Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 6

Shortening Length
I suggest a section of the page be identified to be moved to its own page. This is because the page's length has exceded suggested guidelines. I suggest that the section about News Reporting be considered for being created as its own seperate page linked to the main page. This section can be viewed as its own topic, and consists of substantial length. Comp8956 01:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August
2003 Invasion of Iraq &rarr; Liberation of Iraq - PoLaR 23:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 15:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Liberation of Iraq" might exist as redirect, but making this the official name for the article is totally inappropriate (incidently, a redirect by that name, toward another page (Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005), already exists). Rama 15:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Liberation of Iraq" is a POV description. (Not to mention the grand majority of the world does Not identify with that POV.) 68.199.46.6 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article's subject is the conventional campaign of Feb-May 2003. Invasion of Iraq is the proper and neutral name for it. more below. Septentrionalis 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Liberation of Iraq," that title would be blatantly POV. If anything, I'd call it Invasion of Iraq 2003 so as to place it in time and not confuse it with the so called "Gulf War" of 1990. Also since an article exists with the name Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 the name Invasion of Iraq 2003 seems the most natural. I would suggest helpful redirects from Operation Iraqi Freedom and its first name, Operation Iraqi Liberation. Calicocat 09:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to POV title. "Invasion" is quite neutral.--Pharos 09:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Title move would be POV. Jebba 09:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I agree that this war is a liberation and probably the most just and noble war of modern times (not a very high standard), I think readers won't come to wikipedia looking for "Liberation of Iraq", "invasion" will be easier for them to find. Now if we can make sure the NPOV justness of the enterprise is represented in the article, they may leave wikipedia thinking "liberation".--Silverback 10:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Naming the article "Liberation of Iraq" is pure POV. --Howrealisreal 13:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blatant POV. Was the proposer trying to make a sick joke? Geo Swan 17:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I doubt those enjoying the benefits of an occupying force are thinking, "Thank heavens we've been liberated." or any other Bushist buzz-word. The U.S. invaded, plain and simple. --Legomancer 23:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Invasion is neutral. Liam Bryan 14:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. After the death toll of Halabja and other massacres, decades of human rights abuses, fake elections, and brutal suppression of opponents of the ruling minority, Liberation is most definitely a suitable term.  After Hitler's genocide, Germany was liberated.  How is Hussein's genocide any different?  H 4:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 10 years from now, we might call it a liberation. But liberation or not, it is still technically an invasion. Liberation is a point of view. Perhaps just redirect from liberation though. Banes 17:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Definitely an invasion. Find an Iraqi poll that states the majority feels "liberated" by the US. Then maybe i'll be convinced SeanMcG 20:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Speaking as one of the invaders, no one in my unit had any notions that the Iraq invasion was anything but that: an invasion. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was an invasion, not liberation. Liberation is US govt POV. – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Jesus.  Do we really have to vote on this kind of crap?  What moron came up with this idea?  Even for war supporters, "liberation" is ridiculously POV.
 * Support. Jesus.  Do we really have to vote on this kind of crap?  What moron came up with this idea?  Even for Saddam supporters, "invasion" is ridiculously POV.   If you don't think that Iraq was liberated by toppling Saddam, try asking anyone who had a relative tortured to death by the Ba'athists.  FYI, that category includes a majority of the people of Iraq.
 * Oppose-Strangly enough, even though I support kicking Saddam and his terrorist backers out of Iraq, I oppose this-right now. If we stay the course and obliterate the Jihadist-Baathist Alliance, and Iraq becomes a stable Democratic Capitalistic Republic, THAN, and ONLY THAN should we rename it to that. If the media succedes in making another "success" and causing the public to collapse willy-nilly, thuse leading to the collapse of Iraq, THAN it should remain. Only the test of time will tell. And yes, Iraq WAS freed, and it is akin to saying that France "invaded" the partioned Poland in the Napoleonic Wars, when in reality a chance for freedom was desperatly wished for by the Poles. ELV

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 10:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I am not in favor of this move, but would strongly support changing the title. The common English definition of "invasion" is for the purposes of "conquest or plunder", and certainly the US has done neither.  As mentioned earlier, "Liberation" is as POV as "Invasion", and neither should be used.  I would rather see something like "2003 War in Iraq" or "2003 Iraq Occupation"


 * I disagree with the move, as 'liberation' is as POV as 'invasion' is in the opposite direction. People that talk about polls supporting something strongly in one way gives away that they are arguing for a title that reflects a specific POV. I think a much better question would be invasion of Iraq vs. battle of Iraq or Iraq War of 2003. --

See Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1
 * Someone put this page on requested-page-moves to rename it as "liberation of iraq". I see nothing on the talk page justifying such a move or indicating a vote is in progress.  Obviously that title is flamingly POV and would lose any vote, and it's telling that the person who put up the notice didn't bother to defend it or start a voting page here.  Can we just delete the tag from here and from WP:Requested moves? Or do we now have to go through a vote on this now?  Also I would note that Liberation of Iraq currently redirects to a different page, so such a move should be announced and discussed on that page too.--csloat 03:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * The majority of the World is against the war, so "the majority of the users applying edits to this article" would most likely be against the war too: http://www.gallup-international.com/download/GIA%20press%20release%20Iraq%20Survey%202003.pdf However, that does not mean the "majority of users" are incapable of NPOV edits. And many other articles refer to such things as invasions, such as the Allied invasion of Italy. I see no problem with the word "invasion" in the title of this article. 68.199.46.6 18:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, the majority of the world would have been against the invasion even if the Left's hero Hans Blix said that he found gobs of WMD's. For some reason the (non-Islamic) world has become pacifist at any cost.


 * Not true. Did you read the polls from my link? http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10  One of the possible answers to "Are you in favor of military action against Iraq?" is "2, Only if Sanctioned by the United Nations". That option got a lot more Yes's than "3, Unilaterally by America and it's allies." which got less than 10% in every country except for the US (which got 33%) and some smaller countries like Kenya which gave 15%.   I would also like to note that Pakistan was included in that polling, and it is most certainly not "pacifist", and only 3% selected option 3.  I really wish people would actually read things before chiming in with some rabidly partisan comment. 68.199.46.6 01:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The poll is obviously biased, how can the US and its allies be "unilateral". They show their bias.  A fairly framed poll would reflect the true situation, and used the term "multilateral" and noted how corrupt any decision making by the UN was.--Silverback 02:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gallup is one of, if not The, most respected names in polling, right up there with ICM and MORI. So it doesn't make partisan statements like how "corrupt" the UN is. Nor did Gallup mislead poll-takers, because it said "America and it's allies", there is no doubt as to what the poll was conveying. If you disagree with the results, you are welcome to find a better poll and post it here. For example Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with this poll and states:   "Although some European leaders voiced their conditional support for the war and none regretted the end of the violent Ba'thist regime, public opinion in Europe and the Middle East was overwhelmingly against the war."  http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-231540    But just shouting "Bias!" with no sources whatsoever I think is clearly partisan mud-slinging. 68.199.46.6 02:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Encylopedia Britannica has signed articles, so why don't you name the one person who probably signed off on that conclusion. How does Gallup rigorously distinguish between partisan statements like how "corrupt" the UN is, and a partisan statement that the allied action in Iraq was "unilateral"?--Silverback 02:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * So now you aren't just slurring Gallup, you are slurring Encyclopedia Britannica too. Is there Any polling source you would be comfortable with? I assure you they all present nearly the same figures. Or is it that you only slur sources that disagree with your rabid POV? 68.199.46.6 02:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Gallup's world wide reputation, but it is not particularly well regarded in the US. In any case, polls and polling data are not particularly important or notable.  Britannica's reputation is not what it once was, its quality today is probably mixed, but it should not be dismissed out of hand, but should be evaluated based on each author.  It is particularly suspect in the area of current events, since there is not much scolarship published yet, and the advantage of perspective that comes with time is not available.--Silverback 03:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * What is your source that neither Gallup Nor Encyclopedia Britannica is "well regarded"? Gallup is often listed first by sites that compile polls such as: http://www.pollingreport.com/  And is almost always consulted by any major news organization when polls are being presented. Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the oldest encyclopedia's in existence and the most widely published. I say again, if you have a better source, poll or encyclopedia, then post it. Anything else is just mud-slinging. 68.199.46.6 03:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In the United States, nearly every major broadcast corp or news organization now commisions their own polls, often collaborating, so while Gallup is in the milleau, it is no longer dominent. My advice which polls is to not look just at the results, but at the questions themselves and judge the quality and bias.  As you have learned here, this particular Gallup poll could not even withstand a rank amateurs scrutiny.  As to Britannica, in this internet age, none of the enclyclopedias have the reputations or resources they once did.   Even among those who still hold Brittanica in some regard, it is admitted that the great versions were in the past.  Learn to think for yourself, anything else is just appeal to authority.--Silverback 03:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Bla bla bla.. here in America the Gallup polls get a lot of press, Gallup is certainly among the top ten - orders of magnitude (at least 5 orders, it would be) beyond "part of the milleau", but to suggest that there's a milleau, in the first place, is quite an exaggeration. But I find Zogby to be more accurate.  For instance, their polls of the 2004 presidential election were more accurate than the ones used by T.V. News stations on election day.  As I think silverback was suggesting, the Gallup polls are generally a bit skewed to favor republicans/conservatives.  If you compare them with other polls, you'll see for instance that their measure of bush's approval rating is consistently a few percentage points above the mean. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * And here you go rambling on about bias and how You are to be believed over institutions that have been around longer than you've been alive. I repeat if you do not have a better source, poll or encyclopedia, then your claim of "bias" is unfounded. Post a source that supports your claim's instead of smearing anything that disagrees with your rabid POV. 68.199.46.6 03:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the talk page, not the article, so provide sources does not apply. Try thinking.  Use the Gallup poll question itself as a source.  Note the "uni-" in unilateral, and then count the number of allies.  Consider how short the poll questions are, and thus simplifying of a complex situation, and then consider what the poll itself is,  who it is polling, how well informed they are, etc.  That will help you give proper weight to the poll.  I never said the encyclopedia Brittanica was biased (it may be, especially on current events), only that you should cite the author rather than the pedia, and judge the authority on that basis, considering that this is also a current event.--Silverback 03:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * If I could jump in here for a sec,68.199.46.6, please allow me to address you by your last octet - Mr. 6 - Your argument above seems to simplify to two points A)Gallup has been around for a while B) Gallup must be good because nobody is citing anything better. I'm no logician, but if I'm summarizing your stance correctly, it seems pretty weak. Silverback's argument seems to simplify to A)Bias can exist even in well-meaning institutions B)Deceptively-worded questions or short polling lengths can effect results C) Randomness of the polling sample can effect results. If other polling institutions take their cues from Gallup, all it would do is perpetuate the quality of Gallups results (good or bad). For example, if one of the questions is "Do you think George Bush has stopped beating his wife?" [note - this is an example 'bad' question, not a quote] it's going to skew the results of this poll, and any that use it as a template. Just because there's nothing better doesn't make it good.--Legomancer 23:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't make a straw man and then call it "simplifying". Posting original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. So as far as I'm concerned any personal ruminations about whether or not a source is "biased" should play no part in determining whether or not a source should be included in an article. Which is why that link is staying in the article. Unless of course someone has a better source that contradicts it. Speaking of, Kevin brought up Zogby. Does anyone have a link to a poll by them on the international community's opinions of the Iraq War during 2003? 68.199.46.6 05:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A comment from the WP:RM page:
 * Absolutely no consensus about this, that's an unilateral move by PoLaR. Rama 09:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1 This earlier WP:RM vote was only concluded at the end of April and IMHO it is too soon for another vote -- Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why can it just be referred to in the neutral term 2003 Iraq War or Iraq War of 2003??
 * Because the war is not yet over, and this article only discusses the beginning of it. This contrasts with the discussion at Talk:Battle of Normandy, on the proposal to move to Normandy invasion. This has not been done, because the article extends to the break-out from Normandy. I do note that no-one was silly enough to object to Normandy invasion as PoV, but I suppose that will come. Septentrionalis 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The War of 1812 took place from 1812–1815. I think 2003 Iraq War is a good title signifying the date of the invasion. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, 2003 Iraq war is a good article title (although Iraq war would be better, with an {otheruses} tag.). This is not that article; this is one of the main articles to which it should, when written, refer. Be bold, and go write it.   Septentrionalis 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "2003 Iraq War" is a good article title. This article was long ago split into the "invasion" and "occupation". "2003 Iraq War" refers to Both, but this article only refers to the invasion. But if this was not the case, then "Second Persian Gulf War" would be a more appropriate title than "2003 Iraq War" which is what Encyclopedia Britannica has done: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9398038?query=2003%20IRAQ%20WAR&ct=  68.199.46.6 00:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * anon one, I oppose any association of this war with the legal but morally reprehensible 1st Gulf war, that was fought in the name of a "new world order", that targeted civilian Iraqi infrastructure, rolled over 100,000 innocent Iraqi conscripts and thought the distinction between Saddam oppressing Kuwaitis vs oppressing Iraqis was defensible. It sounds too much like the UN's idea of morality where nations rather than individuals have "sovereign" rights.--Silverback 23:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Silverback, you're attribution of this characterization of "sovereignty" to the U.N. is misguided. You are referring to the characterization that is generally accepted throughout the world.    "Sovereign" does not refer to a de jure ideal, but to a de facto military/political reality.  To say that a country is "sovereign" is to say that the geographic region acts, by whatever force or means, as a politically independent entity.  This implies, furthermore, that the region is capable of sustaining it's political independance, whether through diplomacy, military force, or other means.


 * As an added subtlty, to "recognize" a country as "sovereign" is not the same as a country being "sovereign". recognition or non-recognition are inherently political - and de jure - acts: the recognizers or not-recognizer or stating whether or not they choose to act as if the geographic region acts as a politically independant entity and is capable of sustaining itself as such, for whatever reason (be it ideaological, strategic, diplomatic, or what-have-you).  Non-recognition of a de facto sovereign nation is usually somewhat of a tacit threat.  In any case, to say that Iraq was sovereign in this, the traditional and generally accepted sense, is to say that it existed as a de facto politically independant entity, and the simple fact is, it did. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your description, but think it is incomplete. Sovereignty is also used as if it carries some moral weight, such as "The US invaded a sovereign nation!", and of course your dejure definition carries no moral weight at all, how accusatory does "The US invaded a nation that might defend itself!" sound?  Obviously, far better than invading one that was defenseless.  "Violating sovereignty" is very low on the scale of moral offenses, probably someplace below stealing a bicycle.  If sovereignty is to be respected at all, it is probably only to the extent that the presumptive government protects rather than violates the freedom of "its" citizens.--Silverback 06:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This page should be left as 2003 invasion of Iraq, not the liberation of Iraq. This is an obvious way to make the war seem justified. It could be worse. It could be "the occupation of Iraq" or the "illegal actions of the US in Iraq". The current title is accurate, since the US did invade Iraq, whereas Iraq these days doesn't seem very liberated.

hhamdy283 08-05-2005


 * I second the idea that "2003 Iraq War" or "2003 Iraq-US War (conventional)" be used as a title. Although there is still fighting that continues, the war between the conventional forces of the United States+allied nations and Iraq was finished in 2003.  An analogous example is that of the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the Philippine Insurrection.  Similarly, the First Indochina War and Second Indochina War were also distinct.  Although the one flowed from the other, and involved many of the same combatants, these were two separate historical incidents.  Accordingly, a second article -- along the lines of "2004- Iraq War" or "Iraqi Insurrection" cover the subsequent insurrection/sectarian violence.

It is clear that "Iraq War of Liberation" is POV and similarly, "Iraq Invasion" is also POV; both of these titles are readily used in propaganda for partisans of the various sides.

