Talk:Gulf War/Archive 5

Vandalism
I have reverted the article due to vandalism by 66.204.165.126. This IP has been vandalising wikipedia for over a year now if you look at their user page. Also they put their names on the wikipedia vandalism and the IP is registered to the state of arkansas, department of computer services. The names posted on the vandalised page are Zack McCumpsey and blake wimberly. Is there any way we could send an email to this place highlighting abuse of department computer systems for wikpedia vandalism? Simon.uk.21 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture didn't put forth a neutral point of view
I felt that a picture of barrels spelling "free kuwait" did not present a neutral point of view, nor did it look very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerloch (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia become a battle?
Why did for example IP: 203.118.180.86 out of nowhere add North Korea as alleged supporter. I've started seeing the same things lately in other threads such as Insurgency in the Philippines. Out of nowhere you see Libya, North Korea...etc etc "supporting the bad guys". Facts that I guess in the case of the Gulfwar have been hidden for what 20 years and now suddenly proven (ofcourse without any sources?). Is wikipedia perhaps the perfect 1984? Where history can be changed at the blink of an eye? Without anyone noticing. Just look at that IP. The guy is up, during the same hours of the day, each day, editing articles concerning mostly military subjects where the US is/has been involved. It sickens me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.111.208 (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Saddam's greviences for invasion of Kuwait
This point has not been talked about in detail at all. Things that need to be there are:

- Kuwaiti theft of Iraqi oil (slant drilling).

- Kuwati oil over production angering Saddam.

- Iraq-Kuwait relationship before the war. (Iraq protecting Kuwait from Iran)

- The exact terms of the Kuwaiti ultimatum by Iraq.

(of course needs to researched).

here is one http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/12/23/edcool.t.php 129.107.240.1 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Casualties higher than described in article
The Department of Veterans Affairs, May 2007, Gulf War Veterans Information System reports the following: Total U.S. Military Gulf War Deaths: 73,846 – Deaths amongst Deployed: 17,847 – Deaths amongst Non-Deployed: 55,999 Total “Undiagnosed Illness” (UDX) claims: 14,874 Total number of disability claims filed: 1,620,906 - Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911 - Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995 Percentage of combat troops that filed Disability Claims 36% -Source: http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.54.93 (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are not combat casualties
That report lists veteran deaths, not Coalition combat deaths! According to it 17,847 veterans have died since the conflict, but that has nothing to do with the combat casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphoddd (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Information Box about Recent Wars
Could wikipedia file this under another name, like "American-extremist muslim conflict?" It's now obvious this has been going on for a while- the farthest back I can remember is the Oil Embargo of the 70's, because we supported Israel, but that might not be considered part of it, however, obviously the bombing of the marine barracks in lebanon would be considered part of it. It seems appropriate to do so, as the "arab-israeli" conflict has its own article. It appears America is in this for the long haul- we have the WTC1993, WTC2001, USS Cole, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now our troubles with Iran, and Syria's support of Hizbollah. as components for it. 75.183.149.139 23:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Using an image from an Amiga game to illustrate this article
A persistent anonymous editor is insisting on using this image for the top of the article. I think it is completely inappropriate. I'm not going to break the 3RR over something like this, since it's not "vandalism" so much as just a poor encyclopedic choice. Thoughts? Antandrus (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly reasonable to keep reverting this. If it is not simple vandalism, then at the very least it is trolling. - SimonP 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think an argument could be made that it is vandalism. If not, it is very close to vandalism.  At best, it is completely inappropriate.  I'll take the next couple of reverts.  If they continue past 3RR then we can report them for violating it and/or semi-protect the article so we don't have to waste too much of our time with this. Johntex\talk 19:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The license on this image allows use only in an article dealing with the game in question, thus it is inappropriate for this article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) It's off topic and of a poor quality. --86.29.252.36 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, and as far as we know it, real life is not a video game...yet! Fermentor 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How can troops that are not present suffer 100.000 casualties
If Bush's claim that Iraqi troops were in significant numbers in Kuwait was false, how could they then suffer vast casualties when defending Kuwait. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prezen (talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Must be the magic of "surgical warfare" ;-/ Nobody claimed yet that Iraq didn't have any troops at all.
 * Just what did they do with the 20.000-100.000 bodies? According to Anti-war activists like Paul Walker and Ramsey Clark, they were buried quickly in mass graves - understandable in the desert heat. Just enter "iraq soldiers mass graves" into Google, and you'll find every blip about "mass graves" containing 10-15 bodies - from the Saddam years. 88.217.69.170 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable statement
This struck me as being out of place, first for grammar reasons and then for context reasons: "The U.S. remained officially neutral during the outbreak of hostilities in the Iran-Iraq War, as it had previously been humiliated by a 444 day long Iranian hostage crisis and expected that Iran was not likely to win. " First, it should read "..a 444-day long..", or even better: "....THE 444-day long...", or just "...the Iranian Hostage Crisis". Secondly, why is this even mentioned? Is there a citation to support this event as being THE reason why the US remained officially neutral? It smells like speculation to me, and I think the whole article would better from removing everything in that sentance after the comma. I'm not going to edit it quite yet, because I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I want to feel out the boundaries. Fermentor 08:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Kissinger famously said: pity they can't both lose. The US had offered support to the Iranians warning them that Iraq was preparing war and been rebuffed, while Iraq was a Soviet ally and on the US countries-supporting-terrorism list.Prezen 14:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Well, someone should elaborate on that statement rather than leave it hanging there. It appears completely irrelevant. Encyclopedias generally do not give the reader the benefit of the doubt when it comes to specifics. Remember that I'm not talking about the first part of the statement, that the U.S. remained neutral. I'm talking about the Iranian Hostage Crisis comment. Fermentor 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I notice that someone has edited the article to say that Iran was the Soviet ally. This is wrong and I will change it right away. Prezen 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice !
i have some points i'd like to discuss, just hope to correct informations depending on sources ! , then let's request to lock the edit on the article for non-regestered users, keeping it away from random edits. thanks :) Ammar 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * if you count the number of troops in the (Coalition involvement) sector (Troop deployment), you would get the sum = 883,863 soldjers , while in the info box there is only 660,000 soldjers.
 * for such reason i'd note that i dont remember any joint of the Turkish forces in the operation, or at least Turkish forces have not arrived to Saudi land and adminstrated their operation from Turkey it self.
 * there is no signs about Qatar which have been in huge action in Battle of Khafji.
 * 7000 kuwaitis only protecting their land ? how comes?
 * lets sort that list by alphabets or by number of troops, and lets post sources beside each
 * I've seen the numbers go all over the place of late- this really needs citations. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * in fact, all the article need so :) hehe Ammar 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess would be that the deployment sum of 883,863 is the number of personnel people deployed in support of the war, 660,000 is the number in country when the war kicked off. Remember we had a long build up to the war, some people deployed and returned home prior to the kick off of combat operations. Also side note, page suffered minor vandalism tonight, I removed it. FLJuJitsu 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

