Talk:Allegations of misappropriations related to the Iraq War

Section header inserted here
Please save this article. This could turn out to be a major-scandal, and people need to know about it. Interestingly, BBC (Britain's News Agency), and not any US news agency, revealed this alleged scandal. --Bugnot (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Save Please save this article. Surprisingly, BBC a British News Agency, and not any US news agency, revealed this alleged scandal. BBC is a credible news agency and I'm sure there might be other scandals as well. If so, please make a cobined page of all the Iraq-war scams so as to give more information to the people rather than deleting information. This could turn out to be a major-scandal, and people need to know about it. --Bugnot (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.

It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history. In perspective, the World Bank only lent $23 Billion in 2005 and it's the premier multilateral financier. From this you can estimate profiteering from this scandal. It needs attention of the people. --Bugnot (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugnot, you should realize that the fastest way to get this article deleted is to keep asserting that "it (the scandal) needs attention of the people." You may be right -- indeed, I think you are right -- but this is an encyclopedia, and what you are asserting is a political purpose, and it is crucial that Wikipedia articles not be pushing some point of view. I think there is enough here for an article, and I've stubbed back what wasn't essential. As an example, that Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts, and that this may have been inappropriate or even illegal, is not misappropriation and isn't relevant to this article. If they wasted or absconded with billions, that might be another story. Similarly, when charges are made about what some individual allegedly did, it would be very important to state this neutrally, unless the matter is so firmly established by reliable source that it can just be said baldly, i.e., that someone pocketed billions supposedly to be spent for war materials. Otherwise, a credible and reliable source must be cited and the accusation attributed. This article now has the attention of quite a few editors. Please feel free to help with the process, but I'd suggest that you put some effort into learning about Wikipedia policy before becoming extremely active. Look at WP:V and WP:NPOV and ask lots of questions if you don't understand.--Abd (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a political-purpose. It's for information puposes only and only well-sourced facts have been mentioned. Neutrality has again been reaffirmed. If anything is not neutral, please update it. OK Abd and I won't assert again that it needs attention. Anyone who wants to read can freely read. --117.201.65.66 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated
I have added more info. in original language instead of the alleged copyvios to make the article more meaningful now. --Bugnot (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

All copyvios removed and the article updated and complete. --117.201.65.66 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Watergate
I disagree with the addition of Watergate to the list of "See alsos". There is no connection between this scandal and the Watergate scandal. There have been hundreds of scandals in US politics since 1776. Why is this scandal from 36 years ago selected for special citation here? Why not Whitewater? Or Lewinsky? Or Iran-Contra? I am not going to precipitate an edit war over this, but am looking for the views of other editors. Let's resolve this on the talk page. Ground Zero | t 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As there has been no response, I'll delete it. Ground Zero | t 16:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess
I am not asserting that there was or was not misappropriation of money related to the Iraq War. I am not asserting that there should not be an article on this topic. I am however strongly asserting that |this article's condition as I write these comments is quite poor. It makes statements like "$12 billion or more per month is currently being spent in Iraq with little accountability or oversight." with no citation, and not even any context for what the term "currently" is supposed to mean. I added tags for weasel words, additional citations, outdated, and copy editing needed. It looks like it has been four or five years since there was significant activity on this, and it looks like there was a good amount of controversy about the contents of this article back at that time.

Again, I am not saying that we should not cover this topic, but this article as it stands is not doing the job. KConWiki (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I am changing the name of this article from Iraq War misappropriations to Allegations of misappropriations related to the Iraq War.

"Iraq scandal" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Iraq scandal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 02:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)