The above references to popular opinion polls are irrelevant; the current passions of the day bear absolutely no weight on providing a descriptive title. The judgment of the relative value of this war will have to be made later. Jkp1187 04:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Check Discussion
I was the original one over the past few days that argued that this article should have a POV warning. And I still believe it should. I have made some changes that I think help to bring a more neutral POV to the article, but I still see a lot of POV. And not just Leftist POV, the whole "media coverage" section seems like a tit for tat game of sniping comments. It's really pretty embarassing to read. Obviously this event has been a polarizing one in history. I don't think we will ever achieve total neutrality as long as the public can continue to edit it. 24.128.88.42 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest, a 24.128.88.42-edit only policy ? Rama 06:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking over his History the Only change 24.128.88.42 has implemented on this article was to add a NPOV tag. And his One other comment in this entire discussion page strikes me as extreme to say the least. Reading over the Media Coverage section I see no blaring advocacy to warrant a NPOV tag. In fact compared to other encyclopedia entries on this subject  Wikipedia's entry pretty much follows suit and is fairly neutral. So I'm taking down the NPOV tag. 68.199.46.6 06:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I may edit from a variety of different IP addresses depending on when I find time to check this article. I put back the POV tag. 12.25.1.161 17:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If only one anonymous user wants it there with no one else supporting I don't see the reason to add it. I am removing. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I support the NPOV tag being kept. If not the NPOV tag, there should be a tag stating that this is a controversial topic and is prone to POV. --EatAlbertaBeef 23:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What Exactly is POV about the article enough to warrant a tag? And I really don't think that this topic is as controversial as it was 2 years ago or even a year ago. For instance, members of the Bush administration admit in interviews that they were wrong about the WMDs in Iraq. 68.199.46.6 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The NPOV tag does not mean "Touchy subject", it sort of means "constructive and polite edit war going on". I see absolutely no constructive suggestion from this anonymous IP; on the other hand, I have seen numerous attempts to cheaply discredit the totality of an article by people who for some reason are uneasy with the content, be the article actually in a problematic state or not.
 * I do not deny that this article could do with some work, and it it very possible that it has actual problems of national, cultural or opinion particularisms. However, a single, rude and anonymous editor stuffed with opinions like "this was a liberation, the USA can do whatever they want because they are militarily more powerful than the UN, the French are all cowards", or "The USA are the greatest war criminal ever, Bush = Hitler, let's celebrate when a US soldier dies in Iraq" is not a good reason to stick a NPOV tag. Rama 06:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely you are not characterizing me like that? I think you should assess your own personal ideology and beliefs and ask yourself if you are qualified to judge POV on this article.  I'm a political moderate who is more interested in objectivity than pushing an agenda.  This article will most likely never be POV-free as the subject is too controversial.  Wikipedia will never be a useful tool, except as a tool of propaganda, if we try to pretend that articles such as this present a objective point of view.  12.25.1.161 18:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article is POV. Why don't you people that what the pov-Tag give quotes and examples on WHAT PARTS are POV ? --82.83.71.5 17:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Modernisation of weapons
I have checked the individual matériel mentionned in the article as proof that Iraq had substential weaponry, only to find that they are either small weapons, like shoulder-launcher anti-air missiles, elderly systems ("the task of knocking out the Iraqi T-55 tanks and armored vehicles appeared to be extremely difficult!" (sic)), or systems which were said to be present in Iraq but turned out not to be (Kolchuga Radar). The date of the article, 5 April 2003, makes me wonder whether it can possibly have the distance needed to accurately portray the situation. Rama 06:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have a thorough post war assessment. At least the cites were more recent than the "poorly equipped" cite.  I've seen other sources that the night vision equipment numbered in the thousands.  Shoulder launched anti-air missles may be small, but they are poor equipment. Russian arms manufacturers had high hopes that the market for their weapons would be improved if they were credited with extending the length of the war or increased US casualties.  So, the equipment was good enough, that Russian experts though it might make a difference.  Any nation is probably poorly equipped compared to the US, but that is not the standard we should apply here.  Also, don't underestimate the extent to which the US advantage is due to training, discipline and command and control, and not just equipment.--Silverback 07:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Every single description I've seen of the Iraq Army after the First Persian Gulf War, refers to it as "poorly-equipped". Even your own sources do not refer to the Iraqi army as having "mixed levels of equipment and readiness". The best summary I've been able to find so far is from GlobalSecurity.org: "Overall, Iraq's army is seen as poorly equipped after the battering it took in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and the 1991 Gulf War - and after the country was subjected to more than a decade of trade sanctions imposed because of its 1990 invasion of Kuwait." . Here's a more detailed analysis by CDI thats states that Iraq had "half of all Army equipment lacking spare parts". There was even an incident where Iraqi troops tried to surrender, Before the war even started, and they were described by the British soldiers who encountered them as: "a motley bunch and you could barely describe them as soldiers - they were poorly equipped and didn't even have proper boots. Their physical condition was dreadful and they had obviously not had a square meal for ages." . I don't care what your sources say about "illegally obtained weapons", because it's pretty clear that the Iraqi military of 2003 had trouble feeding and clothing it's soldiers, much less properly equipping them for war. And so I'm changing back the article. 68.199.46.6 05:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The sources you cite refer to its state after the GWI battering, and I agree the state of the regular army was still probably pretty poor. But the state before GWII is more relevant, and the thousands of night vision equipment, the spare parts, missles, etc. undoubtedly had the republican guard in pretty good shape.  It was all for naught, of course, with the US air superiority.  Saddam probably did not WANT to feed, cloth and arm his mostly Shiite conscripts, and they probably did not want to fight for the Bathist regime.  You can not conclude from the quick and easy victory was due to the poor equipment of the army, many units perfectly capable to delaying US progress for awhile, stood down, others were fighting only at the point of a gun to their relatives heads.  The US was negotiating surrenders with leading generals even before the invasion, sometimes the units agreed to put up only token fights before surrendering, to avoid reprisals against their families.  The pschological effect of the US rolling through these units much quicker than the republican guard expected, probably contributed to their disintegration. --Silverback 06:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * My sources certainly do not refer only to "its state after the GWI battering". This one was written on March 26, 2003, six days after the war officially started. This one  was done in late 2002. And I'm not concluding anything from anything, the articles flat out state that the military was poorly-equipped, and original research is forbidden from being posted in Wikipedia articles. 68.199.46.6 06:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Most industrialised nations field equipments at least as good as the US one, so I don't think that saying that "Any nation is probably poorly equipped compared to the US" is accurate or even realistic.
 * As for "training, discipline and command and control", it does not seem to prevent a disturbingly high number of accidents to occure, does it ?
 * Iraqi forces had absolutely no air support whatsoever, for instance, not did they have modern tanks to oppose to the Abrams or the Challenger. The large anti-air missiles were regaularly bombed by the USA and UK long before the invasion, and it is trivial that shoulder-launched anti-air missile can make no strategic difference, they are only intended to drive away low-flying aircrafts, and are only really effective against helicopters. This matériel is certainly usefull and dangerous for a guerilla, but for conventional war, it is about useless -- as the matter-of-weeks invasion demonstrated. Rama 07:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The analyses I have heard, is not that the accidently rate is disturbingly high, but that improvements since GW1, have resulted in a significant reduction in friendly fire incidents. News outlets tend to overemphasize the casualties, some weeks in Vietnam involved more casualties in the whole operation to date.  Of even 9/11 was overemphasized.  Approximately 2 million people died in the US that year.  The attacks were a mere blip in the number deaths, although admittedly spectacular television.--Silverback 08:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Most industrialised nations field equipments at least as good as the US one" no they do not according to Robert E. Osgood a professor at Johns Hopkins "the American military has gotten to be so good, so technologically advanced and so tactically adept that only a handful of militaries can operate alongside ours and hope to keep up" -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Do they ? If I add up the countries which have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, the main difficulty for them to "operate alongside" seems to be US foreign policy. Rama 06:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, their foreign policy has nothing to do with it. So the null hypothesis of military parity hasn't been tested, and we must rely upon "expert" opinion.--Silverback 06:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I cited the US foreign policy in particular because it was a choice of the USA to limitate to the minimum the involvement of NATO in Afghanistan, not to speak of their course of action before the Council of Security regarding Iraq. Of course, bilateral relations also have their role.
 * As for military parity, I reckon that the things like the Minimi, the Leopard II, the Rafale or Eurofighter, the La Fayette type frigates, the Oto Breda 76 mm gun, the Aster missile, not to spaek of strategic nuclear capabilities, tend to indicate that some nations stand the comparison rather well -- especially since the USA import a number of foreign matériel. Other countries just don't spend as huge amounts of money on this, and do not dimensionate their armies to fight a war against the whole world, but the USA the Zerg tactic does not make any other nation "poorly equipped compared to the US". Rama 06:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * From the same paragraph in the same article "Britain is the only considerable state that can send substantial forces in the field to operate alongside ours. Others -- the Australians or the Norwegians, to take two very different examples -- have superb niche capabilities, but only the British have the size and sophistication to take on large military tasks." --Philip Baird Shearer 08:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This does not say that other countries are under-equiped. What this says is true of Russia, for instance -- it will probably have difficulties to field units to operate alongside US forces; however, saying that Russia is militarily underequiped would be grotesque. It is more a matter of international collaboration than of pure military might. Also, "Britain is the only considerable state that can send substantial forces in the field to operate alongside ours" happens to be simply wrong: France, for instance, contributed a very significant part of her navy to the invasion against Afganistan, without any particular problem.
 * Also, the original problem here is whether the Iraqi forces could be said to have been reasonably equiped against US forces, not to discuss the military capabilities of the whole world. Rama 08:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: also the article talks about Iraq; obviously, a country like France will not, for political reasons, send forces to Iraq to collaborate with the USA. It does not mean that it is not capable of doing so if the political will is there. For the record, France sent a division to the Gulf in 1991. This "only" says much more about political isolation than about military capabilities. Rama 08:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rama - you might be surprised at how low most European countries' military capabilities really are. This book  has a rather interesting table of relative capabilities.  I'll just give you a hint: none of the top 5 countries is in Western Europe; all are considered staunch US allies, and all helped in Iraq (with one exception, the reasons for which should be blindingly obvious).   ObsidianOrder 13:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not denying that in terms of volume, the USA are the only one in their category; it is also obvious that China, Russia, and India, for instance, have enormous weight. If it was the "zerg factor" which counted, I would not argue, but retaining the UK as an important military power while dismissing all other nations is ridiculous. And "any nation is probably poorly equipped compared to the US" remains a very bizarre statement whatever criteria I can apply to it.
 * As for the might of European countries, it all depends on which criteria you retain for "military power"; France is the forth world military power, for instance, in terms of nuclear capabilities, the UK probably are probably close to this for naval capability, etc. What does this book of yours actually say, by the way ? Rama 14:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: and again, the question here is not to play tin soldiers of USA against Europe/Russia/China/Planet Mars, but to assess whether the Iraqi army can be said to have been a serious opponent against the forces it was facing in 2003. I have trouble to understand how one can say both that all countries in the world are negligeable, and that qualifying the Iraqi army of "under-equiped" is not acceptable. Rama 14:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was merely responding to your "says much more about political isolation than about military capabilities" comment. Actually it says a lot about capabilities as well.  There are a number of countries that are considered world powers which in reality could not deploy a force equivalent to a US brigade, never mind a division.  Oh, there is no doubt they could do it, if given considerable time to ramp up, but they'll be developing the capability from essentially zero.  They have forces on paper (and on parade) with some decent equipment, but they are largely not combat effective, and certainly not deployable.  This is why nobody is doing anything about Darfur now, and also why the US had to get involved in Yugoslavia back then.  Re the list, I don't have it handy so I can't tell you exactly but I remember UK, Israel, South Korea are in the top 5.
 * Regarding the "underequipped" comment - it's a bit of a mixed bag, really. They had something like 14,000 medium and large-caliber AAA pieces, along with tens of thousands of portable IR-guided missiles, including modern ones (which is why even now flying below 14,000ft but above treetop level is a recipe for getting shot down); their tanks were obsolete but they had some of the latest Russian antitank weapons which could (and did) take out the Abrams, plus a plentiful supply of older ones highly effective against the Bradley.  "serious opponent" - just in terms of equipment, and in a defensive role, yes, absolutely, they should have been.  They certainly had enough to make this a very costly war, perhaps enough to make us give up.  But that is assuming they were well trained and motivated, which they were not.  The war was an anomalously easy victory from a purely military point of view.  ObsidianOrder 15:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "anomalously easy victory" ? With this sort of air superiority, intelligence and communications ? Aren't you easily surprised ? Rama 17:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No;) The defender has a large advantage, especially in difficult terrain.  All of the things you mention have effective low-tech counters.  My point was merely that the war was won largely by means of the other side giving up or being unwilling to fight - as I said, viewed purely in terms of equipment, anomalously easy.  ObsidianOrder 09:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The US is not better equiped than other world powers. Russia has the most nukes and tanks. France has a very modernized military. Germany has the superior LeopardII. China(PRC) has the largest air force. The US needed The UK's help in modern wars. South and North Korea have the 2 largest militaries(no. of troops) any nation with nukes is a match for the US Russia could be making their military look smaller and out dated,just a theory. Dudtz 8/25/05 5:05 PM EST


 * ???! Size doesn't matter, so they say. It's how you use it... but my response doesn't belong on this page. Daniel Collins 00:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nukes are over-rated, while they might be a reason to take on N. Korea, they are NOT the reason we don't. N. Korea doesn't have the delivery system to threaten the US yet, the really problem is convention, N. Korea is essentially hold Seoul hostage with the largest concentration of conventional artillery in the world, which is why the US is right to refuse one on one talks until N. Korea takes the gun away from Seoul's head.  Any idea that it is really two party talks would be a fiction until then.  The US would be happy and entirely justified because of N. Korea's lack of legitimate sovereignty, to take N. Korea out, if it was really one on one.--Silverback 03:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression taht bi-partite talks had recently occured between North Korea and the USA, though... Rama 08:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not that the weapons are of poor quality,It is because of poor Iraqi tatics. Soviet/Russian weapons are meant for Soviet/Russian Tatics. Soviet/Russian tatics for tanks is to build a mid priced tank(excluding T-90) and build allot of them. The US military isn't too good at their tank tatics for fighting another superpower. US soldiers think that a T-55 is going to stay still out in the open so they can hit it with an Anti tank gun or rocket. Dudtz 9/25/05 7:57 PM EST

move most of Rationale, Opinion and Legality and Media Coverage to their own articles
''RonCram suggested on another page that this article be split as follows:

"Perhaps the 2003 invasion of Iraq article would only deal with the dates, military tactics and subsequent capture of Saddam (all clear cut facts without dispute) and leave all the controversial subjects to the controversy article?"''

(the subsequent discussion is copied here)

RonCram: yes, excellent idea, I think the 2003 invasion of Iraq should deal entirely with hard info, the vast amount of junk about justifications, counter-justifications, accusations, etc etc should be in a separate article. Post it on that article's talk page, I will support such a split. Basically the "Rationale" and "Opinion and Legality" sections should be split off. Also the most of the "Media Coverage" section needs to be moved to the article which is already dedicated to that. ObsidianOrder 07:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * ObsidianOrder: don't you think the article is a bit too small to justify a split? Kevin Baastalk: new 14:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is actually pretty long: 95k. At the same time the article is certainly "small" in terms of real info about military operations.  As it is, 3/4 is dedicated to what various people have to say about the event, and only 1/4 to the event itself.  This is bad on several levels: first, it's not strictly what the article is about; second, this is not what other war articles are like (e.g. World War I and World War II); third, the opinion, speculation, etc in those sections are less definitive and more controversial; and finally, those topics already have articles dedicated to them which duplicate much of the same material.  ObsidianOrder 13:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we take the example of Polish September Campaign ? The subjects have much in common: a swift military campain, controversial prelude, strong political implications (I mean compared to a single battle withing a larger war like, say, Monte Cassino). Rama 14:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a bad model, actually. It has a heck of a lot more military facts and less "opinion" than what we have here right now.  Also most of the opinion stuff is in sub-articles. ObsidianOrder 15:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just fix the "opinion" stuff then? It looks to me like this article has already been split up enough: 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005, Iraq disarmament crisis, Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. I do not think the justifications for the war are "junk" either as other encyclopedias talk in depth about them . I think this article is serving it's purpose quite well by giving short summaries of all the issues pertaining to the war, and linking to articles that go into much greater depth. I certainly wouldn't be against another sub-article that goes into depth on the military details though. 68.199.46.6 18:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "I think this article is serving it's purpose quite well by giving short summaries of all the issues pertaining to the war, and linking to articles that go into much greater depth." - exactly what I was suggesting.  "It looks to me like this article has already been split up enough" - I am not proposing any new sub-articles, merely moving some of this page into existing sub-articles (which often duplicate content as it is).  "I do not think the justifications for the war are "junk"" - neither do I, but this article is not about them as its primary topic.  ObsidianOrder 09:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You suggested to "Move most of Rationale, Opinion, and Legality and Media Coverage to their own articles". As the title of this section made by you clearly states. This article needs those short summaries, as they are a part of the war. Omitting them would give the reader the impression that those articles aren't as important as the military aspects, And that they didn't play a Huge role in this controversial and unpopular war. And RonCram stated: "vast amount of junk about justifications" and you copied him, so I think you Do think they are "junk". The primary topic of this article is Not "Military Aspects of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq", it's primary topic is the "2003 Invasion of Iraq" and they are an important part of this article, just as important if not more so than the military details. 68.199.46.6 19:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I say just nuke most of the media coverage section and leave the other articles. Seriously, how peripherally does the epic tale of the Belgian guy and his book actually relate to anything? or the speech of David Blunkett, or Peter Arnett's latest firing, or what the Chicago Tribune said about what a Damascus woman said about what the arab media said, or for that matter any of the hot air that never actually affected history in the slightest. keith 03:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 68.199.46.6 - "This article needs those short summaries" - yes it does, but they are currently 2/3 to 3/4 of the total. It needs short summaries.  The rest should go in subarticles.  "I think you Do think they are "junk"" - no, I think they are important topics, I also think that the current text/articles about them are not great, but perhaps it cannot be improved until we have considerably more hindsight - say five to ten years from now.  "The primary topic of this article is Not "Military Aspects ..." - indeed.  However, I think it is important to talk about what really happened, and a lot of that is military aspects.  I'd call it "facts on the ground", as distinguished from "speculation and opinion from afar".  ObsidianOrder 04:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that Rationale, Opinion, and Legality are more important than how many tanks are airplanes were used by what side. I think they are the most important information in any war.  Who, Why, What, When, How?  Why?:opinion and rationale, legality:opinion (historically) and rationale (insofar as logic requires "fixed principles" such as law, for instance, "imminent threat" (in regards why)) and how - legaly or illegally?  through the "hoops" or around them?  Any case, if i want to read about a war, i want to know what started it, who started, it, why they started it, what people were thinking, etc.  That's the first thing i'm looking for, and  that's what anyone really interested in war as such would be interested in, because that's what war is. It's not htat battle, it's what people are fighting for. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * The deeper stuff undoubtedly makes for a better book on the subject, but not necessarily a better encyclopedia. keith 09:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC) p.s. I personally am interested in the battles...

If there is another article dedicated exclusively to media coverage of the invasion, why is its treatment so lengthy here? I would think a synopsis of the main article be produced instead, with any additional info contained here inserted in the other article as appropriate. This would help make the article a little less of a quagmire. Daniel Collins 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree it would be better to have a short synopsis here and then move the media coverage section to media coverage of the invasion.  The media coverage section in this article could use some cleaning up.  If there are no objections, I'll clean it up and merge it into the  media coverage of the invasion article. Midwestmax 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed some redundant content from the Media Coverage section in this article that already existed in 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage. The material I removed did not have many citations and didn't have a good NPOV. I think as Daniel Collins wrote above, it is better to have a short synopsis in this article. Let me know if you have comments... Midwestmax 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

bad math in the introductory paragraph
The introductory paragraph is experiencing a tug of war of edits over the number of the number of members of the coalition of the willing, and the magnitude of defections. As I write this the article currently says that the USA and the UK invaded Iraq, and that 48 other nations joined the coalition. The last edit cut a sentence about defections, with the explanation that it was POV. Personally, I'd say cutting mention of the defections was POV. Maybe we can arrive at a compromise wording here.

But the additional 48? The coalition of the willing article list 46 members, with just 24 nations having a military commitment in the theatre. The USA and the UK, plus an additional 48 is a total of 50. Can we all agree this is clearly incorrect?

The reasons for the defections can be debated. It is clearly not solely based on the realization that the premises for the war were fabrications. The Phillipines withdrew its platoon-sized commitment shortly after terrorists kidnapped and killed a Phillipino civilian. Similarly, one could make a case that Spain defected, in part at least, because of the Madrid bombing, not the realization of fabrications. Other defecting nations have attributed their defections to the lack of progress in the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure, and the ineffectiveness of attempts to restore civil order. No doubt the embarrassment of being duped played a role -- along with these other factors.

Surely, failing to mention that a third of those listed in the coalition have provided only verbal support, no boots on the ground, is deceptive? -- Geo Swan 02:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I reworded the phrase to hopefully be more neutral, but I know the math is still off slightly. Is the reworded phrase acceptable to all? 68.199.46.6 06:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Spain withdrew after the previous gouvernment lost the election and a change in gouvernment took place. Withdrawal from Iraq was one of the most important topics during the campaign, and was promised by the winning party forming the new gouvernment long before the bombings. Claiming that the bombing caused Spain to withdraw is at the very least misleading (at best it is indirect, causing the election result, but there is no consensus about this).--Stephan Schulz 11:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

i've been involved in this edit struggle...primary reason being the following: "Five countries participated with troops during the initial invasion (termed the Major Combat Operations phase), which lasted from March 19 to May 1. These were the United States (250,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), Poland (194) and Denmark (300)". This information appears both in the 'multinational force in iraq' articl e and in this article. considering both these numbers and the command structure of the 'coalition forces' it is beyond dishonest to claim in the first line of the first paragraph that iraq was invaded by the United States, Britain, Australia and Poland. Did Poland participate in the invasion? yes. did poland invade iraq? no. using any combination beyond that of the United States and the United Kingdom seems to me to be trying to prove a point and smacks of POV. 72.0.72.121 06:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Codenames in introductory paragraph
My remark about these codenames in introductory paragraph was mainly because stating all these lyrical codenames takes a huge amount of space in the first paragraph, especially if the successive revisions are stated, while not giving actual information. For instance, no single mention is made of the fact that the rational for the invasion were found to have been fabrication, which is quite significant a piece of information, I would say more than the military codename which have no incidence on anything. Rama 07:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking over the introductory paragraph, it creates the false impression that there was a large consensus to invade Iraq in 2003. This contrasts with the rest of the article where it becomes apparent that it was, as Britannica puts it: "a combined force of troops from the United States and Great Britain, with smaller contingents from several other countries." . So the question is, do we chop it down and let the reader read on to find out the details? Or do we try and present an overview of the entire article in the introduction? I think it might be best to just chop out the "48 governments" and the "legality questioned" part and just let the reader go to those sections if thats what he's looking for instead of trying to summarize in the opening paragraph. 68.199.46.6 18:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, actually the Lead section "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Also the military codenames are very redundant indeed. NightBeAsT 14:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

codename "Operation Iraqi Freedom" not original
I would suggest that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was not the original codename at the time of the Iraq invasion. I was in a headquarters unit, and although I don't remember the original codename, I do remember the we didn't hear it referred to as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" until later in the invasion... probably after we reached Baghdad. I would suggest finding the original name... or at least saying ....later referred to as "Operation Iraqi Freedom"... etc.208.120.58.22 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Tu es correcto. The correct operational title was Cobra II. Operation Iraqi Freedom only began after the invasion was complete (you know, after the war was "won"). 74.255.67.146 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What expert though
This paragraph:
 * Every person from the Clinton and Bush Administrations believed at the time that Saddam Hussein was a threat to U.S. interests, Middle East stability, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and gave financial support to terrorists. All subsequent reports have confirmed those views

can be trivially invalidated by reading Karen Kwiatkowski, for instance. Rama 12:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The administration usually refers to the political appointees, Kwaitkowski's concerns about intelligence philosophy isn't relevant.--Silverback 16:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The above paragraph in question is completely speculative. --Howrealisreal 13:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whey either of you are talking about. This is not even controvercial, it is the common understanding of what he did. Something can't be "invalidated" or is "completely speculative" if that is what he did and it was not disputed.  Only the WMD issue was disputed. --Noitall 15:36, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Noitall, you seem to be conflating what people believe with what they, and the PR department, say. Christiaan 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to take your POV blindfold off. This is not even controvercial to anyone except the Michael Moore gang.  --Noitall 15:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite obviously, Colonel Kwiatkowski, for instance, did not think that Saddam Hussein "was a threat to U.S. interests". Also, saying that "All subsequent reports have confirmed those views" is rather bold.
 * To be precise, your statement should be reformulated to something like "Proeminent officials of the Bush administration affected to think so", which is quite obvious and redundant with other informations stated in the article. Also, it should be balanced to something like "Intelligence from other countries were far more nuanced, or contradicted these views". I would deem it safe to say that this is not interesting.
 * Also, please mind WP:POINT and refrain from removing information gratuitously. Thank you. Rama 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are more than 1 million people in the federal government. And you find one little Lt. Col. who, after the invasion, retires in 2003, wants a job in the Noitall 16:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * You can claim they're "common knowledge" as many times as you think people are in the federal goverment, it still doesn't verify any claim. If you cannot find a reliable source saying "...at this time all the persons from the Clinton and Bush Administrations (with no absentees) were plugged to lie detectors and all said in a chorus "I swear on the Bible, the Constitution and my life that I believe this: right now I believe that that Saddam Hussein was a threat to U.S. interests, Middle East stability, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and gave financial support to terrorists." The lie detectors confirmed the truth of their words without a doubt., don't even try to continue insisting on the sentence. Believe it or not it would only reduce your credibility. NightBeAsT 16:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am not the one who came with such a wording as "Every person from the Clinton and Bush Administrations"; bit you own finger for that, will you ? If you want to reformulate your statement, do carry on, but with the wording you have, it is blatantly wrong.
 * Secondly, I happen to find the choice of a lieutenant colonel working precisely in the intelligence branch of the Army, one the precise topic, rather relevant.
 * Also, what particular items of the part that you are deleteing are you challenging, exactly ? Rama 16:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the first, I am responding on 2 different pages, so part of what I responded to was not on this page, such as my agreement that "every person" is not the right words.
 * Your Lt. Col., even using the words I agreed to remove, is irrelevant. You are confused with the WMD issue. The rest is common knowledge and extremely general summary instead of supplying with a laundry list of charges (payments to suicide bombers, all statements said, designs on Kuwait, Saudis, oil, meetings with North Korea, meeting with other terrorist groups and leaders, and both Presidents said he continued to threaten interests -- Clinton bombed him on several occasions, etc., etc.). The problem was, and is, this did not totally make the case for all people for the invasion, since it had been this way since the end of the last Gulf War, so it was not emphasized as much.
 * Finally, I assume you have no problem with deletion of unsourced speculation that I assert is mostly inaccurate. --Noitall 16:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you are agreed to rewording your passage. As it is, I find it very difficult to tell things you say about Saddam Hussein (that he supported terrorism) from things you say about people in the US administration (that they though he did) and from what you say from subsequent reports.
 * I do have problems with deletion of unsourced information, if not justified with precise criticism. I also find it quite disturbing that your deletion should have occurred precisely during a similar discussion about your own edit, and I advise you that you removal could be taken for a violation of the WP:POINT policy if you do not explain it further. I therefore strongly suggest to you either to state precisely what you are contesting if the lenghtly part you are removing, or to restore it. Rama 16:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * On the first edit, it is not unsourced, especially if commonly understood and especially if it is summarizing a detailed post. We don't provide the sources in the intro and in topical paragraphs specifically because it summarizes the later information. On the second deletion, don't give me some Wiki point, take it somewhere else.  I am making a total edit of this entirely POV anti-War article.  It is unsourced detailed information with conclusions drawn by anti-War people.  If you have a source, then provide it, but I know you don't because it is entirely wrong.  --Noitall 18:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Entirely wrong ? Aren't you drifting into abusive generalisation again ? As for your edit, why don't you explicitly write this "commonly understood" that you mean us to grasp ? Rama 20:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone dispute anything yet except for "every person" which I agreed to change. The only other apparent dispute is that it does not fit the anti-War POV of some of the editors. I cited the incidents above of which there is no dispute. If you want to dispute them, please tell me which ones you dispute and why. (i.e, people disputed the word "every person" and it was rightfully changed) For instance, do you dispute that the payments were made to people the U.S. called terrorists? Do you dispute that Clinton Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 stated that Sadaam was a threat to U.S. interests? Do you dispute that Sadaam met with what the U.S. called terrorist groups? Do you dispute, etc., etc., etc. --Noitall 05:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I do dispute wordings likes "threat to US interrests" and "All subsequent reports have confirmed those views", because they are very imprecise; the extend of the threat is not mentioned, and the rest of the part leaves the impression that you sort of can fill in a table with "Terrorism: USA -- no; Saddam Hussein -- yes"; obviously things are much not nuanced than this. Rama 07:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Noitall, you've just violated the three revert rule again to push your POV in this article.NightBeAsT 15:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let one of the "general mob" (who commonly understood the perfidies of the Sadaam regime) have a say. Most intelligent folk here, in boondock South Carolina, fully well understood the thrust of the administration's purpose, regardless of the candy coating. The defeat of Sadaam looked like a cakewalk, would look good on TV, and would get Bush reelected. Sadaam as a supporter of international terrorism? Give me credit for some intelligence. Look what the country became without his iron fist. Oh yeah, he is going to support Shiite fundamentalists in their search for immortality in paradise. A common conclusion at the plant I work at was that an American ship had better be standing by offshore laoded with WMD, ready to be offloaded and stashed ashore for later "discovery". You do not get more common (or cynical) than that. 74.255.67.146 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumsfeld
The article states that one of Rumsfeld's "stated goals" was to "secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources". If Rumsfeld is truly on record saying the United States invaded in order to seize Iraqi oil, that ought to be cited with a source. I am well aware that popular opinion holds that the US invaded for oil, but I would be surprised if the US government said that in so many words. I suggest removing this particular "stated goal" unless we can find out where it is stated.Bdell555 14:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2003/t03212003_t0321sd1.html Christiaan 15:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is indeed there. But the reference should be on the main article. Additionally, to be as precise as possible, how about producing the quote: "to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime". While grammatically it does not say why this was a goal, the implication is there (in the usual couched fashion). Without this clarification one might readily think a stated goal of the invasion was to secure the oil for the US, which clearly was not a stated goal. Daniel Collins 16:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oil is what made a man of Saddam's character more dangerous than a Sudanese war lord. The preservation of the oil production capability was important for the Iraqi people.  Notice that the constitutional battle is over how to divide the oil, not how to divide the treasures that have been recovered for the looted museum.--Silverback 16:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah just give more of the quote if you feel it's taken out of context. keith 08:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe how coniving some of you can be with your conspiracy tales. Rumsfeld was listing seven reasons for the mission in Iraq, the seventh being defending the wealth of the oil fields for the Iraqi people. There was no mention of going in there to secure this for the US. This is a blatant distortion. -Anon

WMD in intro and rationales
I would like to know
 * who disagrees that the Iraqi WMD were the main officially stated reason for the invasion, and why
 * I disagree, it was the failure of Iraq to account for WMD and to fully cooperate with the UN inspection that was the stated reason, and that fact has not been altered by post war findings.--Silverback 08:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Who disagrees that none of the WMD were found (not 15-year-old empty shells I mean, but these famous ready-to-fire-within-45-minutes systems)
 * I disagree, while WMD stockpiles have not yet been found, the intent to restart the WMD programs when sanctions were lifted has been found. That means that sanctions and inspections were never going to really deny Saddam WMD.--Silverback 08:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * whether everybody has understood that the list of rationals is not a list about factual rationals, but rationals claimed by opponants ? That is, if a significant proportion of the opposition to the war claimed that the Earth is flat, the argument would have to be included here, however wrong it'd be.
 * There are articles about the war where popular opinion is discussed, this article is for the history and the evidence.--Silverback 08:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the matter with this is that is strange that one should demand to "account for WMD" which did not exist; as for the UN inspections, obviously Hans Blix had far less reserves of Iraq cooperation that the USA did; parhap we could state as a reason that the USA stated that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN, while the UN itself was reporting encouraging progress ?
 * The reason you demand that the weapons be accounted for, is that Saddam was a notorious liar, so you don't take his word for anything. Saddam's poor character was probably the main reason for the war, he could not be trusted with the resources and wealth that enabled him to finance WMD weapons programs and to fund terrorism.--Silverback 09:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've noted it before, but it bears repeating, that Saddam's cooperation was late and at the point of a gun. He still put conditions on the inspections that were in violation of the UN resolutions, although the UN inspectors still thought they were able to do a fair job anyway, but this all made it take to long.  Saddam was still trying to delay his way out of the sanctions, and that maintaining the gun at his head was very expensive for the United States.  None of the European powers that were in Saddam's pay, were willing to compensate the US for the delays further inspections would cost in maintaining the buildup.--Silverback 10:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have failed so far to come across convincing proofs that "intent to restart the WMD programs when sanctions were lifted has been found"; I know that several US officials have been talking about limited discoveries in Iraq, but the absance of one single photograph, while we had been fed so much multimedia data before the invasion, disturbs me.
 * I'm not sure what you would find a photograph of? The information about the intent to restart the programs is from interviews with scientists, and the last thing they want is their photograph taken with Bathist military officers still terrorizing the country.--Silverback 09:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * As for putting the summerising the popular opinion and pointing to the relevant article, I think it is a fairly good idea. Rama 09:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I would very much like these points discussed on the talk page rather than by constant reversals. Thank you very much. Rama 16:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that a key argument was the fear of mushroom clouds in the not so distant future. No need for ready-to-fire systems, just a working nuclear weapons program in Iraq. I don't think they found that either, though. Rl 19:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rl is right. The discussion of WMD's was almost always couched in terms of possibilities - possibilities that Iraq had them now, or that they could develop them in the future. And potential presence of WMD's or WMD programs was only one of the reasons offered - feel free to read this very article to learn about the rest. The only reason I can see for inclusion of this specific rationale (Rama, the word has an 'e' at the end) in the intro is to make a large, bold-faced, anti-Iraq-war statement right at the beginning of the article. Korny O'Near 05:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the spelling tip.
 * I distinctively remember mister Blair speaking in an inambiguous manner of operational WMD systems; the "possibilities" mainly refered to nuclear systems, but the existance of chemical and biological weapon systems was hardly spoken of in terms of possibilities (see the talk by Powel, for instance).
 * The point of this into is not "to make a large, bold-faced, anti-Iraq-war statement right at the beginning of the article", it is to briefly describe the reason for the war; this is to address concerns of some people who expressed reserves that the article gave the impression that Iraq was invaded for no reason. Rama 06:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm no great fan of either of the current Schrodinger cat-like intros, partly because of style, but I think the style is poor because edits have not been made in harmony. What should the intro include? I think a summary of what you will read below - the major points (ie. those worth putting into sections of their own). In addition, if the page describes an event as this does: What happened? When? Where? Who/what did it? Why did it happen? How did it happen? What was the result? So if I were to follow this scheme: Invasion. March 2003. Iraq. US, UK, etc. Eliminate threat of Hussein and WMD. Ground troops and bombardment. Hussein captured, WMD found not be a threat.


 * All this is complicted by huge overlap with other entries, though, like Iraq War and Iraq disarmament crisis. In fact, I'd probably favor moving much of this article's content elsewhere - the invasion itself was pretty short-lived, and is not the entire war. If this line stands, then the why form above would contain: Iraq Disarmament Crisis; and result would contain: Led to the Iraq War.


 * Is this sufficiently sensible and diplomatic? Daniel Collins 05:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds very reasonable indeed. Rama 06:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the intro should include anything about rationales. There were enough different rationales offered for the war, and different wording by different world leaders (again, see the article itself for evidence of that) that to include only one or some of them would be misleading and would necessarily introduce bias; to include all of them would be too long a list and not suitable for the introduction. The intro was fine before; I don't see why rationale has to be included there now. Korny O'Near 19:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But in this case, one rationale was far more important than the others, more prominent than all the others put together. It is quite reasonable to put WMD in an introduction, just as it would be reasonable to immediately mention the attack on Pearl Harbor in an article on the US war in the Pacific with Japan.  --John Z 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But even "WMD's" is not one rationale. Among the political leaders arguing for the war, some said Saddam possessed them, others said he had the capability to create them eventually, others said he had the will to create and use them, others said we just don't know and the uncertainty was enough of a reason to depose him. Saying "the main officially stated reason was that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction", as the intro currently has it, is simply not true. I'd like to see a source for this highly misleading claim. Korny O'Near 06:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Concern for the use of Iraqi-developed WMD was the overarching rationale. This mentions WMD but does not say whether they possessed them, had a program, or merely the intent. Those aspects are better suited in, you guessed it, Iraq disarmament crisis. Daniel Collins 12:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to come back to the same example all the time, but Blair did mention an operational system deployable on the field within 45 minutes. There are also the declarations by Bush, Rumsfeld (North, South, west and East...), and the reactions of Blix ("I find it peculiar that you can have a 100% certainty about the existance of WMD bu none as to their location"). This was nothing to do with "capability to create them eventually" or "will to create and use them". Or at least, this is not what we have been fed. Rama 13:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but at least one chemical weapon was found in Iraq, i believe it was in a roadside bomb used to sabotage an American convoy. Doesnt this make statements such as "No WMD were found" untrue? --Henrybaker 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No it does not: first, I'd like to acertain the story (nothing against you personnaly, but...). Second, even one particular functionnal instance of a chemical weapon had survived the 10 years during which they were not produced, which I am skeptical of but which is not impossible, that would have nothing to do with the vaste chemical, biological and nuclear programmes which were supposed to be found, and the 45-minute readzable mobile chemical missile launchers. Rama 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the story which covered exactly when and where WMD found, but it is mentioned in this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq#2003_invasion_of_Iraq --Henrybaker 21:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Rama, if we can assume that one shell with chemical residue was found, then it would make it inaccurate to say that "no WMD were found in Iraq." However, it would still be accurate to say that "vaste chemical, biological and nuclear programmes... and the 45-minute readzable mobile chemical missile launchers..." were not found. --Henrybaker 21:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * then you'd you to say something like "traces of chemical weapons residues were found", to be absolutely correct; but in this context, saying that WMD were found would be more incorrect than saying some were.
 * That Iraq had chemical weapons in the 80s is not a mystery for anyone, but the point was that they were forbiden to have operational weapons in 2003, which it seems they did not have. You could not accuse Iraq of having had WMD in 2003 any more than you could accuse France of possessing chemical weapons because of traces of green gas from the First Wolrd War. Rama 21:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the article where it is documented that a shell containing Sarin http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html was found in Iraq. I submit that it is inaccurate to say that "no WMD were found in Iraq." I agree that it would be dis ingenuous to simply assert that "WMD were found in Iraq." The Opening paragraph, rather than saying "No WMD were found in Iraq." Should say something like "Insignificant amounts of WMD were found in Iraq" --Henrybaker 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This being an article on the invasion, are the details of the presence of WMD that were sought for post-invasion relevant? If it requires we wonder whether a canister with chem residue constitutes WMD, which actually isn't a trivial question (eg. are the quantities sufficient? was there a delivery mechanism for the chemicals? were the chemicals to be used for their own right or merely the canister? etc), I think we're off base. That important discussion should go to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Iraq war. Daniel Collins 21:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the reference to WMD in the intro, noting that chemical residues were found, without stating that WMD were found, and avoiding stating that WMD were not found. In response to what Daniel Collins said, I don't know if it is relevant, but the intro flatly said that "No WMD were found" and i just don't think that statement is accurate without some kind of explanation. --Henrybaker 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the US administration itself aknowledges that no waepons of mass destructions were found:
 * State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said though the search for WMD yielded no results, the United States, based on "extensive intelligence," believed before it invaded Iraq that Saddam was intent on acquiring them.


 * "I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong," Blair said ,


 * I understand why one would want to take the word of the US administration with some caution, given the context, but this seems better than one single isolated article by Fox News. Rama 22:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This incident is also detailed in several Wikipedia articles, including here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_in_Iraq#Reports_of_chemical_weapons_finds_since_2003.

It is not an "isolated article by fox news." You said you wanted me to ascertain the story, but apperantly, you meant you wanted me to ascertain the story without citing fox news. Are you now doubting the veracity of the article? --Henrybaker 22:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, the more i read the story, and the first paragraph of the article especially, the more i agree with daniel collins. The line about WMD does not belong in the opening paragraph. It is just floating there, with no apperant connection either to the preceding or succeeding sentence(s). --Henrybaker 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to say that all reference to WMD be removed, per se. I think it is crucial in that the event that led to the invasion was the WMD disarmament crisis. What ever rationale is not appropriate to Iraq disarmament crisis should be contained here, but it's good editorial practice to remind readers of this point. But I stress that the invasion was over well before conslusions regarding the (non-)existence of WMD were announced - that occurred in Iraq war. What I'd like to encourage is this article sticks to the title. Daniel Collins 04:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is quite a good point; I have had the feeling that this article is mistaken for Iraq War too. Rama 07:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What I mean by my comment about Foxnews is that I find is strange that no other media seem to have spred the news; especially, I have not seen any statement about this from the White House, which could seem to be logically wanting to use any sort of things to confirm the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions. For example, there are instances of Rumsfeld jumping on a story about buried fighter aircrafts to hammer down that weapons of mass destructions are obviously difficult to find; in this context, I find it peculiar that US officials shoud apparently not have commented on this, and therefore, I would be more at ease if antother source than Foxnews could be find on the matter to confirm it. Rama 23:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Curious indeed, though I haven't looked myself. Still, it's a valid reference as far as my vision of Wikipedia is concerned, but I would couple with some comment to the effect that the claim is not officially coroborated or whatever. The rationale? To present the information and attach appropriate error bars to it - we report, they decide. Daniel Collins 04:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It appears that chemical tests were conducted and they coroberated it. There was a lot of news coverage at the time.  Apparently if would be difficult to use these binary weapons in IEDs, they actually relied upon spinning after they had been fired to open valves and then properly mix the chemicals. --Silverback 10:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the speculative POV that Iraq had intentions to restart WMD programs after US sanctions are lifted. This is not very well-known or documented so will definitely need a reliable source to be re-added. In addition, Iraq largely received WMD from Western countries to use during the Iran-Iraq War, so to state that all of a sudden they were going to produce them on their own, in a post-war terrain, seems like propaganda to support the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. See Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. --Howrealisreal 13:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Iraq was intending for their UN strategy to work to keep the coalition from attacking and to eventually lift sanctions, so they would not have been producing them in a "post-war terrain".--Silverback 18:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * According to Kay’s report, Iraq had intended to restart its dormant WMD program as soon as sanctions were over. Although Iraq received production related equipment for its WMD program, largely from Europe, its WMD program was home grown. TDC 18:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then cite Kay's report as the source of the speculation. Right now this is totally unsourced psychological guesswork and does not belong in an encyclopedia.--csloat 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Site David Kay's testimony to the Senate Commission and also site the Deufler Report as well. The ISG unit after the Iraq invasion testified to this and also the inspection teams by the UN after the invasion have also said that Saddam was going to reconstitute his programs as soon as sanctions were lifted and his manipulation of the oil for food scandal was another evidence of this. -Anon

Face it, the WMD scenerio that the anti-war crowd tries to use against the Administrations case is useless. The whole onus was squarley on Iraq to comply to UN Resolutions in order to plead its case. It failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441 and inspectors David Kay, Hans Blix (Dissarming Iraq pg. 90) and Charles Deufler agree to this.

Not so. Hans Blix stated in his last report said he was making progress. Iraq was cooperating. Read his report:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

The American government claimed that since Iraq didn't reveal the location of its WMDs stockpiles, it wasn't cooperating. How was Iraq supposed to reveal the location of something which didn't exist??? 15.235.249.71 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Vince Fiorito

There is a range of sources that now show that both the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom knew that Iraq had no WMD capabilities before the invasion, ( http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece for one example) yet continued to sift through the intelegence looking for anything that could be construed to suggest the WMDs existed. Colin Powell for example quoted Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law, as stating that Iraq produced 4 tons of VX while conveniently forgetting that Kamal also stated that the VX was destroyed and that Iraq possesed no WMDs. What are your views about including a sentence about the lies about WMDs we were told that have been proven to be untrue. It seems to me this article is incomplete without this information.

WMD section
As with the media section, the one on WMD is perhaps overly long and amorphous. I suggest what content need to be moved over to Iraq disarmament crisis be moved, and then a synopsis of that main article be reproduced here. Thoughts? Daniel Collins 21:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think that article is much more in-depth and doesn't have the problems (like mind-reading) that this one does.--csloat 20:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

intent to revive
"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended---and sanctions were eroding." Testimony of Charles Duelfer Special Advisor to the DCI for Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction

"Imad Husayn al Ani, Iraq’s former program director for VX, stated in an interview in 2003 that plans to produce thiourea and DCC, both of which he was unaware, indicated unequivocally that the Regime intended to reconstitute the V-series nerve agent program"--Silverback 20:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * When we include speculation it is best to include its source, like this. Though it's unclear to me how al-Ani could be unaware of the programs and yet be certain that they prove a certain intent.  In any case I think we should be more specific -- intent to create VX is a very different WMD threat than intent to build nuclear weapons or even anthrax.  I'm not comfortable with TDCs edit, though it is better than what we had there before. --csloat 20:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Obeidi is the source for nuclear information, and about how Iraq was still not complying with the UN inspectors.. There are lots of news stories featuring him on the web as well. --Silverback 04:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC).

Well done Silverback. - Anon

"team assembled by CIA and Pentagon"
I don't know why TDC wants to hide that info -- if anything, it refutes the theory that the organization was "controlled" by them, since CIA and Pentagon came to different conclusions about all of this. --csloat 02:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * TDC, you say you're "not trying to hide anything" but then why do you keep removing my edits? I don't understand why you are so opposed to explaining that the ISG was assembled by the CIA and The Pentagon. I know that you don't dispute this information, but you would just rather omit it so that your "source" seems more valid. Truth be told, your logic is absolutely disgraceful for an encyclopedia; This article is ways off from being NPOV when editors like TDC are trying to bamboozle the readers. --Howrealisreal 14:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That information exists elsewhere in the article as well as in the ISG's page. There is no need to fill the intro paragraph up with extra information not relevant to the topic at hand. TDC 14:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The introduction is supposed to be an overview of the article. I don't see the harm of adding a few extra words to put your "source" in context. Your claims that Iraq had plans to restart its weapons program after sanctions is very controversial and we owe it to the wikipedia community to tell the facts straight up, right in the beginning. Please consider compromising. --Howrealisreal 14:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Date: 02:30 UTC March 20, 2003–April 15, 2003
Since that's the timespan during which the invasion took place, this article should only point to other articles, if necessary, that describe events outside these dates. Detailed treatment of pre-war knowledge of WMD or of the Kay report, for example, are out of place. I seek a coalition of the willing to assist in moving such details to their rightful home, and any voiced dissent so that this objective does not over-reach. Daniel Collins 14:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that one of the most desirable features of 2003 invasion of Iraq would be a short but vigourous notice "for the main article, see Iraq War". That said, good luck for the move. Rama 14:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the whole introduction is somewhat clumsy and the result of too many compromises. What about a shorter version, e.g.:

''The 2003 invasion of Iraq was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003, with support from some other governments, making up what was described as the "coalition of the willing". After approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces and the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party came to an end. For subsequent events, see Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. The legitimacy of the invasion is disputed. The officially stated reason was that Iraq had failed to account for its Weapons of Mass Destruction or to fully cooperate with the inspections. However, the UN inspection teams were ready to continue the inspection, and even careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction. '' and discuss all the rest later in the article. --Stephan Schulz 14:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A very good one; what about (very slight modifications):
 * The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the first military act of the Iraq War, and was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003, with support from some other governments, making up what was described as the "coalition of the willing". After approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces, ending the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party. The legitimacy of the invasion is disputed: the officially stated reason was that Iraq had failed to account for its Weapons of Mass Destruction and to fully cooperate with the UN inspections;  however, the UN inspection teams were willing to continue the inspection, and even careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction. For subsequent events, see Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005
 * diff: mention "Iraq War", ponctuate (I am a big fan of semi-columns), put the reference of the following episode at the end rather than in the middle. Rama 15:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I like your version. --Stephan Schulz 15:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

So is this revised version of the introduction going to be used? --Howrealisreal 00:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour. I was waiting for some more reactions (or lack of same) before copying it over - given that I only participated in the discussion for a few hours. --Stephan Schulz 01:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's my take: The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the start of the Iraq War, launched primarily by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003, supported by N other nations, collectively termed the "coalition of the willing". The invasion stemmed from the Iraq disarmament crisis, during which Iraq failed to convince the U.S. and U.K., in particular, that it posed no threat from weapons of mass destruction, despite the on-going work of United Nations inspectors; Resolution 1441 was cited as legal justification for the war. Other nations as well as the UN disagreed with the invasion, its rationale and its legality. After approximately three weeks of combat, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces led by the U.S., ending the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party. The period that followed is detailed in Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005.


 * I like the version by me and Rama better. Your suggestion has the problem of finding N. Moreover, Iraq may or may not have failed to convince the gouvernments of the US and the UK (convincing countries is strictly impossible, as they have no consciousness), but we cannot know that - we only know what they said. Merging in the UN resolution might be good. But otherwise, you are less specific than the previous draft.--Stephan Schulz 02:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I did mean it to be less specific. And I equate "nation" with "government" in this context (cf. United Nations). N should be identifiable; I don't like "some". But I won't insist on any of this. I do recommend putting the motive for the invasion before the statement of dissent. Daniel Collins 03:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"war" vs. "invasion"
A "war" is a battle between 2 sides. An invasion is the specifica act of intruding military forces into a country. It's part of a military campaign by one side in the larger war.

When you say you are anti-war, you mean any of three thing:
 * 1) You are against all wars (see "pacifism")
 * 2) You wish this war would end (somehow)
 * 3) You want one side to stop fighting (surrender, withdraw, etc.)

Most "anti-war" activists when speaking about the Iraq War never said that they wanted Iraq's forces to stop fighting back against the Americans and British. Rather, they wanted the Allies to stop waging war against Saddam. (Or as some put it, "against the people of Iraq").

These distinctions are important, whichever "side" you are on. I hope that nothing but my 5 years of US military service shows in this discussion, and not advocacy on my part in favor or against Bush's decision. Uncle Ed 19:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, you are exactly right in drawing that distinction. Thank you for your clarity.  I imagine most anti-war activists really only support #3, regardless of what they claim.  ObsidianOrder 22:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, and OO, your apparent anti-anti-war activist activism, or pro-war activism, is out of place here, just like any anti-war activism, or anti-pro-war activist activism, is. Citizens generally petition their own government to change what is under their governments' control. It is therefore appropriate for US citizens, should they be opposed to any US activity, to lobby for that activity to be stopped. They have no influence over Iraqi policy, and so cannot call for Iraq to change its ways as much as that of their own nation. Also, it is/was implicit to assume that any withdrawl by an invader would lead to them not being attacked by those they invaded. Were the anti-war activists ever asked if they would like their nation's military to continue being under attack? I dare say when they were, the majority (I personally know an exception) would not have liked that either. But why would they explicitly state this if (i) it is an implicit outcome of the other objective, and (ii) demanding their military not be attacked was out of their control?


 * Lumping all anti-war activists as those seeing the war as one "against the people of Iraq" is unfair and inaccurate, and not surprisingly not part of any Wikipedia entry I know, just discussion.


 * There's another bullet point to add:
 * 4. Those advocating Just War theory


 * Indeed an invasion is not a war, nor do all wars require an invasion. But in this case the two were synonymous. The UN condoned neither the invasion nor the war (how could it condone one and not ther other?); anti-war activists likewise (where are the anti-invasion activists?). Also, on a minor technicality, war's needn't involve just two sides (nb: I see you are not equating side with nation); it seems quite reasonable that multiple sides may fight over something, it's just not all that common. All in all, I don't buy your edit (though the article is rife with many more important issues). Please elaborate.
 * Daniel Collins 23:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not true at all. The "UN" condoned and supported many aspects of the War, just not the invasion part.  And the UN does not exclusively determine whether "just" or not. Many people believe that the UN is not "just", dominated by dictators and the corrupt.  In fact, an enourmous number of countries, especially the free ones, supported the war, even the invasion.  Almost everyone (except Syria and the French, who were bribed) wanted to get rid of Sadaam as a threat to world peace and humanity, but some preferred a different method.  --Noitall 01:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

November 2005?
While reading the article I found an inconsistency in the "weapons of mass distruction" section:
 * [...]and in November 2005 David Kay, the head of the Iraq Suvery Group charged with finding Saddam Hussein's WMDs stated that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion[...]