social
who are the key players involved in this crisis and peacekeeping event —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.216.196.1 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC). The U.K., U.S.A., France and Germany, I beleve. --Lilidor 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia's bit,ect.
Don't foget the Australian S.A.S' inteligence role in Iraq, the Australian brigade in N.E. Saudi Arabia, Argentina's aircraft carryer in the Gulf by Quatar or the 2,000 strong Bangladeshie unit in Saudi Arabia. --Lilidor 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Or the Czechoslovak and Senegalese units. See Answers.com's 'Gulf war' page for proof! --86.29.252.36 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

reference cited in a paragraph
A paragraph under the "infrastructure bombing" subsection actually cites Tom Clancy as the source for the statement. I quote the following: "He walked to the embassy courtyard, opened the briefcase, took one GPS reading, and put the machine beck in the case. then he returned to the U.S, gave the GPS receiver to the appropriate intelligence agency in Langley, VA, where the position of the U.S. Embassy was officially determined. This position served as the origin for a coordinate system used to designaye military targets in Baghdad. (Clancy, Tom. "Armored Cav". Berkley Books, 1994, p. 180.)" Is this really the best source for that information? I hesitate to edit it before I have a better solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.255.252 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC). I find it difficult to believe that we did not have coordinates for our own embassy, even before GPS. I don't know about the rest of the forces, but 1st Cav received GPS (SLGR) units only days before the ground war started. These were of limited use, as maps (mostly hand drawn) were marked in latitude and longitude using LORAN units, whereas the SLGR used military grids. Bad weather at the start of the ground war also prevented satellite acquisition. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

South Korea
I was thinking that South Korea should be listed below the UN forces on the graph. It was not a United Nations member at the time of the Gulf War, but it did send troops and fighters to assist and its involvement in this war I believe lead to South Korea being admitted to the UN. Just a thought Magnum Serpentine 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation or deletion?
I was just looking over this page and noticed the sentence:
 * This was denied by the Iraqi government, who claimed that the allied bombing campaign had damaged and destroyed Iraqi oil tankers that were docked at the time,

Is that comma at the end meant to be a period or was the rest of the sentence deleted at some point? I thought I'd let someone more familiar with this article work it out as the vandalism (if that's what it is) wasn't in the last few edits as far as I can see. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Biliography
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I did a partial fix on the ones using the cite template. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of the bibliography here? None of these articles are being used as references.
 * The entries are formatted in an odd manner such that the links do not work.
 * They use the cite web template, but half of the fields are outside the template.
 * They use ref tags to create references that don't work since they are after the references section.
 * I have not checked all of them, but the last URL does not match the title, and there are two others that 404.

Different story
Removed Murder of Col. James Sabow The intensity of focus on the operational activities in the Persian Gulf enabled criminal elements within the USG and DoD, on January 22, to murder Colonel James Sabow in Orange County, California at the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. Several hours after disclosing to Gen. John K. Davis his intention to expose USG involvement in drug smuggling using MCAS El Toro and other military bases, the message to Headquarters Marine Corps announcing that Col. Sabow had committed suicide was prepared, followed by Col. Sabow's death in his backyard within MCAS El Toro on the morning of January 22. Col. