reader learns about the context of this claim.

Also, the primary source should be linked to; as it stands, it reads like an editorial. User:TDC has stated that the text is sourced in the talk page archives somewhere, but that's not good enough. A talk page is not a reference. A reader shouldn't be required to leaf through stacks of archives to find out where a particular bit of information is coming from (especially when it is as vaguely worded as this one). --Plek 06:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've snipped the quoted text from the article, for now. Let's try to clean it up. --Plek 06:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps TDC or someone who remembers the discussion about this on the Talk page can point us at the right part of the archive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. By the way, I have tried to deconstruct this piece of text into its basic factual components. All I can come up with is: "Some people were surprised that it took the Coalition only three weeks to defeat the Iraqi army. Others were not. Some people thought the media were biased. The end." --Plek 12:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it looks like it has broken down into an edit war over unsourced statement number four, despite attempts to reason with TDC on his talk page. If people are still edit warring about this in six hours or so, I'll ask for the page to be protected (which would almost certainly be granted).  It would be up to the admin who protected, in the light of the behavior of the different participants, to decide which version to protect (needless to say he always chooses The Wrong Version). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I really hope that we can produce a discussion on this; I actually couldn't even really understand the point which is made in this part... perhaps it would need a serious reformulation, beside the references. Rama 16:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I just scanned through Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive1, Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive2, Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive3, Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Fpahl vs Silverback and Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage and read all User:TDC's comments. I truly can't find the discussion of the text he is referring to, nor the sources of it. I don't think it's very productive to delete the text again right now, but given the lack of evidence I'd say it is eligible for deletion when things have cooled down a bit. In the meantime, maybe we can start looking for sources of the other statements mentioned in this section. --Plek 17:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been protected. When we get editing control back, I'd also like to either properly source or remove unsourced assertions 1 through 3. I'm prepared to wait for a good wording. Assertion 1 I'd like to cast in the appropriate context. Assertion 2 I suspect cannot be supported (but I could be wrong). Assertion 3 should be more specific (that the ISG under Kay and Duelfer worked on this hypothesis). Does that sound reasonable? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am quite sorry about the protection. But now back to the copy... Perhaps we can dismiss point 2) easily with a quotation of Hans Blix's book, Disarming Iraq, which happens to be publicly available on the Web :

"Although the inspection organization was now operating at full strength and Iraq seemed as determined to give it prompt access everywhere, the United States appeared determined to replace our inspection force with an invasion army". One could of course search for more examples in the book itself, but I suppose that this is more friendly to people who don't have immediate access to the paper copy. Rama 22:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say the first part of the sentence is useful, but the second part needs independent verification and sourcing. Hans Blix was authoritative about the UN inspection process, but had no way of knowing the true intentions of the US policy makers (unless, again, substantiated by other sources). --Plek 23:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * @Tony: yes, I'd go along with that. On a general note, I think the "External links and references"-section as a whole needs an overhaul. "References" should contain the links that are actually used to provide content for the article. "External links" should list everything else. Right now it's all cobbled together (i.e. a mess). --Plek 23:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you quote which bit you think is useful Plek? Christiaan 23:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the part before the comma, versus the part after it, basically. What I mean is that Blix would be an authoritative source for the information that the "organization was working at full strength" and "Iraq seemed as determined to give it prompt access", because that concerns his daily job at the time. The "US appeared determined..." part, however, is just an observation by Blix. If it's put in the article, it could only be in a form like: "Blix thought the US was determined to replace his inspection force." It is not evidence that the US was, in fact, determined to do that. More sources, preferrably from within the US Goverement, would be needed to turn that observation into fact. Yes, I'm anal about attribution and citing sources, but I think that's the only way to prevent the daily edit wars around here. --Plek 00:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way I read Rama's quote, it's intended to counter the belief that the inspectors were not happy with Iraqi compliance. I'm sure anyone who actually listened to the debates live on radio, as I did, would appreciate how devastating to the US case for war were the later inspection reports. I don't think this is fully appreciated by some US commentators; perhaps the US news bulletins only broadcast Powell's speech (which was met with much eye-rolling in Britain). I must admit that my contemporaneous readings of US commentary were but slight. I guess I'll have to subscribe to some US new sites and go through their archives for a full appreciation of why it didn't really hit the US public that the inspections of El Baradei and Blix had completely scuppered the case for defensive war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely, I submited this quotation in the context of the discussion on the collaboration of Iraq. I don't mean to bring the discussion on US policy, the formulation was only such that I found it more convenient to simply quote its entirety.
 * To go along with Tony, I might say that informations submited by the US government (like, say this famous mobile laboratory story, which sounded implausible in the first place) strongly contrasts with the measured position of people like Blix (who was inluenced by his diplomatic and scientific background, likely). The impression that there was no real opposition (to quote our own article, a mere lack of "explicit backing") might well be at least partly caused by the strong and carefully crafted rethorics of the Bush administrations: the "smoking gun --which could take the form of a mushroom cloud", the Office of special plans, lots of indices tend to suggest that a great deal of energy was invested into "public diplomacy", while on the other side, waepons inspectors were attempting to provide an exact accurate and dispassioned version of the events. In the absolute, their position was probably closer to the truth, but in the context, they might have been far from sufficient to cancel out this rethorical pressure. Rama 00:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huzzah! I've found the likely source of our "fourth unsourced statement", quoted above. The original text was inserted by User:TDC on 17:54, 23 Feb 2004: diff page. Note that the paragraph at the time read: "Many individuals have noted that European coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, was not as unbiased as leading European press agencies led thier readers and viewers to believe.", and that it was used as a preamble to the text about Alain Hertoghe's book. The paragraph got seperated from the book review over time and organically evolved into the mess we've got today.

The talk page discussion that I was looking for is here: Removed edit about the French press. I missed it earlier because the section is about the Hertoghe review, and does not list a source for the "Many/Some individuals..." statement.

I have to conclude that the only verifiable piece of text is the Hertoghe review. The "fourth unsourced statement" as it stands does not have any sources listed, neither in the article itself nor in the talk archives. I suspect that it is the result of original research by a lot of editors over the past year. --Plek 01:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there was a small discussion about this yesterday on the French IRC channel, which globally led to the impression that this statment is not really accurate. There were indeed a handful lunatics who might have developed the idea that Iraq would offer a serious piece of resistance (proably there were such week-end stategists everywhere in the world), but everybody knew that the Iraqi army had all but dispeared since the 1991 war. Statements by French officials leave little doubt as to their evaluation (I paraphrase, it was things like "peace is more difficult to win than war"); if necessary, I could document the fact that Iraq was not expected by the French public opinion to offer a serious resistance; however, like it is, the whole paragraph might as well be dropped outright, if we don't want to expose ourself to the impression that the whole paragraph was an attempt to put "biased" and "European media" in the same sentance. Rama 09:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe most Europeans expected the actual result, but what about most Arabs? I remember a scene in Control Room where the al-Jazeera staffers are watching the invasion coverage.  My recollection is that, although they're not Saddam partisans by any means, they express a certain amount of surprise and consternation that their fellow Arabs in the Iraqi armed forces are getting rolled up so easily and quickly by the Western invaders.  That one brief scene wouldn't be a reliable source for a generalization about public opinion, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the Arab world could add some information about expectations and reactions there. JamesMLane 00:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the page was unprotected today I have removed the clause ", despite previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons, and that Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production" as discussed above. I'm leaving in the speculation about arms being shipped to Syria but I think we should source that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, on some primitive level.... unsourced conclusive statements
This text just restored by Rama: " Indeed, on some primitive level, this "clash between civilizations" is understood by many. That said, a more nuanced and sophisticated analysis reveals certain problems with this approach. " Can you cite an sources for it? If not it should be removed.--Silverback 08:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll take no responsability for this: I was restoring the state of the article before the "without the explicit backing of the United Nations Security Council" (and a few other things like this) were removed (I don't think that anyone will contest that this is an extremely important information -- actually the "explicit" is already a little bit tendencious by my criteria, and one could add "NATO neither").


 * Indeed, this "clash between civilisations" thing looks a little bit speculative, if you ask me. Rama 08:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. We're not in the business of producing our own analysis, sophisticated or otherwise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, Naif has reverted again and me too, so I think it'd be a good idea to address the issue here. I do not find it acceptable that references to the "lack of explicit support" of the Security Council be removed. This is very obviously one major features of the whole affair. Lots of other things I find tendencious or badly formulised in this edit:
 * "allied forces composed primarily of United States...": "allied" to whom ? this formulation tends to refer to a historical continuity with the Allied forces of the Second World War, or something like this, which I find highly debatable in this case, to say the least
 * "There was widespread opposition to the invasion from many (see worldwide government positions on war on Iraq) as well as considerable official support.": "considerable official support"? From whom ? The US and UK governments ? Come on !
 * Removal of "The United States also took numerous illegal or questionably legal steps" and other similar changes; I will not say that the formulation of the revelant parts is ultimately perfect, but ouright removal of these parts is not appropriate I think; on the whole, this tends to remove the balance of the article into suggesting that there were noor minor legal or political issues with the invasion, which (I think) does not adequatly pictures the reality
 * There are other little edits all thorugh the article, I would be glad if Naif could discuss these issues a little bit more in detail. Cheers ! Rama 13:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a known systematic bias for intellectual analysis over the reality of strongly-held if irrational nationalistic/cultural feelings.  I propose that the mass media reported widespread (erroneous) belief by Americans in links between Al Qaeda/Iraq is proof enough that this war is seen as a clash of civilizations, regardless of whether said belief is correct.  I accept my original wording per se was flawed, but something of this sort should be put in to reflect the actual reality of most people's beliefs regarding the war vs. what (well-informed) intellectuals may put in.  Cheers. -Naif

unprotect
I've asked for the article to be unprotected because the discussion about unsupported statements seems to have reached a conclusion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unintentional humour?
The article notes "Continuing hostilities in that country under military and civil occupation, which is due to end after elections from January 28th to January 30th, 2005"

Presumably, the continuing hostilities aren't scheduled to end between January 28th and January 30th? The paragraph refers to the date of elections, but reads as if the hostilities themselves have been "scheduled to end" -- although with the propoganda war as it is, I might just believe that interpretation ;)

Ojw 00:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed it to: This term is also used to refer to the continuing hostilities during the Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005. By the way, the entire opening section is badly in need of some copyedit action, I think. Right now it's a jumble of factoids, strewn about in no apparent logical or temporal order. How about rewriting it so the opening becomes a good summary of the article? --Plek 00:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments about use of "regime"
I have not followed this page at all--just came over in response to a request for comments about whether the term "regime," when applied to Hussein's government, is excessively POV.

"Regime" is sometimes applied to connote an authoritarian government, or to suggest the changable, temporary, nature of a ruling individual or group. So I can see where someone might have an issue with it. But strictly speaking, the term is accurate, and even if you agree that it connotes an authoritarian state, I don't think there is much dispute that Hussein's government was authoratarian (is there?). So my impression (again, wihout a detailed knowledge of the history here) is that the term is a fair and acceptable one, and this page is doing astonishingly well if disputes are limited to such fine shades of meaning. --BTfromLA 18:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Allow me to add this: there is a sense of meaning to "regime" that you touch on that I'd like to expand. See if you disagree: "regime" is most often used to refer to governments that lack checks and balances, those whose levers of power are all controlled by one person or a small group. Hence, these governments lack any sense of a stable "rule of law": when their leadership changes, the rules change. In very large countries, the sheer size may hinder the applicability of the word: China was not run by a Mao regime, but South Korea was run by a Park regime, and North Korea was run by a Kim regime. When a government "falls" in a democratic parliamentary system, it just means a new prime minister will be selected; when a regime falls, we look for new rules such as whether there will even be a parliament or not. This IS how the word is used by reporters, etc.


 * Now, turn the question around: when would one ever use the word "regime" if not for Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq? This is not a highly inflammatory word, it is a slightly pejorative word for some forms of government that are not democratic. Having a pro-democratic POV is pretty much having a neutral POV. &mdash;192.117.253.254


 * I really find it difficult to read the above statement otherwise than "yes saying 'regime' is POV but see, it's the good POV". We do not want to be partial. Not even pro-democratic. We just stick to clear, documented, and not-emotionally-connotated facts. Rama 20:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You fixated on one tiny piece of what I wrote. Argue honestly by focusing on the main argument, the word in question. Please disprove this fact: "regime" is exactly the English language word widely and commonly used and understood to describe the government structure of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. "Government" is less specific. "Despotism" is wrong. And so on. Furthermore, toppling Saddam Hussein was exactly and precisely a regime change.


 * (As to what you did argue, let me disprove that by analogy. Are you in favor of banning words like "murder" from wikipedia? It's a pejorative. Some religions might approve of killing people, especially those religions favored by terrorists. Do we need to dance around an issue like that? Ask any linguist: words are all neutral, pejoratives are feelings that we attach to them. Change the word, and the pejorative will slide over too, as people discover when they try to switch from something like crippled to disabled to handicapped to special, or from colored to negro to black to of-color: noting that those words can be pejoratives is not the same as endorsing the idea, and condemning the idea does little to change the pejorative. It's just the way language works.) &mdash;192.117.253.254
 * I am sorry, but this point I am focusing on is troubling enough.
 * As for the comparisons, they are easily dismissable: "murder" is precisely defined in all codes of law (by the way, I find sentence like "Some religions might approve of killing people, especially those religions favored by terrorists" to be extremely slippery); "negro" and "crippled" are refering to specific categories of people; if I was to take your analogy, "regime" would be one of these politically fashionable words, while I suggest the use of the word "government", which would e like using "people". Rama 07:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you are advocating two things: that we use the precise definitions of words from legal codes in wikipedia, and since legal codes differ, that presumably we use the local code in effect. So, if Uday and Qusay are found not found guilty of murder by their father, that we can't use the word here. You have a very slippery POV that has no place in wikipedia. A few hundred meters from where I was writing last night, four people (you may not consider them people, but I'm using local legal codes) lay dead on the sidewalk, blown up by Islamic Jihad. (Islam is locally defined to be a religion, whether you consider it to be or not.) What happened to those four people just a few hours ago and just a few meters from here fits entirely with what I said in plain English, but plain English does not support your POV so you label it slippery. Give us all a rest. &mdash;192.117.253.254
 * I can certainly see your point, and your argument is compelling. However, there must be a point where this logic ceases to apply, at least IMO.  According to your logic, use of the term "murderous butchery of helpless innocents" could also be used for the act of murder that occurred on Friday, but surely you don't think Wikipedia should use such phrases?
 * By the way, perhaps you should consider signing up. Wikipedia has the easiest signup process I've ever seen&mdash;no email confirmation.  A useful bonus is that you can sign your name and the date with four tildes&mdash; ~ translates to (for me, now) &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 03:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 192.117.253.254 I understand that you might have very personal grievance in relation to this topic; however, emotional concerns do not have their place in an encyclopedic article. I think that putting "regime" everywhere is going to induce a diffuse imprecise and emotional negative connotation to the Saddam Hussein period; I support adopting a precise and neutral stance, and documenting the exact nature of the governance by Saddam Hussein (What the laws were like, how they were enforced, how the level of life elvoved under Saddam Hussein, etc.) so that people can judge for themselves. While being sorry for the people you refer to, I think that their arrival on this talk page is very illustrative of what should be avoided. Rama 10:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I have no personal grievance, I just happen to be staying in a hotel near a bombing, and those facts were convenient to refute your argument. I think you have repeatedly failed to address my arguments about the word "regime". Both in its narrow sense and in its broad sense, old and new, it refers to the set of rules by which a government derives power and organizes its application and transfer. Regime is absolutely the perfect word. You resent that polemicists that you disagree with use the term. I agree that it is unfortunate, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Both the rise and fall of of Saddam Hussein could/should/would be described as regime changes.


 * I don't understand what you say more than "a regime is a regime is a regime"; if there are specific arguments which you think should be discussed, could you list them ?
 * My point is that I see no necessity to use the word "regime" in the article, and I see considerale drawbacks and dangers in doing so. Among the concerns I raise is indeed the fact that repeating exactly the same term (a term which is loaded, not exclusively necessary, and not technical) will bring into question the independance of Wikipedia from some political circle -- but this is not the only problem with this, and this would be true for any subject, and circles and any term. Rama 12:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[The following section was written after some of the votes below, but it wasn't in direct response to any, so it's been moved up here. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 01:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

People, we're moving backwards (or in circles, which is the same thing). We've established that "regime" doesn't have negative connotations, according to the dictionary. "Government" doesn't have so, either, according to the same dictionary. Then we have a lot of people who "feel/think/know" that "regime" carries a pejorative undertone with it. What I'd like to determine is (sources, please) what the criteria are for calling a government a "regime", and when to call it a "governement". --Plek 22:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well this is a request for comment, right ? Obviously we are not going to solve the matter by convincing people -- else the request would not have been asked for in the first place ! So we now have 6 against and 3 in favour, and I'd rather ask wether this is a decision voting, wether other people are interested in voting (even without a 12-line explanation ! ;) ), and when the vote closes. Rama 22:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the purpose of entering an article in the Requests for comment process is to help form a consensus on the dispute in question. So far, I've only seen people either vote or state their opinion, which is why I'm trying to summarize and move the discussion along, hopefully entering a consensus state without the need to count votes. --Plek 23:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I was asking. :p But if I had something to comment about the discution above, I'd say that dictionnaries are fine, yet don't always describe the twsists of language as quickly as they appear. If someone could make a quick review of the use of "regime" and "government" in various media (say, compare Foxnews to CNN or the BBC, or the US governement to the German one, or to the UN), it might be an indication. Rama 23:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have to make the discussion jump backward, but I don't understand how "regime" doesn't have a negative connotation: So to me it would seem that the term is tendencious and should be avoided. And in any case, the term "regime" was obviously repeated and hammered by the Bush government, which was a party in the war (the UN said " Government of Iraq", for instance); this alone would make it wiser to avoid a politically loaded word. Rama 08:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen people here agree on this
 * The Oxford Dictionary say " a government, especially an authoritarian one".
 * A trivial googling on online dictionaries gives results such as "A form of government: a fascist regime. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime. ".
 * The everyday usage is apparently quite consistent with these definitions: it mean "government", with a negative connotation ("Bush regime" thing, etc...).


 * The original issue was not whether is was negative, but whether it was pejorative. No evidence has been presented that it is pejorative, and no authoritative sources such as dictionaries classify it as such.  If it was pejorative, that would make its use with Saddam's regime mere name calling.  The question people appear to be answering here is whether they consider regime "negative".  It is not clear to me what the consequence of concluding that it is negative would be.  Does this mean we can't apply negative terms to Saddam?  If regime does imply an oppressive or authoritarian government, wouldn't that merely be properly descriptive of Saddam?  Can Saddam be called a dictator or a violator of human rights?  The strange thing is, it is not even clear that regime is negative, not every dictionary gives it negative meanings, and in those that do, that I am aware of, it is not the first definition.  Thinking of regime as primarily negative would seem to be original research, since that is not yet reflected in authoritative sources.  If this is the case, then this is not something that can be resolved with a vote, since original research is not something wikipedia allows, whether people vote for it or not.--Silverback 09:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is that "regime" being negative, using it in the article would be a little bit like systematically replacing "... government..." by "...governement, which was a dictatorship,...". The point is not wether the government of Saddam Hussein was or was not a dictatorship, but the constant use of a word like "regime" might load the whole article. I think there is a risc of making the article look tendencious and unprofessional.
 * And in any case, the objection related to the systematic use of "regime" by the Bush governement stands: even if the Bush government had decided to use something like, say, "Ancient Babylon" for Bagdad, it would be wise to avoid the term just not to look like parotting them. Rama 10:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * First, as to "original research", that rule means that Wikipedia articles contain information that's already part of human knowledge. It doesn't mean that we can't do "original research" (if you can even apply that term to some Google searches) in order to make our own decision about how we'll present the information.  Assessments of notability on VfD are frequently made through Google searches.


 * Second, the issue isn't whether we can apply negative terms to Saddam. Whatever facts are relevant to the article can be included, even if they reflect badly on Saddam.  The problem with the frequent use of "regime" is that it's a way of harping on those facts over and over.  It's as if every reference to Bush were to say "the minority president Bush" or "the controversially elected Bush".  That Bush finished second in the 2000 election and that there was controversy about the vote are facts.  We state those facts where appropriate.  Having stated them, we don't keep referring to them every time Bush is mentioned.


 * No one has explained what information is lost, or how the reader is shortchanged, if "Saddam's regime" is changed to "the Iraqi government" or whatever else is appropriate in the context. Using "regime" doesn't do a good job of conveying information because, as this very discussion shows, some people think it implies an authoritarian government, and some think it doesn't. JamesMLane 00:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If using the term "Iraqi government" the reader would be shortchanged of the information that it was (a) not Iraqi and (b) not a government (not Iraqi since it consisted entirely of people from a small minority group, and not a government since it was an arbitrary rule.)  I personally favor "junta" to describe Saddam's regime, and "tyrant" to describe him personally.  Whatever the connotations, these are the most accurate descriptive terms: a junta is a rule by military officers, and a tyrant is a ruler who has absolute power. ObsidianOrder 03:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Not Iraqi" and "Not a government" ? You do realise of course that this put the mendates of people like Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush into question ?
 * The mere discussion on this talk page blatantly proves that words like "regime", "tyran", "junta" etc. are not appropriate here, since we have to keep defining and explaining them. If the were to make it into the article, what would happen ? Will we have to link to the talk page so that the reader understands exactly what was meant ?
 * I you think that the exact status of the Iraqi government and system of laws under Saddam Hussein has to be explained (I do), by all means do so in Iraqi legal system under Saddam Hussein or something like this; but putting tendencious words everywhere will add nothing to the clarity of the article, much to the contrary, and will have the main effect of making it closer to media in the FoxNews range. Rama 07:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I could so predict you were going to say that ;) "calls into question"?  When exactly was Saddam elected in a free election against another popular candidate?  When did he in fact get more than 10-15% of the vote?  Right.  I think "Baathist rule" is a nice, descriptive and encyclopedic alternative.  Or, perhaps "period of Tikriti tribe rule".  Regime is *not sufficiently accurate* since it could refer to a real government.  ObsidianOrder 14:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There was a government in Iraq prior to our invasion&mdash;that it was illegitimate by our standards makes it no less a government. It was a government largely because it was more or less cohesive and had more power than anyone or anything else trying to influence events under its claimed domain (until we came along).  It was also most certainly Iraqi, in the sense "being or pertaining to the state of Iraq". &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 03:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are arguing the wrong nuance. There is a government of Great Britain. When it falls, there will be no regime change, simply, a new government will be created. That is the difference between a government and a regime.


 * Again, my point is not to defend the government of Saddam Hussein. Its shortcomings have to be documented. But in the very interest of historical clarity, I think that this must be done by clearly documenting the rule of Saddam Hussein, rather than by forcing into the reader the idea that this governance was a bad one. Imagine for an instan what a real and naïve supporter of Saddam Hussein would think if he came on this page; if he sees "regime" everywhere, he'll think "US propaganda" and drop out (or vandalise the page, or something); Now if he sees the most neutral and respectful general stance, with links to documented, hard facts, he might want to change his mind.
 * This was what I wanted to say by refering to some governments of the USA which were elected despite they had not won the popular support; if you read somewhere that the USA is governed by a "junta", you will accurately think that the writer has an incomplete view of the situation; if he documents how and why governments can be elected in the USA with a minority of the popular vote, this will be factual information.
 * In the very shake of memory and understanding of the Saddam Hussein period, I think that the most possible neutral terms will be much stronger than conotated ones. Rama 10:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) Oppose. It strikes many people as having a pejorative connotation, and is almost always used with reference to a leader or government that the speaker dislikes (for whatever reason).  How is the reader worse off if "regime" is changed to "government", which is certainly accurate?  Would any information be lost?  It would be reasonable to note at some point that one of Bush's stated justifications for the invasion was that Saddam's government was undemocratic or dictatorial or repressive or authoritarian or whatever term Bush used.  Then the point has been conveyed and it doesn't need to be brought up, by implication, every time reference is made to the government of Iraq before the invasion. JamesMLane 19:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I understand that "regime" is not necessarily negative, especially in Britain, but I think "government" is a better term that is more neutral. I would also object to a reference to "the Bush regime". A statement like "The Baathist government was widely refered to as the 'Saddam Regime' by the American press" would be fine.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Whilst "regime" might not be a negative term by definition, its practical use mostly is (at least, here on Wikipedia). Take a look at the English Wikipedia articles using the word "regime": . Then take note of the adjectives attributed to the word in these articles. You'll find words like: harsh, brutual, oppressive, corrupt, Nazi, Marxist, fascist, authoritarian, puppet, dictatorial, apartheid. Most of these terms would be considered "negative" or "bad" by a majority of people. After that, try to find articles that use "positive" adjectives with "regime", like open, successful, friendly, peaceful, etcetera. You'll be hard pressed to find any.
 * My conclusion: "regime" is predominantly used in a negative context to describe an unwanted form of government. That makes "Iraqi regime" a perfectly valid choice of words by the current US government, but IMHO not for an NPOV encyclopedia. --Plek 22:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If regime was that negative, it would not need all those other terms with it, "regime" would be able to stand as negative on its own. Of course, the Saddam regime was an "unwanted" form of government for the Kurds and Shiites at least. Also, take note that if you change all those references to "government", then government will have all those negative terms associated with it.  Governments and regimes are both coercive organizations, so perhaps it is not surprising that their associations are negative. I notice you had to do original research to reach your conclusions rather than go to authoritative sources for word meaning, like dictionaries.--Silverback 02:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with you that governments and regimes are both coercive organizations. That's why it's interesting to find out whether the two words are used interchangeably in the spoken and written language, or that there is a certain contextual preference for one over the other. As English is a living, native language (as opposed to an extinct language), the way people use the language says as much about the meaning of a word as the formal definition in reference works. If we find, as I did in my puny Google search, that one of the two terms ("regime") is used primarily in a negative context&mdash;despite the fact that the reference works tell us that the two could be used interchangeably&mdash;one could conclude that the cultural prepossession is to associate the word with something bad. For me, that is enough reason to avoid the word when a strict NPOV policy is to be adhered to (as on Wikipedia). I hope this clarifies things. --Plek 14:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Another example is the word "propaganda". Its use prior to the Cold War (or thereabouts) was strictly benign, and the formal definition of the word in the dictionary still is. However, it has acquired a negative connotation in "The West" over the years due to the selective use of the word to describe the spreading of ideas by "evil" institutions (i.e. the Soviet Union). --Plek 14:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The American Heritage dictionary is known for being up-to-date, in dictionary terms that is probably within 10 years and describes no negative connotations, so this NPOV move against "regime" is original research and equating NPOV with a nihilistic moral equivilence. Are we going to ban "Saddam" and "Hitler" next because of their negative connotations?--Silverback 19:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: the term seems to carry a negative connotation. While there are obviously plenty of negative things to say about the Saddam Hussein period, I fear that using the term "regime" only for Saddam Hussein convoys the premices of a simplistic "black and white" description of History (the Iraqi governement put in office by the USA is even less elected than Saddam Hussein was, but noone serious would call it a "regime"). Eventually, I fear that this "black and white" description would tend to fade the fact that even ruled by a dictator, Iraq was a sovereign nation at the time of the US-led invasion -- very negative thing if one should attempt to get a subtle and complete understanding of the events. Rama 23:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the current Iraqi government is called a regime in this very article, search "Allawi regime". --Silverback 19:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --Christiaan 9:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The English word is cognate with the French word for a system of government and probably acquired negative connotations through the spread, in English, of the phrase ancien regime to refer to the pre-Revolutionary French monarchy. Government is the preferred word in neutral reporting.  It does not imply legitimacy, only the power to govern. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose "Regime" is inappropriate in most instances. "Government" is correct and will always be more neutral regardless of popular views of the connotations and dictionary defintions, especially when one considers popular usage and historical basis of the word. Related words all involve rigid structure and harsh control, as a king (regis) would. Think "Regiment," and its military structure connotations, "Regimen": Governmental rule or control. and "Regimented": To subject to uniformity and rigid order.) Every country has a governing body, and that governing body can always be called the "government" of that country. Similiarily, "regime change" should be changed to the simpler "overthrowing the government" and/or "military coup." Those in favour of keeping "regime" may want to consider the use of "Bush administration." Like "regime," "administration" is a vague representation which can have perjorative connotations and is likewise inaccurate in describing government actions rather than actions performed only by the so-called members of the Bush administration. The player is instead the bureaucracy--unless you want to change most of the instances of US government to the "Reagan administration," the "Clinton adminstration," to ascribe group responsibility to government action, and to further acsribe responsibility to every single person involved, rather than a reified government which is simpler and in popular usage. Yes I went off on a tangent. Anyway, I oppose "Iraqi regime," "Iraqi government" is more neutral.--Ben 00:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - POV - if we want to give information to the reader let's do it explicitly, rather than just exposing them to words with negative connotations when describing a particlar person Ojw 21:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. The word has a negative connotation.  Dictionaries typically don't list connotations; usage indicates connotations.  And while we may all agree that Saddam deserved the negativity, that is nevertheless a value judgment.  Value judgments are POV, no matter how popular. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 02:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In favor

 * 1) Favor. Please see the discussion on talk:Regime. No authoritative sources label it as perjorative, there is a secondary definition in one source that says it sometimes implies an "oppressive" government. This may be why it is sometimes viewed as pejorative when applied to governments you like, but this is being properly applied to Saddam's regime.--Silverback 21:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Favor Accurate depiction of the government of the country at the time. Johntex 00:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) * Then you'd also favor terms such as "The Bush regime", "The Carter Regime", "The Blair Regime" and so on? Or could it be that this term is not in fact an accurate, neutral description of a governing power? Personally I'd favor dictatorship, which is an accurate and honest description of the Ba'athist government under Saddam Hussein. I can refer to the Blair government as a regime (but would not because I don't like the negativ connotations).  I could not refer to the Blair government as a dictatorship.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) **A qualified yes. You probably know (but others here may not) the dictionary.com definition:
 * 5) **#A form of government: a fascist regime.
 * 6) **#A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
 * Webster's online is similar, but uses the example of a socialist regime. So, the definition would fit, even for those governments.  It would be an especially good fit in an article about an effort to oust one of those goverments (whether by election or war).
 * To the extent there are any negative associations with the word "regime" they are justified by the nature of the "regime" in question. In conclusion, the word is technically appropriate for the govenments you mention, more so if the writing is about changing the government.  It is even more appropriate here.  As you know, words are not black and white.  The fact that the word may not subjectively seem quite as good a fit for the Bush or Carter administrations, does not prove it is not a good fit here.  Johntex 01:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree, to describe the fall of Saddam's "regime" but not to describe it as being taken down by Bush's "regime", would be an example of systemic bias, which is far from appropriate. —Christiaan -  &#9742;   11:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think that the term is especially not appropriate "if the writing is about changing the government", since there is a great risc of inducing passive acceptations of the "good versus evil" rethorics of the Bush governement; it is not that these rethorics have to be fought here, but they must be exposed in the clearest possible way. Refering to "regime" in the context of the invasion of Iraq is especially slipery in this optic. Rama 13:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Favor Government implies  some form of law based regime in which rullers offer security to its citzens IMO.  Regime has a wider meaning and is hence more neutral in this context.
 * Dejvid 21:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning doesn't seem to follow; if there's one thing Saddam "offered" it was security (there's about one hundred thousand dead Iraqis who could vouch for that). In any case 'government' has a very clear definition and Saddam most definitely headed one. Christiaan 23:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What you are saying that the current regime in Irak has also failed to provide security for its citizens. I wouldn't argue with "Bremmer regime" - that's descriptive.   Do you really claim that Saddam offered security?  Kanan Makiya (Cruelty and Silence) on the anfal campaign against the Kurds "The real hallmark of the operation was the bureaucratically organized, routinely administered mass killing of village inhabitants for no other reason than that they happened to live in an area that was now designated as "prohibited for security reasons".Dejvid 14:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Dejvid, just for clarification, you're saying that any government is a regime, but not every regime is a government? If so, then it would be accurate to refer to "the Bush regime" -- indeed, it would be more neutral, because it wouldn't imply that it's a law-based regime, and some people argue that there are respects in which Bush's rule is not law-based.  Would your reasoning therefore support the phrase "the Bush regime"? JamesMLane 20:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well yes you're right. Only this.  If someones says  "It is far from clear to me if America is a law based state" they making quite a serious accusation.  Indeed in relation to Guantanomo bay such an accusation has been made.  However, at the end of the day, I would have no problem with Bush regime.  Indeed I can think of several contexts when Bush regime would be the most appropriate term and not even by implication negative. Dejvid 21:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, if you Google for the phrase "Bush regime", you'll find it overwhelmingly used in a negative context. His admirers don't use the phrase.  Several people made the same point on Talk:Bush regime, which is why Bush regime is now a redirect instead of an article. JamesMLane 12:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Favor since my comments at the top don't seem to have been included in the vote count. --BTfromLA 03:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Saddam and friends are not in any sense of the word a "government". "Regime" seems about right.  I think both the dictionary definition and the connotations fit the facts.  ObsidianOrder 08:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but why do you say "Saddam and friends are not in any sense of the word a "government"" ? It obviously make little sense to deny that Saddam Hussein and his colaborators were the Iraqi government, doesn't it ? (we can dig up a gadzillion references to the "Iraqi government" by members of the Bush government, for instance).
 * As for "I think both the dictionary definition and the connotations fit the facts", I understand (and share) your dislike of the government of Saddam Hussein, but I must point out that notions like "the connotations fit[s] the facts" is very slippery. Can you imagine what the articles would look like if our little SS-88 started "fitting connotations to facts" ? Absence of conotation is precisely what makes the strengh of an encyclopedia. Rama 08:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears ObsidianOrder is not here to improve the article but to improve his regimes reputation in this regard. —Christiaan 09:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rama - I agree that generally there would be ambiguity and so it is better to be safe. However (to do some quick paraphrasing of the dictionary): governments govern, i.e. exercise authority and administer; rulers rule , i.e. exercise control, command or dominion.  Saddam and cronies were an arbitrary "rule" and not a "government".  This is what I meant.  I don't think anyone would argue that Saddam had "authority" (="just consent of the governed"), hence he cannot be the "government".  "Regime"  is, if anything, an insufficiently descriptive word since perfectly legitimate governments may also be described as regimes (this is a very old-fashioned use, though).  "Tyrant"  and "junta"  might be more appropriate.  I am indeed more concerned with accuracy than with connotations, but I will call a tyrant a tyrant and not some nice euphemism.  ObsidianOrder 10:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well, I don't think one can argue that the government of Saddam Hussein did not "exercise authority and administer". the difference with "exercise control, command or dominion" is obviously very blury, subjective, and difficult to define. Don't forget that Saddam Hussein was consitutionally elected within his Party; that his government caused an impressive improvement of Iraq in the 70s, making it he leader of the region in terms of hospitals, infant mortality, level of life... things are not black and white. Also, a number of countries with comparable ruling authorities presently enjoy quite good relationships with the West -- notably being recognised as legitimate governments. Denying the term "government" to the goverment of Saddah Hussein is really not easy to defend -- and is plain weird: everybody (USA, UN,...) used the word "government" when Saddam Hussein was in power.
 * All articles which talk about Saddam Hussein already clearly document the fact that he was not a good leader, so reminding that is every sentence is useless as beating a dead horse; but it is also negative in the sense that it constantly induces an emotional connotation in the article, something which is highly undesirable for a good encyclopedia. Rama 10:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "not a good leader"?! That has to be the understatement of the century.  Saddam's "government" killed off 2% of the adult population (at least) during their time in power.  That's not a government.  Sounds pretty black and white to me.  I notice that the Saddam article does not mention the word "genocide"?  That's not encyclopedic, that's a whitewashing.  ObsidianOrder 12:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Saddam Hussein also achieved the highest level of life in the whole history of Iraq (see infant mortality, bumber of beds per capita, etc.); these numbers, the best of the region (far higher than Saudi Arabia, notably) drop significantly after the first Gulf War, with the embargo. In spite of this, there are numerous arguments which indicate that he was overally not a good leader. This is the kind of subtilities which I think would be better adressed by a full-grade artcile than by vague, constant and tendencious qualificatives. Rama 16:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) A few points: The Hussein government clearly was a dictatorial regime by the definition of the term, the military overthrow of his government was clearly an invasion by the definition of THAT term, and this entire debate is proof of why current events should be off-limit for wikipedia, because no one is capable of being calm about them.  You don't see anyone wringing their hands over whether Pinochet's government was a regime, do you?  And I speak as one who happened to oppose Bush's war, voted against him twice in fact; but Hussein WAS a dictator, his government WAS a regime, and his overthrow WAS an invasion.  Those who seek to cast them in other terms seem more like they are trying desperately to find a way to avoid repeating Bush's words.  Give it up.  Bush may be wrong, but he chose the right words to be wrong with.  -Kasreyn


 * I don't think that anyone isn't calm about it, it sounds like a very friendly a reasonable discussion -- note the similarity of the views discussed here. Your politic opinions are yours. The point is not whether the government of Saddam Hussein can be qualified of a regime, the discussion here is whether it would be wise to constantly use this term to refer to the governments of the Saddam Hussein era. The invasion of Iraq was in contradiction with the Security Council of the UN, yet it would be unwise and tendencious to constantly say "illegal invasion"; in the same way, the nature of the governance of Saddam Hussein has to be clearly and scientifically discussed somewhere, but the conclusions of this discussions must not be forced into the mind of the reader. Rama 16:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The title of the entry is not NPOV!
The mission of the USA was to liberate Iraqis. I am not saying we must change the title to "2003 Liberation of Iraq," but invasion is not NPOV!


 * Well, the liberation, if it was a liberation, involved an invasion. So did the liberation of Europe. The Battle of Normandy says so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * See also: Invasion --Plek 22:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nontheless, Merriam-Webster defines invasion as: 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder, so using only that as a source, I can see anon's point about NPOV issues. However, I think at the moment this article has more pressing issues than the exact wording of the title. --Plek 22:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Apart from it being only one definition and that it is a secondary definition qualified by the word especially, I still don't see how that would be a contradiction. They may have a good propaganda system but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not there for conquest and plunder. &#8212;Christiaan 23:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Conquest", our inaccurate article notwithstanding, is the act or process of winning a war. The title is a good NPoV one. --Jerzy(t) 15:11, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
 * What word do you suggest instead though? Incursion, offensive, assault, storm, onslaught? I think invasion is the best word to use here. This particular "liberation" (a characterization of the actions, not a description of the actions) involved the military entering the soveriegn state of Iraq, and then fighting the military there. Invasion is accurate in terms of the action and I don't think you can find a simple and less negative word.--Ben 20:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, how they can tie themselves up trying to reconcile what's going on in their heads with actuality. &#8212;Christiaan 22:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Invasion" does have a negative connotation, and seems pejorative. Perhaps "2003 Bathist Roundup in Iraq", or "2003 military assistance of Iraq", or "2003 removal of the usurpers of Iraq". Invasion seems more negative than "regime", but less negative than "dictator". --Silverback 21:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You're surely joking. Do you honestly believe those are less POV than the comparatively dry "invasion of Iraq"? Graft 21:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh dear... I envision a trend of "Pearl Harbour preemptive strike", "Pacification intervention in Poland", and "Riot control in Varsovia"... Understatement party, anyone ? Rama 21:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, Rama, Pearl Harbor's in the U.S., so I'll thank you to use the American spelling when you create your new article. :)  As for this article, I think the title's fine.  JamesMLane 23:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If people really think that "invasion" has NPOV issues, then 2003 Attack of Iraq might be an alternative. --Plek 23:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If invasion were POV (just taking a let's suppose), replacing it with the loaded word liberation is not a step forwards. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A quick look at List of invasions can probably convince everybody that this particular event has its place there. In particular, you'll notice "1944 invasion of Normandy", "1944 invasion of Germany" and "1945 invasion of Japan": the goodies can invade the badies ! Rama 23:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not too late to create a List of usurper removals. Yes, I am kidding... --Plek 23:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

heh, "2003 Bathist Roundup in Iraq", that's pretty good. ;) &#8212;Christiaan 23:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"2003 not-yet-successful WMD hunt" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haha &#8212;Christiaan 01:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll put my vote in for "conquest". --Tothebarricades.tk 03:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Bathist Roundup": is that a new Monsanto product? --Plek 05:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree the title of the article is not perfect from a NPOV perspective. However, I think it is within the bounds of acceptability, as would be the use of the word "regime" to describe the former government of Iraq. Johntex 17:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Most countries just call it an invasion, because the name "hostile armed assault without a reasonably good excuse against a sovereign nation with an inferior military", while fairly neutral and accurate, is simply too long. OK, so "invasion" does have a negative connotation, but the situation is not very positive, so that seems only fitting.  Still, it is definitely good that those who see it differently have this page, where they can discuss the issue and try to promote their views.
 * --Verdlanco (talk) 18:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If anyone seriously objects to the word "invasion", other acceptable alternatives are "war" and "attack." Maurreen 05:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No one seriously objects, not reasonably anyway. —Christiaan 08:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I seriously think that "invasion" is as negative and POV as "regime" was and that those who objected to "regime" are being inconsistent if they don't also object to invassion. I did not object to "regime".--Silverback 08:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm becoming a big fan of "Bathist Roundup&trade;". Just look at the amazing can of worms range of metaphorical headlines that can result from this title:
 * "Bathist regime mutates into Roundup Ready Insurgency"
 * "Liberal application of Roundup in Iraq leads to resistance; US considers sending more troops to eradicate weeds"
 * "Iraqi citizens saving seeds of democracy face patent infringement lawsuits"
 * See? "2003 Bathist Roundup&trade;" is the way to go! ;-) --Plek 08:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the fact that "baathist roundup" at last makes the case for the weapons of mass destruction, since we manage to put "Baath" and "chemical products" in the same sentance ! I am almost certain that this somehow justifies the invasion of Iran, too. :p Rama 09:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, let's not forget that the conquest of Iraq did not have as its primary motivation the liberation of its people. It was mainly about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear weapons program, which the Bush administration guaranteed (based on secret evidence they couldn't release for security reasons) that Hussein had and said needed to be removed/disabled because Hussein was going to give them to Al Qaeda, despite the latter denouncing Hussein's secular government as Satanists who should be overthrown. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of invading a country because one doesn't approve of its form of government, not even Bush supporters seriously claim that they would have been allowed to do so if they hadn't presented WMD removal as their main goal. Kaz 15:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi - what about just "2003 Iraq War"? It's simple, non-controversial, googles well. Graft 17:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * US and its coalition allies did in fact invade, and placing a euphemism in the title in order to suggest that they didn't do so is not only POV, it's delusional. Wikipedia clearly acknowledges facts of the matter in Bay of Pigs Invasion, same deal with US Invasion of Afghanistan. People aren't seriously considering replacement titles for Iraq article, are they?


 * "2003 Iraq War" would be a terrible replacement in my view. As though Iraq started it! As though it stopped in 2003!


 * Why US and coalition allies invaded is a different question entirely, and a divisive one that need not be addressed in the title. But they did invade, and title should reflect that fact, as it does in articles on Bay of Pigs and Afghanistan.BrandonYusufToropov 17:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 'War' makes it sound like Iraq is attacking America while America attacks Iraq. 'Invasion' is more accurate.


 * Surely, the recent election makes you realized that American did not attack Iraq, it attacked the Saddam regime and the apparatus, including the Bathists and feydaeen. The coalition rescued the people you saw voting in that election. "2003 rescue of Iraq".--Silverback 20:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, but we just say that the USA invaded Iraq, it's just shorter; just like the attack on Pearl Harbour is generally not refered to as "preemptive strike on the naval forces of the USA to obtain a wider diplomatic margin of manoeuver for the Empire of Japan". Also, the official reasons for the invasion never was the liberation of the people of Iraq, but the search for Weapons of Mass destruction. Should we say "2003 rescue of Iraq by mistake" ?
 * By the way, the results of the election are not yet known. It would be safer to waid a few weeks and see what will come out of this, just in case... with the Sunni boycotting the elections, and most of the lists being more motivated by the tribal tradition of the country than by real political programs, there are still chances that we'd be heading toward an Afghanistan-like situation. Rama 23:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop kidding around Silverback. —Christiaan 23:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read through the entire current discussion page now - sheez - and reached the conclusion that Silverback is merely joking - much like it is presumed IZAK was doing throughout the recent Policy discussion on wether or not a nipple-photo would be offensive in the nipple article. He has to be pulling everyone's collective legs, so I suggest to end the joke now. --TVPR 20:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, where were you during the "regime" discussion? I view this discussion as a reductio ad absurdem of that one, and humourous as well.--Silverback 11:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I never thought it likely to have such discussions at all, in the naïve faith that there was consensus that various dictionary definitions were somewhat correct. Contrary to you, I see no conclusions rising from these discussions, not even worthless ones - ergo, my opinion is that they ought to be dropped completely. "2003: Liberation of Iraq", good show indeed. --TVPR 12:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about "2003 intervention in Iraq" —Galloisian 13:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I opposed the use of regime and don't mind the use of invasion. This is not inconsistent&mdash;I believe that the former has a substantially negative connotation, while the latter's is only very slight if it exists at all. I expect that a Google on invasion will support me. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 01:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I humbly propose what I think is the most NPOV title possible: 2003 U.S. Military Operation In Iraq. - Chardish 21:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you therefore propose changing the Afghanistanand Bay of Pigs articles so that the word invasion does not appear there eiter? There is no POV problem with "invasion" -- it's a simple statement of fact. If we didn't invade that country I'd like to know what we did do to it. PS: We conduct military operations in South Korea, too. This is different, and deserves to be treated differently.BrandonYusufToropov 12:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Invasion is a completely neutral word as far as I'm concerned. --Khendon 13:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Second that. Invasion is not only neutral but completely appropriate.  Certainly there is a lot of controversy on these issues, but regardless of opinion, it was technically an invasion.  While every attempt possible should be made to make this issue neutral, one cannot go overboard with connotations of words.  Connotations change over time and as far as war goes, "invasion" is as neutral as it gets.  --Peterius