This edit, from user Kulinda seems pretty old: 04:36, 14 May 2005. Somebody, with a funny sense of humour, had recently added (considered by some to be a month that hasn't yet occurred) right after "november 2005". Now the question is: how do we fix this? I suggest removing the whole edit by Kulinda, as it does not seem reliable anymore, unless it turns our he is a time traveler or - more likely - he just did a mistake confusing months or years. --Nova77 17:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was amused by the anonymous edit. I did a quick search for the relevant reference to correct the statement, but came up short. There is far too much here that is not cited. I support the deletion (besides, Kay said a lot more than [maybe] just this), and I encourage all to bring references to the table. Daniel Collins 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim all the nations in the "coalition of the willing" participated in the Invasion
An anonymous contributor made a change to the first paragraph that seemed very POV to me. The wording they replaced said "some governments" had supported the USA and the UK in the invasion. They replaced this with a list of 29 of the nations who were now, or who at one time, were members of the "coalition of the willing]".  Maybe it wasn't their intnetion, but this has a highly deceptive effect.  This- article is about the invasion of Iraq, there is another article [[Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005, which puts the beginning of the post-invasion period at May 1, 2003.  I'd say that when President Bush announced the "end of major combat operations" under the huge "Mission Accomplished" poster the invasion period was over.

How could this list include Turkey? Turkey may have joined the coaltion -- following the invasion --  but Turkey was a huge disappointment in the lead-up to the invasion. The USA wanted Turkey's co-operation to launch a second front, from Turkey. Turkey would not allow US forces to launch an attack from Turkish territory. It is highly deceptive to list Turkey as one of the nations that was supporting the invasion.

The list in the first paragraph could have included Australia and Poland. Australia and Poland also contributed actual ground troops to the invasion. Maybe there are other nations that could be listed. No nation should be listed as supporting the invasion because they were once members of the coalition of the willing if they only signed on after the invasion was over. I looked at the articles for all those nations. None of those article stated when those nations started supporting the coalition. Most of those articles don't even mention those nations membership in the "coalition of the willing".

I'm fairly certain that the only other countries that actually invaded Iraq were Australia and Poland, who both supplied special forces units. IIRC, there were 2000 Aussies and 200 Poles.Nudge 21:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if we had an authoritative list of those nations that had supported the invasion, while it was still in progress, I would question the value of listing those nations in the first paragraph.

I think the anonymous contributor should have done more research than crib the list from coalition of the willing. They did so little research that they didn't even check the links they made. This listed Georgia, a disambiguation page, rather than Georgia (country) -- a mistake they would not have made if they had checked the links they cited.

If the anonymous contributor reads the talk page, I would encourage them to sign in when they make edits. I called the effect to this edit "deceptive". I am going to "assume goodwill", and assume this was unintentional. But it has the effect of making the invasion appear to have had more international support than it actually had. -- Geo Swan 09:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed those countries not party to the invasion should not be listed, making a distinction between the invasion and the coalition. We should thus have refeneces backing up who was involved. Stating "some countries were involved" is true, and too vague. I do think the list should be enumerated where the info can be found. Daniel Collins 02:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as it is clear that "party to the invasion" does not mean that one had to have combat personell cross the border, a logistical supporter is every bit a party and a legitimate military target.--Silverback 12:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is room in this article to list all the nations that provided meaningful support to the invasion, whether that was a commitment of personnel, or the use of airports, or allowing overflight of military flights -- providing that contribution can be documented.  The previous contributor's poor research in listing Turkey as one of the countries that supported the invasion really bugged me.  Turkey, in fact, had stood firm in withholding the highly desired support which would have allowed the US to attack on two fronts.  Turkey did become a member of the coalition of the willing -- after the invasion was over.


 * The USA put heavy diplomatic and economic pressure on other countries to sign on board the coalition. Most nations, I believe, signed on after the invasion was complete.  Here in Canada many business types were outraged by the Bush administration statements that contract proposals for a share of Iraq's reconstruction funds would only be accepted from nations fighting terror in Iraq.  Canadian business types pointed out that a large contingent of Canadian forces were stationed in Afghanistan, where they too were fighting terrorism.  --  Geo Swan 16:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Term Terrorist activity
In the section Results (2003 Invasion of Iraq) the term "Terrorist activity" in Terrorist activity in Iraq by insurgents seems wrong.

According to wikipedia a terrorist is...

Terrorism, violence (especially against civilians) that is militarily insignificant but aimed at undermining morale.

Taking military action against invading armies of ones own country, is militia activity, or guerrilla warfare isn't it? -Wolfe 00:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are misinterpreting the statement. Note that it is in the "results" section, and not about activity during the invasion.  Most Zarquawi led activities, after the invasion have been against civilians and the fledgeling Iraqi democratic government and its security forces, partially in the hopes of inspiring sectarian violance.  Of course the results section is arguably POV in noting this.  After all the coalition is not responsible for Zarqawi's immoral behavior, perhaps a different word than "results" should be used.--Silverback 20:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Get over it. Here in the new age, all revolutionaries/anti-government activists/etc.. will henceforth be known terrorists. Have you not noted how SDS/Weatherman, radicals, etc... are now terrorists. Tim McVeigh and his ilk were militiamen. Now they are terrorists. Wouldn't that make Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty the same? The U.S. and Confederate States governments (for their commando and unconventional warfare activities)? History is a funny thing. 74.255.67.146 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reason for the war, and reversion to 19:37, 9 September 2005
If you want to provide the official legal justification for the war, provide it and mark it as such. That would be UN Resolution 1441 and other applicable pieces of international law. But the reason Bush repeatedly stressed was that Iraq's arsenal of WMD posed a "mortal" and "urgent" threat to Iraq's neighbors, to the U.S., and world peace generally, so we had to take out Saddam to ensure that "the smoking gun" would not "come in the form of a mushroom cloud." That's how it was sold to the American people. It was claimed that there was a "slam-dunk" case that Iraq possessed tons of prohibited chemical weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program.

Noncooperation and poor accountancy are secondary reasons supporting the claim that Iraq possessed WMD, not the main reasons themselves. Specific legal justifications should be marked as such, not claimed to be the main stated reasons.

The phrase "continued Iraqi obstruction" isn't accurate because months before the invasion, the head UN inspector said that Iraq was cooperating "rather well." His biggest complaint about cooperation was that although they were allowing inspectors to go where they wanted, Iraq wasn't actively helping the investigation.

I also reverted to avoid the redirect from "Global protests against war on Iraq" to Protests against the invasion of Iraq. The 19:37 version also puts the date of invasion next to the time in the Opening Attack section, which isn't a bad idea. I'll restore the quote from the Duelfer Report. --Mr. Billion 23:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The coalition had all the legal justification it needed, including several resolutions and the fact that the 1st gulf war had not officially ended, so its justifications are available as well. Now if you want to focus on something other than the official legal reasons, why not go to the real reasons, instead of the rhetoric used to try to persuade the international community.  The real reason is that Saddam was too evil a character to leave in control of oil resources, he was sponsoring terrorism in Israel, had already attempted to assassinate the former president Bush and could not be trusted not to try to acquire WMD again after sanctions were lifted and only cooperated with inspections when forces were massing on his borders, and the UN was too unreliable and impotent to be relied upon to do anything about it.  The fact that there was a specific emphasis on the possibility/likelyhood that he current possess WMD is a minor issue.  Saddam could easily have avoided war if he wanted to, so lets put the blame where it belongs.--Silverback 00:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the official legal reason, stated by Colin Powell to the UN: "My colleagues, over three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach."  Material breach of it's disarmament obligations of course means that Iraq is in possession of WMDs. The reason the phrase "that Iraq possessed weapons of Mass Destruction" is used in the article is for the sake of simplicity and brevity (not to mention the Simple English rule). 69.121.133.154 01:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Careful, Silverback. You just admitted that you think that Bush's reasons given to persuade the international community were not the real reasons.

The fact that there was a specific emphasis on the claim that Iraq had a threatening arsenal of WMD is the issue, because the point in question is what was the main stated reason for the war. If you believe that there were ulterior motives, you're welcome to make that case elsewhere. --Mr. Billion 00:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If "nonaccountancy" and such are Secondary reasons, then why leave them in a sentence that starts: "The officially stated reason for the war is...."? I removed "and did not fully cooperate" Because according to the UN inspectors, he Did cooperate (see sources I added). Then I rewrote the following sentence to make sense considering that removal. Also I added another source .   And, Mr. Billion why did you readd the Duelfer Report quote about Iraq procuring illicit goods? How is Iraq procuring illicit goods relevant to the WMD section? 69.121.133.154 20:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There were just more reasons than those that were emphasized in the rhetoric, and the international community was well aware of the other reasons as well. The reports of the UN inspectors on the level of cooperation were more equivocal that you selectively cite.  Unfortuantely they were political orgs trying to please all members of the security council at once.  The reports admitted the regime was still throwing up roadblocks and conditions that hindered the inspectors and the freedom of scientists to speak, yet the inspectors did think they were getting useful work done.   However, those on the council favoring further delay, were not the ones paying for the show of force that gained Saddam's "cooperation".--Silverback 04:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, my interpreation of the "officially stated reason", is not the rhetoric that was used in speaches to the security council, but the legal justifications that were ultimately cited. The persuasion speaches, were just attempts to highlight features with those opposing action, could use, if they were willing to be reasonable, as cover, for supporting action.--Silverback 04:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is your source for these "legal justifications that were ultimately cited"? 69.121.133.154 19:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I take the fact that you're not even bothering to avoid re-inserting redirects into the article (even after they've repeatedly been pointed out) as evidence that you're less concerned with the quality of the article than you are with pushing your claim that the reason given for the war was poor cooperation and accountancy. The reason repeatedly and publicly stressed was the threat from WMD. Now that the WMD on which the war was predicated have been found not to have existed, you are focusing on other reasons, such as that Iraq did not sufficiently assure us that they did not exist. Mr. Billion 06:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not focusing on other reasons, I'm not sure what redirects are in the context in which you are using the term, perhaps you can explain. It might be more correct to state the resolutions that the poor cooperation and failure to account violated as the "reasons" for the war.  What was found after the war, confirms the justifiability of the war, Saddam did intend to restart his WMD programs.  Evidently the reason he decieved the inspectors, was not just to hide his intent to restart the program, but he also wanted his neighbors to think he was still powerful, especially Iran. --Silverback 06:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats just your point of view, and you're trying to push that into the article. I haven't seen you cite Any sources backing your claim for "legal justifications that were ultimately cited". While on the other hand, there are many sources directly contradicting your theory IE Colin Powell's Presentation, Bush's pre-war speeches etc. Is there some "Pre-War legal briefing" source that most everyone is unaware of? 69.121.133.154 19:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You should read the legal discussion in this very article. There is not even a question that the US and UK were attempting to get another resolution because they believed Saddam had failed to comply with resolution 1441 which required cooperation to be "immediate, unconditional and active".  In the 1st archive of this talk page you will find discussion of France's position, that this first resolution was enough, and the Blix reports to the UN security council show that Saddam's cooperation, on this his "final" chance, did not meet the "immediate, unconditional and active" standard.  An internet search on:

resolution 1441 inspections compliance Blix

will find the Blix reports in the first couple of pages. Here are a couple links you might want to read. There is no doubt that the US, UK and some others though Saddam was in breech of 1441, and that there were also other resolutions that he in breech of.--Silverback 23:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the US and UK thought that Iraq was in "material breech of it's disarmament obligations". But, as I pointed out earlier that Means possession of WMDs. None of those links point to the Bush Administration's officially stated legal reason for invading Iraq being lack of "full cooperation". And there's no doubt that thats a secondary concern, since if they have WMDs and don't disclose that, they aren't cooperating. But thats all it is. And unless you can present a source that Shows that the officially stated reason is that Iraq "had failed to account for it's WMDs" I see no reason to disbelieve the present sources. And thats not going to come from Hans Blix. Its going to have to come from someone in the Bush administration, as My sources do. 69.121.133.154 01:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On a seperate note, regarding whether or not Saddam was cooperating at the time of the invasion. I think Hans Blix has been pretty clear. In your first source: He states that "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.". Later in the article he states that he wants Iraq to be more forthcoming. In your second link  He says again, they cooperate on process but need to be more foward with substance. But I think it's more interesting what you leave out. In Hans Blix's last presentation to the UN before the war  He states that: "It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are, nevertheless, welcome. And UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues." Later in the article he concludes that he needs more time: "How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months." But he doesn't get those "months" he asked for. . Which is why, as a separate concern (other than "lack of cooperation clearly not being the main reason), I think it is inappropriate to say that "Iraq failed to account for it's WMDs and did not fully cooperate". Because according to the UN inspectors, He Did cooperate, it just took some time for him to do it. 69.121.133.154 01:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I appears that in a last month of rushing around, he couldn't make up for about a decade of intrasigence. What you have documented appears to be full support for my text.--Silverback 05:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Resolution 1441 is Bush's claimed legal grounds, even though while the resolution calls for "serious consequences" it does not mention military action, let alone war, let alone the invasion of Iraq and the complete destruction of its government. Blair did hope for another resolution to make the war legal, but was thwarted when Bush barged into war.

The U.S. and U.K. tried to push through an additional UN resolution that could have allowed the use of force, but couldn't get it passed. The UN charter only allows the use of military force for self-defense or in accordance with UN resolutions calling for military force. Again, 1441 did not even mention it.

And Silverback, you try to use a selective quote from a report by Hans Blix to justify the war, but Blix himself has said that the invasion was illegal.

What was found by U.S. weapons inspectors undercuts the case for war; it does not support it. Even if Iraq had had an actual weapons program, it would have posed a threat not to the U.S. and its allies, but to Iraq's fellow "axis of evil" member, Iran. Duelfer's report found that Iran was Iraq's chief reason for wishing to reconstitute its programs. And the fact is, Iraq didn't have a chance of rebuilding its past programs. There was no indication that sanctions and other restrictions against Iraq were going to be dropped any time soon. It has been made clear that the UN's efforts to dismantle Iraq's weapons systems were quite successful, and those efforts had not slackened. And once again, even if Iraq's programs were to be one day redeveloped, their target would be the "axis of evil."

Iraq was a weak country. Dick Cheney declared in 1991 that Iraq's military capability had been virtually eliminated, and the country's military spending just before the invasion was a fraction of that of surrounding countries. --Mr. Billion 06:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Blix should have said at most that it was "allegedly illegal", since there has been no conviction. There is an interpretation that no second resolution was needed after 1441, but that it was sought to assist in the British domestic political situation.  See the discussion in the first archive.  What US weapons inspectors did not find, does not alter Saddam's cooperation and compliance.  There was every indication those opposing the war were going to press for the sanctions to be dropped if the inspectors concluded their work.  Oil for food was already undermining them and undermining the integrity of the UN, including its security council.  We should count our selves fortunate that Saddam was not more forthcoming, because otherwise the sanctions may have been dropped, his WMD programs started back up, and the UN still wallowing in ethical filth.  Saddam did have enough power to continue oppressing the majority Shia, and his remaining arms stockpiles have been difficult to secure and destroy, however, his overall weakness did make this an opportune time to attack.  A couple years after the lifting of sanctions, he would have been far more dangerous.--Silverback 07:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, you reverted with the text "rv to SB, if you are interested in article quality, please fix your redirect concerns BEFORE reverting, whatever those redirect concerns are."

No, I am not saying that I am inserting the redirects, I am saying that you are. It's simple. The redirect I am talking about is the one I pointed out in the first post in this section. The version you keep reverting to includes the link Global protests against war on Iraq, which now at least redirects to the correct article, Protests against the invasion of Iraq, but previously redirected to another redirect. It's generally good form to avoid redirects and especially dead-end redirects, particularly when you are claiming that one version of an article is better than another. You did not do so even after the problem was pointed out. I am saying that if you wish to use this particular introduction, you could at least try your hand at editing rather than using the buttons to revert wholesale. Look at the version to which you're reverting. There is no reason to re-insert those redirects.