There is nothing non-NPOV about the title of the article, 'invasion' is a reasonably neutral world, and certainly the best available to describe the events that happened. Most of the alternatives proposed are either absurd or scarily Orwellian (or both). Nick Fraser 08:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only title or heading this article should have is OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM...reasons being included that this is the U.S. Military's operational term for the action and the U.S. Military has by far the largest number of personnel. I wonder if the Shias, Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Assyrians, Jews and Christians who have lived in Iraq under the totalitarian and arbitrary rule of Saddam would consider the operation to be anything other than a liberation from Saddam.--MONGO 09:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I am a little bit confused about the argument that "the U.S. Military has by far the largest number of personnel"; for what I know, U.S. military personel do not consitute a majority of Wikipedia users...
 * Well, in any case, if you take the Battle of Normandy as a reference, you see that "Operation Overlord" redirects to Battle of Normandy; you will also notice that the two first sentences of the article refer to Allied forces as "invading". Since the battle of Normandy is undoubtly much less controversial than the invasion of Iraq, I think that we can safely assume that
 * "Invasion" does not have any particularly negative connotation
 * The satisfaction of the population does not have an incidence on whether Wikipedia names the event by its military code or not.
 * I hope that this might help easing the scruples that one might hold toward the term "invasion". Cheers ! Rama 09:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What's confusing? Glance at troop numbers in Iraq. I don't care about the use of the word invasion, but definitely feel that calling the event OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM is ion keeping with what it is referred to by the leaders of the largest number of foreign troops engaged in such event...or is that too positive...I mean, does it go against your obvious bias against the action?--MONGO 09:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Too positive?? Haha, it's nothing short of propaganda. —Christiaan 09:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine, let's allow the Gallup Poll to do a survey on Iraqis who now don't live under the chokehold of Saddam and see what they think...I doubt many of them will consider the event to be an invasion...many already feel liberated...but you won't hear about that reality in the European press or from the BBC which are notoriously anti Bush and in some ways anti American propaganda peddlers...the items and phrasing you protect on this page are propaganda beyong any shadow of a doubt.--MONGO 09:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think that it would appear so positive (since it would be quite clear that it would have to be rad with quote marks as a citation), but my concern would mainly be that
 * It wouldn't be so nice for the allies of the U.S.A. who participated in the invasion (they did it on their own sovereign choice, so using the U.S. codename might seem a little bit like they were under U.S. command)
 * The military code might be a little bit too technical and not necessarly known of everybody outside the U.S. military. Lots of people in Wikipedia are not U.S. citizens (not speaking of being in the military)
 * The use of the official word concerns me as it would seem that Wikipedia doesn't have so much distance from the U.S. administration; also, a consequence of this would be that further namings by the U.S. administration would be reflected within Wikipedia articles (that is not only ponctual cited for reference, but used as the main terminology all through the article), thusly making it vulnerable to the effcts of the "public communication" by any particular government. Rama 09:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand by my last comment. You are also entitled to your opinion.--MONGO 09:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

J.J.'s edits
You changed "No operational links between the Saddam Hussein government and Al-Qaida were found" to "Operational links between the Saddam Hussein government and Al-Qaida remain disputed, lacking clear new evidence"

Unless you can provide evidence of operational links between Saddam Hussein's governement and Al Quaida, the original text is not wrong. Links have not been found. Only a handful of people would even contend that the issue is disputed. The claim wasn't even made until the eve of the war, and then it was only the US president and close associates who conjured up this link between previously disparate parties. Why do you give this claim the "true until proven false" standard?

You changed "Installation of Allawi government" to "Creation of Iraq Interim Governing Council"

Do you have any argument that somebody other than the United States government was involved in the "installation" of Mr Allawi? What is the objection to this article's original statement? How is the new statement any less POV (the stated reason for your changes)


 * What evidence is there that the United States installed Allawi? It was my understanding that there was a UN envoy, working with the governing council and other key leaders of ethnic groups to agree on an interim leader and plan.  As part of this process, after some candidates did not want the job, the council selected Allawi who was willing to take it and the UN envoy blessed the plan.  I hadn't realized that the article stated the US installed Allawi, I don't think there is any evidence for that.  Although he was not the US choice, he has proven to be a good leader.--Silverback 15:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You changed "Capture of Hussein & loyalists" with "Capture / killing of Hussein, his senior officials, and various loyalists".

Do you believe, with enough evidence to include it in an encyclopaedia, that part of the mission involved killing Saddam Hussein, his senior officials, and various loyalists? If not, why include it in the article?

Ojw 23:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Disputed" Lancet study
I removed the word "disputed" because I just want to make sure this isn't a bit of original research. In which journal has the study been disputed? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The study has been disputed by numerous sources. I will do a roundup for you when a have some time tomorrow. ObsidianOrder 13:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These dispute either the methodology or interpretation or both: ,  , , , , . A few critiques on blogs:,. I added "disputed" back in. ObsidianOrder 20:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. The first link seems to be wrong--it's a Number 10 Downing Street press briefing but it doesn't seem to have anything about the study (or any study). The second link is excellent. I propose that we footnote it because it is pretty concise and, I think we can probably all agree, fair in its criticism of the Lancet findings. I didn't look at the others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the 10 Downing St website seems to have non-permanent urls. The first page is at now but it will probably move again. Not much specific info there but it shows the UK government has consistently disputed the findings. I agree that footnoting the FCO statement is a good idea, thank you for that. ObsidianOrder 21:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks are due to you for some excellent research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support for Saddam in Arab World
TDC, make good use of your browser's "Find in page" function: see the section Countries supporting and opposing the war. Your edit is really to trivial to fight over, and this article is ridiculous in its repetitiveness irregardless, so I don't mean to belabor the point. Anyway... Graft 07:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Worst article in Wikipedia
As expected, this is the most POV article in Wikipedia in my opinion. The entire thing needs to be eliminated...--MONGO 10:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So it's really worse than George W. Bush? Could you be more specific about the nature of its failings? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is.--MONGO 07:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty worse. I agree with Tony that you could go into more detail. Whatever you want to be done with the article, this isn't going to accomplish it. To fix things, we need to know what to fix, and going "destroy this because that's what I want!" has low chances to succeed. -- Kizor 11:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Relax...I didn't edit the article! To begin with the title is POV...Invasion of Iraq makes it sound like Genghis Khan marched into Iraq.
 * Yes, it was not Genghis Khan, it was the USA led by Georges Bush, but that is mentionned in the article.
 * And how terrible that is!!! I mean, here are these mean nasty Americans and all they want is Iraqi oil...sure, that's why oil is MORE expensive in the U.S. now than it was before the war started...get real. Invasion is a bit POV to be sure...it was a liberation from the rule of Saddam...ask almost any Shite, Kurd, Marsh Arab, Jew, Christian, Assyrian or anyone else oppressed by Saddam.--MONGO 10:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The landing of British, Canadian, US, French, Polish,... troops in Normandy, which led to the liberation of France from Nazi Germany, is commonly called an "invasion". It would thus seem that "invasion" is not incompatible with "liberation". On the other hand, "invasion" focuses on the technical aspects of the conquest and does not prejudge of the liberation nature of the act.
 * The article introduction makes it sound as though the U.S. went out on a limb and there is nothing noting Tony Blair's heavy involvement. The article fails to disclose full troop deployments by supporting countries...in fact, though Canada has said it will not send troops, at least 3 dozen adviosrs are in Iraq as we speak and there have been 2 to 4 Canadian frigates in the Persian Gulf since the early stages of the war...this isn't mentioned at all.
 * France trains Iraqi personel and has a naval presence in the Persian Gulf as well...
 * But you failed to address the fact that Canada, who has made it "official" that they will not particiate in the Iraq liberation and democratization still has a presence there.--MONGO 10:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Iraq is a strategic place, as is the Persian Gulf. Any nation, be it opposed or supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq, has an interest in marking a presence there. Thusly, the presence of Canadian personal is not incompatible with a pacifist stance of their governement. Similarly, France, which is well-known in the USA for its pacifist stance in this affair, has a presence in the region, though it noone would serioulsy argue that it is somehat related to the "Coallition of the Willing".
 * It would have been unwise of anyone to have a presence there if they were outright opposed to the the liberation. My point it that the article is POV and inaccurate in it's numerical listing and it's openness with the full evidence.--MONGO 20:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The article equates weapons inspections with U.S. espionage...of course it is...but the article is worded to make it seem as though this was done covertly, as if that is some secret.
 * Hans Blix stated that some US personel of the UN still had ties of a disturbing naature with their home country, which is normalyy not permited by the status of UN employees.
 * 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...it was generally understood and that is why the resolution passed 100%! What the heck else could be done to Iraq in addition to the sanctions and ostricization fromn the rest of the world...Then France et al decided to try and change their previous understanding of the wording when they saw that their investments in Iraq would be unremitted if a change of government occurred.
 * That is of course very interesting, but is both strikingly similar to what is said in some neo.conservative circles, and difficult to prove. As far as I know, the stance of France can be fairly well explained by the fact that it is highly unusual to start a war on the sole basis of a ten-year-old resolution; and that France saw the invasion as a vastly sub-optimal way to achieve the aims oficially stated by the government of the USA.
 * Then I say your viewpoint is of the left and biased as such.--MONGO 10:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not say that I endorsed the explaination, merely that it can be argued and supported by strong arguments. Also, dismissing this point of view is difficult, since is it held by a vast majority of people in the world, notably an overwelming proportion of the population of major contributors to the "Coallition of the Willing", such as the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan for instance.
 * Linking decisions of liberation to some right wing neo think tank is also ludicrus...the same agenda was pursued with less intent by the Clinton administration...
 * I fail to remember Clinton invading Iraq, or even trying and certainly not tying so hard as to neglect double checking of his sources to the point which we have witnessed in 2002 and 2003.
 * You have memeory loss then...cruise missles, repeated bombings whenerver Saddam (almost every time) failed to abide by the latest UN resolution...or do you refer, as some leftist do, to this as a "cold war"?--MONGO 10:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Cruise missiles do not qualify as an invasion, do they ? Rama 10:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No and they hardly constitute a cold war situation either. The 1991 war never really ended...hence the ongoing UN resolutions thoughout the 1990's.--MONGO 20:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * most of the critique that discusses the reasons some were opposed to the war include 4 out of 6 dealing with "hydrocarbon" issues...yet there is not one link to a source...surely one could come up with more specific challenges than the same tired old innuedo that Bush was only trying to help out all his robber baron oil chums...--MONGO 07:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The other reasons are no more documented. It is probably an indication that they are discussed more in detail later, is it not ? Rama 08:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * One problem is the dual nature of some of the terms, they can't represent a middle ground. In the first paragraph it seems likely, to me, that there would be those who questioned the primacy of America in the invasion.  This would not be questioned in terms of military strength but instead because of implication.  This article will always seem POV to many because it will be read by each side with a paranoia as if the article is attempting to attack their viewpoint.  I am not sure how on such a heated issue this can be eliminated. gren 11:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. 119 07:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "Invasion" is not POV, again, it is what occured. The article actually isn't too bad. You just think it's biased because you're looking at it from a far-right fairy tale "liberation" perspective which has no basis in reality. And Wikipedia is unfortunately part of the dreaded "reality-based community" so we can't write articles like Republican Party propaganda pieces. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The fairy tale is yours and it's right here...in this article. Well, too bad that attempts by left wing loonies to call this a reality based community also fail to provide truth to the readers that haplessly stumble into these pages...looks like the situation in Iraq is slowly becoming more stable, and Democracy seems like not such a bad idea to the MAJORITY that live there...God forbid that things work out there as we sure wouldn't want the current administrations policies to go down in history as successes...the article isn't too bad...nope, you're right about that...IT's Horrible!--MONGO 20:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the right wing fairy tale is a belief that there are no valid criticisms of U.S. policy because every "POV battle" that I've seen on wikipedia has been "conservatives" trying to prevent the argument of "liberals" from being included. We all want true democracy to succeed in Iraq, but in response to your post I would say that a MAJORITY don't believe true democracy is possible with an occupying foreign army within a given country.  Liberty is the only thing you can have only if you are willing to give it to others.  It seems the Iraqi resistance started mainly because of the effort to privatize and sell off Iraq's oil assets (pillage), this news just came out today. http://www.gregpalast.com/opeconthemarch.html zen master    T  20:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually Mongo, this encyclopedia has a systemic bias issue related to the fact that most editors white, male, from a white collar background, and American; people who are most likely to support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. You might do better simply to contribute to the article rather than filling up the talk page with this shrill. —Christiaan 21:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that is an attempt to silence...so who is trying to prevent the argument? I prefer to argue it out here than engage in edit warring. As far as conservatives battling liberals and that constituting every POV battle...that is another falsehood..there are hundreds of ongoing POV arguments that have nothing to do with politics. Belief that the Iraqi resistence is mainly due to oil deeds and over who owns it is another childish innuedo that this whole thing is about oil.--MONGO 21:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So oil is a non-factor in Iraq? If you aren't saying that then why the "childish innuendo" rhetoric?  Iraq started pricing their oil in Euros in 2000, is there an article on Dollar hegemony or Petro dollar on wikipedia somewhere? zen master    T  21:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No the earlier post by you stated the falsehood that the resistance was a knee jerk to the dubious privatization and selling off of oil assets. Democrats have a tendency to always link the war to Bush and oil...which is a childish innuendo...in my opinion.--MONGO 07:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that this is an international project. You're welcome to call it all the names in your repertoire but remember that politics becomes a little more complex when you leave the two-party (some say one party) borders of the U.S. —Christiaan 09:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Your response is an obvious indication to me that your reasons for "contributing" to this article have much less to do with educating than they do with pushing your point of view and political agenda.--MONGO 10:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why would the Iraqi's oppose privatization of oil assets if they got fair market value, especially since those assets would probably be worth more under efficient private management than they would in the typical corrupt and nepotic state run enterprise?--Silverback 22:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the criticisms I've read have been that the terms are/were not fair, that the Iraqi government would then be required to buy U.S. centric technology, like cell phones, forced into the "privatization" of government services, forced to price their oil in dollars as opposed to euros (the choice should be up to them), forced to switch from a socialist society that had offered free health care to the U.S. health care model etc. zen master    T  23:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canada and the invasion
MONGO says: ''The article introduction makes it sound as though the U.S. went out on a limb and there is nothing noting Tony Blair's heavy involvement. The article fails to disclose full troop deployments by supporting countries...in fact, though Canada has said it will not send troops, at least 3 dozen adviosrs are in Iraq as we speak and there have been 2 to 4 Canadian frigates in the Persian Gulf since the early stages of the war...this isn't mentioned at all.''

That's interesting, but it seems to be a very weak and tenuous attempt to tie Canadian military presence in the Gulf with involvement in the invasion of Iraq. If there is any suggestion that Canada was involved in the invasion, however, if for instance Bush said as much, or covert involvement had been suggested, then that suggestion should be reported as such in the article.

To say that at least 3 dozen advisors are in Iraq is neither here nor there. There is no ongoing invasion at the moment and many countries have sent military aid to the occupying forces and to the new government. This article is about the invasion itself, so if Canada sent troops there then we should mention it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't my point...I was alluding to the lack of detail and accuracy in this article...hence also the lack of neutrality as well...they oftentimes go hand in hand I would say. Furthermore, the article goes beyond the invasion...as some wish to call it...unless we are discussing Spanish withdrawal a year or more later as part of the initial liberation movement.--MONGO 07:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you then say precisely what the article should say about Canada? Even better, edit the article to put that statement into it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So, this three dozen Canadian advisors that Mongo referred to? Mongo, are you talking about:
 * Individual Canadians hired to work for Blackwater, or some other private army?
 * Canadian Military personnel or Intelligence agents covertly sent to Iraq?
 * Canadian Military personnel who were on a regularly scheduled exchange program, when the US unit they were attached to got sent to the Gulf? The CBC evening news had an item about the half-dozen or so Canadians on board one of the big USN carriers a week or two before the invasion.
 * Individual Canadians who sign up for a hitch in Iraq, either for Blackwater, or the USMC, have nothing to do with Canadian policy.
 * I am very skeptical that Chretien sent covert personnel to fight in Iraq. And, if he had, I am sure loose lips in the Bush administration would have "out"ed them.
 * As for Canadian Military personnel seconded to the USN... If they basically got a six month, or one year, "leave of absence", then, whether they stayed, or came home, implies nothing about Canadian policy.  FWIW, all the canucks on that carrier where enlisted guys.
 * The Canadian naval presence in the Gulf dates back to the 1991 war, and does not implies any official support for the current war.
 * I visited the sites of some of those Canadian naval vessels. And the official history of one of them said that they had been participating in the invasion, or reasonable equivalent.  I attributed this to wishful thinking on the part of someone junior.  I considered writing the Minister of Defense, but decided it didn't really matter. -- Geo Swan 19:04, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
 * The continuous presence in the Gulf dating back to the 1991 war implies that a cease fire and not a peace treaty was in place. The official continuing of that presence during the 2003 invasion, was material support that contributed to the security of coalition forces.--Silverback 12:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)