As to your "ethical filth" statement: Please, try to avoid throwing around insults. --Mr. Billion 07:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Silverback, trying to fix the problem by erasing every sentence where that link occurs does not help any. The sad thing is that this is the closest you've yet come to any attempt at a compromise. --Mr. Billion 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The sad thing is that you are focused on a very minor issue, even if the suspected WMD had been found, it would have been dwarfed in importance by what was found, and that was that Saddam intended to restart the WMD programs once sanctions were dropped. Nothing more need be found, in order to justify removing a dictator with his character, resources and history.  The guy was fair game and had no more right oppress Iraqis than to oppress us.  The most serious question to come out of this war, is why was the UN so useless, corrupt and fascist.  Yes, it is hegelian/facsist to place national sovereignty over individual rights, and despite the lip service to individual rights, in practice what the UN represents is nationalism.--Silverback 00:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, all you are doing in this talk page is re-stating your own personal POV over and over. You have been repeatedly asked to source your claims that the "officially stated reason" for the war was "failing to account for it's WMDs", but you have responded with sources from Hans Blix. As if an officially stated reason is going to come from someone who isn't an official in the Bush administration. Your version of the intro is completely unsourced and is in direct contradiction with the sources provided in the previous version. If you want your intro to be taken seriously please provide Sources. Specifically a source of a Bush administration officially stating prior to the invasion that the reason for the Iraq war is Iraq's "failure to account for it's WMDs". Because as it stands right now your version is original research and has no place in an encyclopedia. 69.121.133.154 19:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are wrong, I am also stating the POV of all intellectually honest anon's. You refuse to acknowledge the content of the resolutions and to review all the hard work in the talk archives and the sources I provided above.  Why won't you read the sources with an open mind?--Silverback 00:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"even if the suspected WMD had been found, it would have been dwarfed in importance by what was found, and that was that Saddam intended to restart the WMD programs once sanctions were dropped."

The weapons themselves would have been dwarfed in importance by the mere desire for the weapons? You're not making sense. --Mr. Billion 05:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The weapons that were not accounted for were fixed amounts. Restarting the programs would not have been a "mere desire for".  The expertise was there to produce larger amounts, and as the inspectors discovered longer range delivery systems were being developed.  The lesson is that you just don't leave Hitler's around with access to resources to fulfill their machinations.--Silverback 06:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Restarting the programs would not have been a "mere desire for".

You've jumped from talking about the intention to restart the programs to talking about the programs themselves. Mr. Billion 08:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And please, these never were the reasons stated for the invasion. The reasons invoked was that Saddam Hussein had functional weapons systems, including some operational within one hour, and that Iraq had to be invaded before these weapons were put to use (put to use, not built).
 * These tales of "programmes" and "will for a programme" are a posteriori excuses for an already accomplished invasion. Rama 08:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You confused the arguments used to try to convince intellectually dishonest opposition to vote for the new followup resolution, with the reasons for the war. The US would have been happy to go to war for the mere non-cooperation with the inspectors and failure to account, in fact, the targeting of planes enforcing the nofly zone was probably more than enough reason, even absent the humanitarian concerns posed by the Saddam regime.  The shrill hyperbole used to try to convince the security council, when reason failed to work, is not the "reason" for the war.--Silverback 12:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

SB, even if the argument that Saddam Hussein actually had a threatening arsenal of WMD had been used "only" to convince the "intellectually dishonest" opposition, it still is the main stated reason for war. Reasons given to convince those not opposed hardly qualify as reasons. Again, if you believe that the "real" reasons were other reasons not used to convince the opposition, these "real" reasons of yours are not the main stated reasons.

Your "intellectually dishonest" attack is baffling. It is you who is trying to pretend that the reason given for the invasion was simply poor accountancy and withheld cooperation. Can you find a quote where it is stated by a Bush administration official that either of those is the core reason?

As Rama has pointed out, the claim was that Saddam had functioning weapons systems that could be put to use within one hour--the time frame given by Tony Blair was forty-five minutes. The reason given for why we had to invade before inspectors could finish their job was the allegation that Iraq possessed a threatening arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that had to be eliminated. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed on September 13, 2002, "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons....We all know that. A trained ape knows that." As it turned out, the trained ape's information was faulty.

You keep comparing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to that posed by Hitler, but Hitler was militarily very powerful, actively expansionist, and actually had military allies. In terms of ability to pose a threat, Iraq resembled Germany rather less than you think. The comparison to Germany would make more sense if Germany's primary opponent in WWII had been Italy, since Saddam's main reason for desiring WMD was to make trouble for his fellow "axis of evil" member, Iran.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in 2003 that "the truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

You have provided no sound evidence or reasoning to support your claims, only mostly restated the original claim and your red herring "'arguments for' VS 'reasons for'" quibble. If the reason for invading was simply poor accountancy and compliance, then where did the "urgent," "mortal," and "immediate" threat come from? Weak cooperation? Bad accounting? --Mr. Billion 03:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It came from WMD that was unaccounted for. It apparently is still unaccounted for.  But at least now UN sanctions are not killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.--Silverback 08:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The next step is for the United States to invade itself for failing to account for the nonexistent Iraqi WMD. This could become a vicious cycle.

"It apparently is still unaccounted for." You're still somehow operating under the assumption that Saddam actually had these weapons, when the United States' own investigation found last year that Saddam didn't have these weapons, hadn't made any since 1991, and furthermore didn't have the ability to make any. Both Bush and Cheney have said that Saddam didn't have the alleged WMD.

But at least now UN sanctions are not killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

Another red herring.

Regardless, your reply only responded to the question of where this urgent threat came from. You still have not shown evidence that the primary reason Bush & Blair gave for invading Iraq was simply its "failing to account" and not cooperating fully. --Mr. Billion 08:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Both Bush and Blair worked for a UN resolution authorizing the war to that effect. --Silverback 08:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is a Powell quote discussing the non-compliance "I think it will be a resolution that summarizes the situation as it exists, shows that Iraq is not in compliance, however much inspectors may be moving around the country, and that's good; but if there is no compliance, if there is no cooperation of the kind we expected, then that's not good, and I think the resolution will point out that lack of cooperation and point to the fact that the United Nations Security Council is supposed to act in the presence of this lack of cooperation. A lot of arguments about more inspectors, keep the inspections going, but we must not lose sight of the basic issue. The basic issue is Iraqi compliance, and that's not what we're getting."--Silverback 08:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We also have innumerable instances of talks about the present weapon systems of Iraq and their immediate danger. Only mentionning "Iraqi compliance" is totally misleading, especially since Iraq was indeed complying with the UN shortly before the war, and that UN teams were willing to cintinue with their inspections. Rama 17:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No they weren't complying to the extent required by 1441, read the Blix reports. Powell above is talking about the resolution the US and UK were trying to negotiate with the security council to justify and authorize the war.  So this isn't about mere persuasive speech like your cites, this is about what the actual authorization and formal justification would be. The real thing, the serious stuff  I knew you guys didn't really want a cite, because the attempt at another resolution on this basis was common knowedge, so your requests for a cite was just an excuse to keep on reverting.--Silverback 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The real thing, the serious stuff I knew you guys didn't really want a cite, because the attempt at another resolution on this basis was common knowedge

One quote from an interview does not make this the "main stated reason" for the war. It's a nice retort to the Wolfowitz quote, though, so good for you.

You've used a quote to support your statement that "Bush and Blair worked for a UN resolution authorizing the war," but left out the part where Powell says he's not sure that it will explicitly authorize the war. Regardless, the resolution didn't fly, so the point is moot. And Powell gave that interview a week before Blix's statement that Iraq was cooperating on process "rather well." The war wasn't waged because "well, Iraq was cooperating rather well, but not well enough."

Again, cooperation and accounting are issues secondary to WMD. The American public did not accept the war simply because of poor accounting. They were convinced by the "urgent threat" said to be posed by the weapons Saddam allegedly had.

A few posts ago you expressed that you think the weapons were real and are still out there somewhere unaccounted for. You said that there was a threat posed by these unaccounted-for weapons. But at the same time you've been saying that the war was needed because they weren't accounted for, not because they posed a threat. Somehow you're still trying to fit your assertion that the war was about poor accounting inside this persistent belief of yours that Saddam had this threatening arsenal of WMD. --Mr. Billion 01:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That citation was not about battling quotes, it was about the substance of the quote, and that is what was going to be the legal justification for the war in the resolution. All the other speeches were just persuasive (well apparently not) bluster, much like what takes place on the floor of congress.  What matters is the language of the statutes or resolutions.  1441 was violated by Saddam, and the new resolution would have made that case and justified the war based on it.--Silverback 22:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph
I have problems with the introductory paragraph. It reads as vague and poorly written. Passive voice, etc... It is also POV (Saddam Hussein was President too, yet this title is only given to Bush). Furthermore, more than half the content is about the rationale/legality concern, not the actual event. The invasion was a very isolated event in this continuing saga that is U.S. involvement in Iraq, and this article goes far beyond the scope of its title. In the interest of not ruffling too many feathers, for now im willing to leave parts of it in. My suggested rewrite is as follows:

Initiated on March 20, 2003 by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and several other nations loosely defined as the "coalition of the willing", the "2003 invasion of Iraq" marked the formal beginning of the Iraq War. Swift in execution, the invasion followed the military doctrine of Shock and Awe. Baghdad fell on April 9th, 2003 and on May 1, 2003 U.S. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations, for all intents and purposes terminating the Ba'ath Party's rule and removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from office even though he would ellude coalition forces until December, 2003. A transitional occupation began thereafter and among other topics, is covered under Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. Prior to the invasion, the U.S. tried and failed to secure a U.N. mandate to intervene in the interests of U.S. national security and international stability. Thus, the legitimacy of the invasion is a point of contention. The request to the U.N. Security Council was based on intelligence reports showing Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The legal justification involved Iraq's implied violation of several U.N. Resolutions, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 1441. U.S. president George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that these weapons posed a significant and timely threat to the United States and its allies. Much of this intelligence is now under scrutiny and of questionable veracity. In the days before the attack, the Iraqi government repeatedly denied the existence of any such facilities or capabilities and called the reports lies or fabrications. U.N. inspection teams, in and out of Iraq since the Gulf War, while willing to continue the search were ordered out as war loomed. This article covers the particulars of the invasion. For more general information see Iraq War, U.S.-Led Occupation of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005.

Please comment. I'll clean it up a bit and then make the changes if acceptable. ImagoDei


 * This introduction will be a nice one for the article when we will be done with the work of switching the topic from the whole war in Iraq to specifically the invasion in the sense of mostly pure military implementation.
 * A few observations:
 * * It is a little bit long
 * * "This article covers the particulars of the invasion. For more general information see Iraq War, U.S.-Led Occupation of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005"; I would put this as a disclaimer above the introduction rather than at the end of it
 * * "Much of this intelligence is now under scrutiny and of questionable veracity"; hmmm, it is not "questionable"; it was bullocks. Even the White House and the British government recognise this. Diplomatic formulation is one thing, but this wording is too weak to reflect the extend of the dichotomy between the governmental declarations and reality.
 * Overall, this is a nice proposal, which goes in the same direction than what was discussed previously, so probably another sign that moving away from discussing the whole Iraq war would be a good idea. Rama 12:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Right now the article Iraq War covers things from the "mostly pure military implementation" perspective. No reason to make this article into a mirror image of the main article on this subject. One of the three main articles regarding this subject needs to thoroughly cover the rationale/legality concern, as it's the reason this war is so unpopular, this article seems the logical place for it. Nice intro overall though. However, "Much of this inteligence is now under scrutiny" sentence needs to go. I suggest just deleting that sentence and inserting this one after "were ordered out as war loomed.": "Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction.". Or something of that order. 69.121.133.154 05:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

RonCram's original research
RonCram has been trying for a long time to include original research on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page connecting Able Danger to the alleged conspiracy between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The connection between these two is speculation that Able Danger may lead to questioning the 911 Commission's credibility in this matter. So far that has not occurred, nor can he produce any mainstream press accounts that connect these issues. Thus, the connection he asserts is original research. We've been successfully fighting his addition of this research on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page; so now he has inserted it here instead. You can look at the Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda for more information about the arguments. I will revert his changes here and I encourage others to do so as well; if his conduct there is any indication of how he will behave here, it is possible that he will continue reverting and posturing in talk: without ever responding to the arguments. --csloat 18:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * By all means go to that other page and make up your own minds, rather than mindlessly accepting someone elses mischaracterization of things.--Silverback 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems we agree that that discussion belongs on that other page and not on this page. Please do not add this original research to this page.-csloat 20:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * csloat, your comments about me are in bad faith and easily disproven. Anyone can visit the Talk page on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and read our discussions.  It is true that I have been busy lately and not involved in either editing or discussing the Saddam and AQ page.  But I have not lost interest in seeing the page more accurately reflect the facts.  Today I made a a few edits on other pages.  I believe all but one of my edits was well sourced.  I neglected to source one comment and for that I apologize.  Adding the link is very easy to do.  I hope you will forgive the oversight.  The fact Able Danger has questioned the credibility of the 9/11 Commission is hardly news.  If you read the wikipedia page, you can read the damage to their credibility yourself.  The 9/11 Commission was given a large budget and expected to do a thorough investigation.  We know they chose not to investigate Able Danger because that is in all the news reports.  We do not know why the commission did not discuss the other newspaper reports or the opinion piece in the state-run Iraqi paper. Until some reasons come forth on the reason they neglected these important pieces of evidence, I will not speculate.  However, it is well within an encyclopedia's role to point out that the Commission has not discussed this information. RonCram 01:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Able Danger stuff has not questioned this aspect of the Commission's credibility. The 1998 news articles have been superceded by investigations that refuted the supposed "alliance".  It is orignial research to suggest Able Danger is relevant to Saddam and AQ, and that discussion belongs on the proper page anyway.  You should not just move it over here after you lose the debate on the more appropriate page.  I do not think I am the one exhibiting "bad faith" here.--csloat 02:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Commission was suppose to investigate. Able Danger has demonstrated the Commission chose not to investigate Able Danger information from credible witnesses when it did not fit their timeline. The damage is not limited to any one particular point. The damage is to the 9/11 Commission as an investigative unit. The 1998 news articles have not "been superceded" by subsequent investigations.  What a strange thing to say!  Why are you so insistent that readers of wikipedia do not get the facts???  After rechecking my facts, the 9/11 Commission did not discuss even the newspaper in Milan.  That was discussed in the Senate Report on page 328.  Saddam and AQ are relevant to this page since President Bush named the link between the two as one of the reasons for the invasion.  csloat, you are committing simple vandalism here.  You are damaging your reputation. RonCram 12:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is an article on Able Danger where you can discuss your speculation about what may come out of the investigation. There is an article on the 9/11 Commission where you can discuss your speculation about their credibility.  Able Danger has not yet had any impact on the discussion of Saddam's relationship with AQ in any of the mainstream media, so it is original research to put it here.  As for your other point, the 1998 news articles that you insist on quoting turned out to be dead wrong; by 2001-3 there is nobody credible who believes anymore that Saddam had any kind of "alliance" with al Qaeda.  We've already been through this on the page where it is relevant; you lost the arguments there, and now you come here to try to sneak your POV in anyway.  Those articles were wrong, as several investigations since have shown.  Stop worrying about my reputation, Ron; I am not the one trying to sneak original research and false POV claims into articles where they are barely relevant.--csloat 14:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are changing the subject, csloat. I have made contributions to the Able Danger page. I, and others, have made entries on the 9/11 Commission page on the damage to their credibility.  I have said nothing in my entries on this page about the relationship of Able Danger to Saddam and AQ, a speculation which originally came from a Weekly Standard article.  However, as you know, I have backed off the original assertion from the Weekly Standard because of the statement by Shafer's attorney that Atta was not physically in New York.  That issue is now too unclear to be mentioned in wikipedia.  You continue to bring this issue up even though it is not being discussed.  The issue at stake here is the damage Able Danger reports have done to the credibility of the 9/11 Commission to thoroughly investigate. This damage is already discussed on the 9/11 Commission page and should be here as well. In addition, newspaper accounts regarding Saddam and AQ were never discussed by the 9/11 Commission (and the Senate Report only discussed one of them).  There are two issues here:   Is the 9/11 Commission a thorough and credible investigative body?  (an issue that is very much in the news, is already discussed on the 9/11 Commission page and should be discussed here as well)  Were there published reports of a "pact" or "alliance" between Saddam and al-Qaeda? (an issue that is fully settled in the affirmative, is discussed on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page and is relevant to this page as well).  Your deletions of this content is nothing but simple vandalism based on POV.  I ask you once again to desist from deleting interesting and relevant information from these articles. -RonCram 15:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not changing the subject; Able Danger's connection to Saddam/AQ is what is at issue here; that and the silly quote you have from an Italian newspaper in 1998. My point is that Able Danger has not yet raised any questions about the 911 Commission's treatment of this issue, and nobody in the mainstream media has made such a connection either.  So the connection you assert may be true but it is original research.  (It is also exaggerated by you but that is a separate issue).  As for the 1998 paper, the reports of a "pact" or "alliance" turned out to be completely false.  Where is the pact?  Where is the evidence of such a pact?  This question was investigated by CIA, DIA, NSC, FBI, British intelligence, French intelligence, the 9/11 Commission, and the Senate Committee, and everyone concluded there was no cooperation, no operational relationship, and certainly no "alliance" or "pact."  Finally, stop throwing around the word "vandalism" - it is a false accusation.  Vandals do not discuss their changes in talk, nor do they insist on correcting inaccuracies.--csloat 15:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no original research involved. When the 9/11 Commission's credibility and thoroughness are questioned, those questions cannot be limited to one aspect of their investigation. Your attempt to limit it is blatantly POV.  If you were reading wikipedia articles about the conclusions reached by the 9/11 Commission, would you not want to know that the Commission was given important and credible information and chose not to investigate it?  Of course you would, because it would help you assess the value and authority of those conclusions.  Regarding the newspaper reports - If you believe the reports of a pact between Saddam and al Qaeda are false, you are welcome to present your evidence in the article.  However, the pact was reported in newspapers around the world.  This is a fact you cannot dispute.  These publications could have been the basis for decisions by government officials, whether or not the report about the pact was true.  Let's stick to the facts and let the facts speak for themselves.  Yes, I do consider your reverts as simple vandalism.  You are reverting data you have not shown to be false, irrelevant or original research.  You have not given any excuse for reverting the entry on the speech by Senator Hollings on the floor of the Senate.  You are a vandal. -RonCram 19:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is original research if you are making inferences that are not made in the mainstream media or books or articles on this subject. There is no scholar or journalist writing about Able Danger that has argued that it has anything to do with the Commission's assessment of Saddam's relation to al Qaeda.  It is fine to discuss the Commission's credibility on the page about the Commission, but it doesn't make sense here or on the Saddam-AQ page.  This is not a page about the Commission or about its credibility, and it is not clear that this article depends on the Commission's credibility for anything.  Your claim that its credibility in a general sense is attacked by Able Danger is not backed up by anything specific about Able Danger.  Able Danger appears to suggest that some people put together a different timeline about the events of 9/11 -- this does not suggest that the Commission's conclusions on other issues are faulty.  There is no evidence or even suspicion that Able Danger will reveal information relevant to the Saddam/AQ connection; the only people talking about whether such a connection exists are here on Wikipedia.  The mainstream media has not mentioned it; the only article mentioning both in the same article is the Weekly Standard one which even you have distanced yourself from.  And as we know that article is completely misleading.  And of course I made these claims over and over when I discussed this with you on the talk section of the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, and you consistently ignored these arguments and kept repeating yourself.
 * Second, there is no evidence whatsoever of any "pacts"; you are trying to reverse the burden of proof here - it is your burden to prove that a pact exists, not mine to prove one does not. This is a typical debate trick that you used in our arguments on the other page, which you eventually gave up on, and then you came here to sneak in the same arguments that you couldn't justify in the discussion on the other page when I pressed you to.  If you assert that a "pact" exists, I want to see it.  A "pact" indicates a formal written agreement.  Where is it?  Who signed it?  What evidence suggests such a pact may have existed, even verbally?  Any evidence of money transfers that are consistent with such a pact?  Stop pretending it is my burden to prove a negative - if you assert that a pact exists, let's see the evidence.  What we do know is that the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, 9/11 Commission, Senate Committee, and the intel agencies of several foreign nations all investigated whether there was cooperation between Saddam and AQ and found that there was none.  If such a pact existed, none of these agencies were able to turn up any evidence of it.  The fact that an Italian newspaper writer got it wrong eight years ago is hardly notable, especially not in an article that is about a 2003 event.
 * As for Senator Hollings, that silliness is discussed at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, where it is sort of relevant; it is hardly relevant here. We also debated it to death on the talk page there and you lost that debate there.  Are you seriously suggesting that an op-ed piece from a random Iraqi writer in a local newspaper was a primary justification for the invasion of Iraq?  Or that such an article proves that Saddam Hussein (who has no known connection to the writer other than that the paper is "state-run") had a "pact" with al-Qaeda?  If so, your doctor really isn't prescribing enough medication.  Such trivia is interesting on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, perhaps, and perhaps on the Senator Hollings page as evidence of how far gone he is, but it hardly belongs here.  The article was never cited in any administration speech asserting the Saddam-al-Qaeda connection, and it is clear that the assertion was not taken seriously by the 911 Commission or any of the other commissions that looked into this.  Even Judge Baer, who cites the article approvingly, admits that the article's implications are "vague" at best.  And of course I have made every one of these points when we discussed this issue on the other page.
 * As for your false charge of "vandalism", if you think my edits are vandalism, you are really not familiar enough with wikipedia to be editing as aggressively as you do. Please read Wikipedia's policy on vandalism before throwing false accusations around.  You may also wish to familiarize yourself with this page.  Thank you.-csloat 20:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

csloat, you are changing the subject. There is no original research because several media outlets have covered the remarks of Rep Curt Weldon talking about the damage to the 9/11 Commission's credibility. He has even spoken of a possible "coverup." For you to attempt to keep this information from readers of wikipedia is the worst kind of censorship. You are acting as an attorney trying to suppress evidence in the court of public opinion rather than as a wikipedia editor seeking NPOV. Second -regarding the report of a "pact," you have a funny way of saying there is no evidence while we are discussing the evidence. And you have a funny way of calling on the authority of the 9/11 Commission which ignored (or was not aware of) the published reports on the "pact." If you seek corroborating evidence, you need only see that al Qaeda did hit a US target in the region just over a year after the pact was agreed to. You have heard of the USS Cole, right? Third, regarding Senator Hollings - you claim to have won some debate about Hollings on Saddam Hussen and al-Qaeda but if you read the article, the Hollings speech is still in the article and has been for some time. I am uncertain how you consider this a victory for your side. Regarding your comment about my medication, I do not think that exhibits good wikiquette. Just to ease your mind, I can tell you that I am in fine health and take only vitamins. I am not on any medication. -RonCram 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ron please stop the personal attacks. I am not "censoring" anything - if I wanted to censor this info I would delete the entry on Able Danger.  I am only deleting this information when it is not relevant to the article and when it is obviously inserted for blatant POV reasons.  The "pact" is crap and you know it because we discussed it on another page and you conceded my arguments there.  If there was a "pact", please show me the signatures.  It's interesting that EVERY intelligence agency to look at this found NO evidence of any "pact" or other signs of formal collaboration with the regime.  If you want to put in that there were "contacts", fine, but a 1998 newspaper using the word "pact" does not constitute evidence, especially when that notion has been refuted decisively by the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, 911 Commission, Senate Committee, and several foreign intel agencies.  You have no evidence the 911 Commission "ignored" the published article; they probably looked at it and determined that its conclusion was inaccurate due to YEARS of investigations by intelligence agencies after 1998 that concluded there was no cooperation.  As for the USS Cole - yes I have heard of it Ron.  I also have NEVER seen ANY evidence, not even a whiny claim from a right wing loon in the Weekly Standard, claiming that Saddam was behind the Cole bombing.  You are making stuff up and demanding that we put it in an encyclopedia, then you charge me with censorship for trying to enforce a higher standard of proof.  The Hollings speech is in the article, but it is "proof" of nothing, other than that Hollings needs to check his reading comprehension skills.  It is only in the article because you insisted, but you lost the arguments regarding its significance.  Do you really think we should put all of the evidence from the timeline in this article too?  I will be happy to do so rather than deleting the nonsense you keep adding but this will make the article much longer (and it will make your POV seem even less credible than it already does).  Sorry about the comment about your meds; I am just getting frustrated with your insistence on remaining ignorant here.  It's fine though, believe whatever cconspiracies you want, but please stop insisting that Wikipedia validate your delusions.--csloat 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions based on POV need to stop
Deletions without any discussion are simple vandalism. Deletions with long-winded arguments attempting to keep out information readers deserve to have based on POV is not much better. If you wish to delete portions of my contributions, I suggest you see if you can find someone who agrees with you my entry is irrelevant, unsourced or otherwise unworthy of inclusion. If it is possible to find a fair-minded person who agrees, I would love to discuss it with them. -RonCram 15:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Major edits that add significant POV problems, even when summarized as providing "better NPOV", are also problematic. The edit you just entered takes what look to me like some relatively minor POV problems in the direction of minimizing Saddam Hussein's historical links with terrorism, and goes way, way too far in the other direction. For example, you added this:


 * Saddam Hussein had a long history of supporting terror organizations. However, there is some controversy over whether his regime's numerous contacts with al-Qaeda equated to an operational relationship.


 * My interpretation of the relevant data is that Saddam Hussen had a history of supporting some anti-Israel terrorist organizations. The judgement of authorities that have investigated his contacts with other terror organizations (e.g., al-Qaeda) is that those contacts have been few and of an exploratory nature, with little evidence to suggest, and more evidence undercutting, the possibility that he had some kind of operational relationship with al-Qaeda.


 * Your edit has the effect of skewing the article the other way. There certainly is some valid information included in your edit, and reverting it wholesale would weaken the article in that sense. But leaving your edit in place also weakens the article, because it slants it in favor of the position that Saddam probably did have an operational relationship with al-Qaeda, which is a position that is not supported by relevant third-party sources.


 * So, what to do? This page as it stands is going through some major edit-warring. The POV problems are pretty glaring. Can we reach some kind of agreement to help us move forward? This isn't rocket science. Everyone needs to chill out and stop trying to "win". There's a controversy, sure. But people need to stop trying to argue it in this article. The article needs to characterize it, accurately, with suitable references to the best available sources. But as long as people (which as far as I can tell includes people on both sides of the issue at this point) are caught up in trying to "win" by getting the article to reflect their position, the article itself will lose.


 * I agree that wholesale deletions are not helpful at this point. But neither are largescale edits that introduce numerous POV problems, which is what I think your latest edit did. Why don't you try backing it out, and picking one small part of it that you feel would improve the article, and add that? Then we can discuss it here, and modify it if needed, and get to a place that everyone can live with. Then we can go on to some other issue, and repeat as needed. I think that might work a lot better. -- John Callender 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you John for explaining it in this way. I do not believe there is any valid information in Ron's edit, but I will try to address the disinformation he presents in a way that does not delete it entirely.  I am just worried because we wind up duplicating the fine article we already have over at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  I really don't see why these things need to be hashed out in different places like this, other than to appease Ron.--csloat 20:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I would tend to agree that most of the material in that section belongs in the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article. Would it be possible to get that section in this article down to just a couple of paragraphs, relying on readers to follow the link to the other article if they want more information? I realize that article itself is currently in dispute, and has seen lots of recent allegations of bias, 3RR violations, etc. But using that page as the venue to deal with the controversy seems like a better approach than having the controversy play out on multiple, less-related pages.

On the information in Ron's recent edit, I'd agree that there are problems both in the specifics (like citing avowedly partisan sources like The Weekly Standard and Fox News without noting their partisan nature) and in the general tone, which is to basically argue for a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection that most relevant authorities have concluded is unlikely. But at the same time, I think Ron deserves credit for making a good-faith effort to be sensitive to the requirements of NPOV. -- John Callender 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the section; see below for justification of changes. I agree that this section is too long and I agree the controversy should be kept on that page; it was RonCram's idea to spread this to other pages because he seems to have felt that he was unable to win the arguments on the other page.  I have dealt with this sort of conduct with him for a while so forgive me if I sometimes have trouble assuming good faith -- but I am going to try again, and I am making a good faith effort to rewrite the page, even keeping in some of the things that Ron wants in but that I do not think are relevant (see below).  Thanks for your input. --csloat 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda section rewrite
Below is a quick summary of my changes; I think this covers everything:

1. Kept RonCram's addition of the 1998 article in there. I don't think it is necessary but if others do, it should stay. I've changed the language and context for more POV and accuracy. This article should not leave the impression that RonCram's version conveys that this was a big piece of evidence missed by the Commission and Committee -- it was a mistaken report by an Italian reporter (I'm not sure who said "alliance" but let's say two reporters) based on the prevailing wisdom of the time (1998), which turned out to be wrong. In 1998 the NSA thought that Saddam and AQ were teaming up, and launched a "red-team" study of the issue (The NSA's position was different from CIA's, and the NSA goal was to prove the CIA wrong). Well, they failed -- they were unable to find the connections they assumed were there (more info here). So it is clear that people around the president at the time believed that Saddam was connected to AQ, but when they souught evidence for this they turned up dry. I mention this because RonCram makes a lot out of articles from this time period, when many people believed there was a connection, but there had been far less investigation into the issue than there is today. By now the prevailing wisdom of intelligence analysts and of the mainstream media around the world suggests that no evidence has emerged to support a Saddam-AQ connection. RonCram has every right to disagree with all of those experts, but he is not correct to demand that Wikipedia make his case for him.

2. Contextualize Powell quote with what he said in 2005, and add statement about the intelligence community's analysis of the "links". I could add further detail here if people want but all this info is available at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I am not sure how much duplication is necessary here; I would prefer to cut a lot of this section out completely and just refer people there.

3. Include info on al-Janabi and the INC. This stuff is also on the other page but if we are going to include this information here it should be put in context.

4. I removed the sentence "Evidence of the relationship is contradictory" because it is not backed up by the information on this page. There is nothing contradictory about it at all. There were some exploratory contacts between Saddam and AQ and they led to nothing.

5. Contextualized the Senator Hollings thing. I really think this does not belong here at all. Senators and Representatives enter all kinds of things into the CR and it does not appear in an encyclopedia. The fact that Hollings read an op-ed piece as evidence of foreknowledge is meaningless -- even if it were true at best it would prove that bin Laden's plans were an open secret in parts of the Islamic world. But even that is not supported by the flimsy textual analysis Hollings offers. But let's say this guy knew OBL was going to blow up the towers. How is he connected to Saddam? He writes an op-ed piece in a "state-run" newspaper? I work at a "state-run" university in California; does that mean that if I know about a crime, it can be assumed that Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration was involved in it?? I feel ridiculous having to spell this out; it is difficult for me to believe that anyone can give this credibility.

Look, if there was really a collaboration between Saddam and AQ, where is the money trail? Where are the weapons? The evidence of planning together? The big things, not shadowy meetings that are disputed by other sources, or bizarre readings of op-ed pieces in local newspapers.

6. Got rid of Able Danger. Contrary to what RonCram thinks, I am not "afraid" of this information. If it was relevant, someone besides Wikipedia editors would have mentioned it. No article on Able Danger has seen fit to mention any of this. If Able Danger turns out to prove that the Commission lied or covered up a connection between Saddam and AQ, that would certainly belong here, but so far that has not happened and nobody is even speculating that it will happen (except on Wikipedia). This is not the place to explore such possible future worlds -- if mainstream newspapers start mentioning it then it belongs here. Otherwise Ron's assumption that the Commission's credibility on this question will be tarnished is "interesting", but it is original research. I've made this argument a number of times above and on the Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, but Ron does not seem to want to let it go. Can others offer their opinions on this? --csloat 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I am the one that speculated you were "afraid", although RonCram may have also. What would the cited sources have had to say in order to make it relevant?  It is pretty clear that Able Danger, has politicians questioning the thoroughness and objectivity of the 9/11 commission, as well as Atta's timeline.  Reporters are reporting this.  We certainly are not claiming to be personal witnesses to it.  Your arguments fail to go beyond mere assertions.  Can you lay down your reasoning step by step, (assuming your assertions are the result of a reasoning process rather than mere intuition), so that we can perhaps reach an understanding and compromise?--Silverback 01:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First silverback, do not make such massive reversions without discussing the issues. Second, Able Danger has not led to any questioning of the Commission's handling of the Saddam/AQ connection.  If you insist that it does why is it that you cannot explain why not a single reporter has reported such questioning?  I did lay my reasoning out step by step, silverback, I am not the one making inferences that are not sourced.  If I am it would help if you pointed them out rather than just insisting that I am making assertions.--csloat 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's revert
User Silverback just reverted all the changes I made with a cryptic edit summary. He has been doing this kind of massive reversions on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page as well, and he does not respond to arguments or discussion in talk. I spent a lot of time rewriting this entry in good faith to include the arguments introduced by RonCram, even though I did not agree with the significance of those arguments. I also spent time writing my justifications for every change, which are listed above. Silverback reverted almost all of it without responding to a single of the justifications above. I have implored Silverback to stop this behavior on his user:talk page. He is not only reverting here; he is deleting relevant information wholesale. I hope I am not alone in perceiving such edits as highly problematic.--csloat 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Why?
Hey, um, why do we have this page whereas there's the much nicer, and NPOV, article at Iraq War?


 * the two pages do not cover the same topcis. This page talks about the invasion of Iraq as a military operations, Iraq War is more general. Rama 06:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So why is this one much more POV then? Just compare the opening paragraphs even. JG of Borg 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

what cites support 90% opposition to the war in Spain?
The provide citations don't support Spains 90% opposition figure in the article. I haven't removed that figure yet, perhaps someone can come up with the citation. We need to be careful with the language, to avoid giving the wrong impressions by mixing polling results from different time periods with different questions and circumstances. For instance, the gallup polls which are cited are from January, before the invasion of course, but many then were still hoping that the UN would act responsibly. The poll results might have been different just before the invasion, after the UN had not responded good faith efforts at a new resolution by the US, UK and Spain. Of course, we will never know what the pre-war poll results would have been had there been general knowledge of the oil for food corruption's possible influence on the UN decision making.--Silverback 14:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link for editing Template:Infobox_2003_Invasion_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_2003_Invasion_of_Iraq --Theo Pardilla 13:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback tidbits
I realize he is just baiting me because of the RfA against him, so I don't plan on tinkering with Silverback's recent (minor) edits. But I want to first point out that his most recent edit summary refers to "indiscriminately reverted information" yet it isn't clear what he's talking about; he's changed the wording slightly but added no new information. More importantly his earlier edit adds the word "unspecified" and claims inexplicably that that is "more clear" ... Actually the stories are specified and detailed on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page if anyone wants to list them all. "Some unspecified information" just sounds ludicrous so it would be better if it was rewritten in a manner that made more sense. I'm going to lay off it though because I don't feel like getting sucked back into an edit war with Silverback, which he seems to be trying to do both here and on the other page.--csloat 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought right after I clicked that it might be unclear what I was referring to. Unfortunatly, you can't go back and edit the summaries.  I was referring to Mr Tibbs reverts, a few edits earlier.  That passage is talking about things that are not specified here in this article, so it is unclear what is being referred to.  Disputing facts on this page that are not mentioned on this page, doesn't make sense, especially since only "some" of them are being disputed, some also apparently are NOT being disputed, which ones?  There is no information there for the reader, and we shouldn't replicate the whole Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda page here.--Silverback 08:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm through doing your research for you Silverback. Read the timeline on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda yourself and you would know exactly which are being disputed.  You certainly should know this given how aggressively you have edited that page.  I agree that we shouldn't replicate that page here; in fact that is what I have been arguing on this page for a long time, but you and others have insisted on using this page as another forum for your silly conspiracy theory.  My request is that if such nonsense is going to be put here that it be put in the proper context.  By the way you changed the line about the known liar and murderer Mohamed Mansour Shahab to say "Guy Dinsmore questions his credibility" which is misleading; as you read on you can see that Dinsmore is not the only one "questioning" his credibility.  The original sentence "His story is not considered credible" is more accurate.  Also that guy does not appear on the timeline at all on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda which it probably should.  Anyway I am all for removing this detail from this page and replacing it with a link to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and a simple summary that indicates that all relevant intelligence analysts, reporters, and scholars have concluded that there were no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and that most of the so-called "evidence" for such links was fabricated by an organized gang of criminals funded by the US but with close ties to Iranian intel. --csloat 02:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I propose this balanced summary, from the introduction to the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as a replacement for the whole section.

Vote to replace the text of the al Qaeda section with this summary
The header and the link to the main Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda would remain, here is the proposed replacement text for this messy section:


 * In 2003, the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on America, and used this allegation, among others, to persuade Congress and the American people to invade Iraq. Prior to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror, many believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to al-Qaeda. Reports of contacts between the two were published in various newspapers and magazines, but none of these are considered concrete evidence that Iraq conspired with al Qaeda in the past to commit terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.   This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA.  The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.

--Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

vote here sign with [\wiki]--Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[\nowiki]


 * replace yes replace with the above proposed text --Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I would tinker with this a bit - first of all the redundant phrase "in the past" has to go, at the very least, and there should be some indication of the Admin's strong implication that Saddam was connected to 911 rather than the wishy-washy "might conspire to launch terrorist attacks." Actual quotes from Admin members would be best here I think. Second, I'm not sure we should have the same exact paragraph in two places. Third, I do not want to see the information that is here deleted if it is not on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page. The Sahab story needs to be there if we're deleting it from here. A vote, I think, is premature.--csloat 20:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have changed the text to address your concerns. If the Shahab story has merit is should be in the "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda" page.  Is there any sign that his tale was taken seriously and relied upon by the administration?  If not, I'm not sure how notable is, just a case of nuts coming out of the woodwork.--Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, like all of these stories from bogus defectors. If we leave the story out someone will accuse us of censoring relevant information that helps prove their conspiracy theory.  (You might be familiar with this line of argument).  People who believe the conspiracy tend to insist on every tiny detail being included no matter how little credibility any detail has... Things like poorly worded articles from Italian newspapers from 1998, or local Iraqi newspaper articles with vague references to something or other... Anyway my point is I don't think the story has any merit whatsoever but it nonetheless belongs on that page if we erase it here (actually, whether or not we erase it here).csloat 09:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote to replace the text of the al Qaeda section with this revised summary
The header and the link to the main Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda would remain, here is the proposed replacement text for this messy section:


 * In 2003, the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on America, and used this allegation, among others, to persuade Congress and the American people to invade Iraq. Prior to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror, many believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to al-Qaeda. Reports of contacts between the two were published in various newspapers and magazines, but none of these are considered concrete evidence that Iraq had conspired with al Qaeda to commit terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.   This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA.  The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.

--Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

vote here sign with [\wiki]--Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[\nowiki]


 * replace yes replace with the above proposed text. --Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to call for a vote for every change, especially when there don't seem to be major obstacles to consensus. I added the Sahab story to the timeline on the other page so it can safely be deleted here; I haven't read the rest of the section carefully enough recently to say whether there is anything else that is not included in the timeline but we should do that before deleting it here.--csloat 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda terminology "Coalition of the willing" & "Coalition"
"Coalition of the willing" is a loaded phrase which includes the implicit judgement of "willing" and the misleading "coalition". The impression given is of a large number of nations in alliance toward a common purpose is at odds with the invaders constituent sources being primarily the United States and Britain with a numerically minor component from other nations. This is in comparison to the first Iraq war which could be more fairly described in its essential character as a coalition. --Theo Pardilla 13:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your concern is better addressed by an appropriate usage of quotations marks. Rama 13:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, yes normally i would be inclined to agree with that method, however, it is most often applicable when supporting text identifies the source and has contextual explanatatory information in the surrounding text. The problems with the current quotation marks method being used in the introduction are
 * It doesnt state why there are quotation marks and leaves it to the reader to guess why.
 * Misleading; if it is a coalition then it is between the us and uk as these 2 countries supplied 98% of troops
 * POV; "Coalition of the willing" is clearly POV, however, "Coalition" is still problematical
 * Propaganda; An introductory paragraph is not an appropriate place to repeat propaganda phrases unless there are significant reasons to do so and it is clearly identified as such.

Therefore i suggest
 * Remove from introduction or
 * Copy to 'Related propaganda and phrases' section 9. (whilst including the below changes)
 * Change to a neutral term; i suggest 'Anglo American', 'American British coalition' or 'American British alliance' or perhaps something like 'Invasion forces'

--Theo Pardilla 10:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Add explanatory information and maybe  "balance"

Reference links characterized as "minor"
On Oct 25, User Reddi made about 50-60 massive changes without edit summaries; all characterized as "minor". I am tempted to revert them but I want to give him a chance to explain himself. On first glance, the changes seem quite major, and seem designed to obscure the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq. Can someone else confirm this? Can Reddi explain what all that was about? Thanks --csloat 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq? There were not stockpiles ... but read the Kay report and the final ISG report ... there were banned WMDs and associated programs. All characterized as "minor"? They were all mostly mnor ... it's moving out the inline web link to a proper reference section. JDR (PS., the edits were not "massive" ... I had been moving out the inline links to a proper references section; so if the page "goes dead", atleast there will be a title to the citation.)


 * LOL.. that's my point... Reddi seems to believe there were WMD found in Iraq when everyone in the world's media has reported that there were none. I have not looked his edits over closely but they do not look "minor" at all and they seem to be aimed at muddying the waters around this fact.--csloat 20:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats about right, Csloat. Other than that Reddi's massive overhaul is just building a huge reference section. Which unnecessarily bloats this article, but it's not nearly as bad as the POV stuff. - Mr. Tibbs 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Reddi has done this kind of thing before. He recently made a POV-fork of Iraq War at War of Iraq when people dared to interfere with his massive changes. All Reddi's changes have done is unnecessarily bloat this article by adding a large Reference section, and then delete various passages that don't fit his point of view: . He's also done this sort of thing at Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005 and even Iraq war (disambiguation). There's even an RfAr up about this: I'm just going to go ahead and revert all of his edits on this page, and if there turns out to be consensus for that, possibly apply that policy to the other topics I mentioned. - Mr. Tibbs 04:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back to moving the inline links to a proper reference section. JDR 14:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (PS., the NPOV-fork of Iraq War at War of Iraq to delineate the informal and formal uses of that term) (PPS. The Iraq Survey Group David Kay interview was taken out of context. But I'll put it back in with the references ...)

I would like to note that the David Kay's interview "statement" is unsourced (the one Tibbsy cited above)... as the link goes to a dead page and the person that put it in didn't give a title or any other information ... there is nothing there @ the linked page ... a better citation than that is needed! It seems to be taken out of context ... but I'll look around if I can find a better references page ... and verify the "quote" ... JDR 16:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * War of Iraq has been turned into a redirect per community consensus. . So Reddi, stop trying to link to it, and stop trying to steamroll this article. - Mr. Tibbs 04:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and revert all of Reddi's edits again. Adding 30kb worth of references does not help this article, even considered solely from a readability standpoint. And the POV as Csloat mentioned doesn't help either. And here's the so hard-to-find missing source Reddi was talking about:. Lexis Nexis is known for allowing online links one moment, then not the next. And it's not that I'm against a Reference section, but in long, heavily sourced articles like this one only the most important sources can be ReReferenced, instead of just embedded. That certainly isn't a new idea, imagine if George W Bush was similarily ReReferenced. - Mr. Tibbs 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi viewpoints
Where are the observations of Iraqis on this subject?

No i mean really this seems like some sort of self indulgent uni frat debating. It sort of reminds me of the Blues brothers film when Jake and Elmo are in a bar and one of them asks a patron what sort of music she likes and she replies "oh I like both types, Country and Western". It seems like the priviledged elite are locked inside of an incestuous echo chamber endlessly banging on, fighting and slappping each other on the back. Yes the posers are all so concerned with bringing democracy to Iraqis or preventing them from being slaughtered by foreign invaders that it would be beneath their social station to actually ask them what they want or their observations or opinion or to include it on these pages.

--Theo Pardilla 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't be against adding an "Arabic popular opinion on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq" to stand with American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq. If you haven't already, you should take a look at Al Jazeera or ArabNews or the multitude of Iraq-based news sources: . - Mr. Tibbs 20:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq War
I have a question. Since everyone seems to refer to this as the "Iraq War" now. How would everyone feel about renaming this article to "Iraq War" or "2003 Iraq War". I mean, techinically, an invasion is what happens in the first days of a war. that was 3+ years ago. So I would think that using this nomenclature would be more accurate for the current state of affairs. Feedback is welcome. Thank you. Joetheguy 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is about the invasion specifically, the overall war is at the Iraq War page. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But trying to re name a war that started three years ago shouldnt be a topic. My concern is are we going to withdraw once and for all? please Feedback.Kenaoshi8 02:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Kenaoshi8Kenaoshi8 02:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deaths
I'm shortening the section on "deaths" to just the link, for two reasons.


 * It includes casualties in the occupation, which is a little off-topic.
 * It seems a little involved for such a small and short conflict, although this is arguably necessary with the uncertain tallies. (Frankly, it seems almost POV.)

I am also changing the title to "casualties" and adding such a field to the infobox, following the pattern set in other conflicts. Are there any objections to these three changes? Twin Bird 02:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed the Coalition death toll was inaccurate: 3000+ instead of 170 -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Claims of WMDs "proven false"
The casus belli in the infobox currently says "Official allegations Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and had ties to terrorists have been proven false." (emphasis added). While it is certainly a likelihood that these allegations are false, they have not been proven so, and cannot be proven so without some sort of evidence that the Bush administration knowingly lied regarding WMDs. The source cited discusses not evidence of absence but absence of evidence, and I have changed the sentence in question to reflect that. I believe it is now less biased and more logically accurate. If anyone disagrees with the change, let's discuss it here. Also, the cited website is no longer active, so if someone could find a similar un-broken link, that would be good. AdamSolomon 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

About the "intelligence that suggested a high probability"
An anonymous user has changed the sentence "In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", the United States Congress granted President Bush the authority to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, based on repeated Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, which turned out to be incorrect, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction." to say "...based on intelligence that suggested a high probability that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction."

The majority of the Congress and the American public were convinced to approve of the invasion of Iraq because of exaggerated claims made by the administration, such as the alarming claim that "final proof" of Iraqi WMD would "come in the form of a mushroom cloud" if the U.S. failed to invade Iraq. Congress was convinced, not because of any particular intelligence, but by its trust of the administration's convincing arguments. It's sometimes claimed that Congress saw all the same information as the President in making its decision to grant the executive power to invade Iraq, but that is not accurate. "But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote."

And

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

The same anonymous user has also erased the observation that lots of people have been killed in Iraq by various armed groups going around killing people they don't like. The user called it "unsubstantiated political opinion," yet it was clearly cited.

So I am reverting these changes. --Mr. Billion 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot quote an editorial article as proof of fact. It is simply post-war analysis and not a history.  It also uses strawmen, for example,
 * "For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote."
 * This is irrelevant in respect to the question at hand and thus not manipulative. Also,  there are many instances of even public intelligence that were readily available at the time of the invasion that supported the President such as the 1998 report of UNSCOM and IAEA.  To state that the administration was the only deciding factor on itelligence is intellectually dishonest and historical revision.
 * Also, on the note about the other part, it's referring to government death squads, not local insurgency (which is covered by the statement 'secretarian violence'), as are the civilian casualties. It based on a single, unsubstantiated BBC report that has been dismissed by governments and press services alike.  Because of this, I am reverting that specific change, but not the WMD until you respond or a reasonable amount of time passes. TheWinks 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to state that the administration was the only deciding factor on intelligence. But who said that? Where did that come from? I am saying that the administration's PR campaign pushing for invasion of Iraq was clearly the most important element in convincing Congress to authorize the invasion, so it would be misleading for the article to say that Congress passed the Iraq resolution based on some particular piece of intelligence.
 * Except that is most certainly your opinion, and not factually based. I can link to various reports and intelligence (I've already linked to two in my last comment) that were leading up to the invasion, and unless you can provide a factual basis for the statement
 * "based on repeated Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, which turned out to be incorrect"
 * Also, the Bush administration made a number of comments, some of which were wrong, but some of which were very right. US forces found a large amount of information showing that Saddam was going to attempt to restart his WMD program, that he had even gone so far as secretly transferred his nuclear labs underground (against IAEA rules), though no real development was taking place (thanks to the sanctions).  So to state that the Bush administration's statements were incorrect is very much a large and incorrect generality. TheWinks 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "This is irrelevant in respect to the question at hand and thus not manipulative." But the statement you're saying is a straw man is merely pointing out that the administration's claim that Congress saw all the same intelligence as the executive branch saw is not accurate, and that even some of the most important information that Congress did see wasn't cleared for use in public debate until very late in the game.
 * Irrelevent information being released late does not constitute a breach of trust and cannot be used of proof of wrong=doing. TheWinks 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to argue that that's an argumentative fallacy, "red herring" might come closer to fitting, although I don't think it does. A straw man is an argument where a person misrepresents his opponent's argument to make it easier to knock down. For instance, if Person B claimed that Person A was arguing something ridiculous such as that the administration was the only deciding factor on intelligence, when in fact person A was actually arguing something quite different, that would be a straw man. The UN report you linked concludes that "Iraq did not provide the full cooperation it promised on 14 November 1998." It is intellectually dishonest and historical revision to claim that this supports the American administration's claim that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
 * You're ignoring the issue. The UN report concludes that and that Iraq was dishonest and had been doing everything in its power to preserve portions of its WMD programs for revival at a later date.  That is very much relevant information.  In regards to your second statement, the destabilizing influence of Saddam Hussein was very much a problem.  Just because you may personally disagree with this does not make your position fact.  Militarily-speaking, Iraq had been a large problem and a waste of resources.  It got to the point where we either needed to pull out and let Saddam do whatever he wanted or go in.  Considering the situation with terrorism and other military ops in the region (Afghanistan), we chose to go in.  I recommend reading General Tommy Franks's autobiography for his perspective of the military view of the war, as it's pretty enlightening.  For now though, I will be writing a more middle of the road statement in the article. TheWinks 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You've provided no evidence that any governments or press services have "dismissed" the BBC article saying that the UN's chief anti-torture expert said that torture may be worse now in Iraq than under Saddam Hussein. But I think your point that death squads and brutality would fit under "sectarian violence" is a good one, so I won't argue that point any further. --Mr. Billion 06:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How many news agencies reported about government-based death squads? Answer: 1, the BBC.  I believe it was a misreporting a very real news story of police being police by day, but insurgents by night.  However, that does not equal government support of the insurgents. TheWinks 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How many news agencies reported about government-based death squads? Answer: Several. To be clear, though, the iraqi government is factious and only parts of it (the parts loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr and the parts controlled by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution In Iraq, as far as I can tell) support death squads. Not the whole government. The majority of the United States was convinced to accept the invasion of Iraq based on assertions that Iraq posed an immediate and mortal threat to the United States and its allies. Not based on how dishonest the Iraqi government was. --Mr. Billion 09:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alterations
I took the liberty of removing the line "(Later on, during the invasion, it was rumored that Turkey itself had sent troops into the Kurdish part of Iraq.)" from the second paragraph under "Military Aspects." There are alot of interesting rumours floating around but, as far as an encyclopedia goes, facts with sources seem more fitting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.138.34 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I changed the first paragraph to make it a little less POV. The first two lines now read "The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States officially began on March 20, 2003. The alleged objective of the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".[2]

'stated objective' was changed to 'alleged objective' and the synonymity of the '2003 invasion of Iraq' with the words 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' by placing them side-by-side in the opening sentence is no longer a problem due to the removal of the latter from said sentence.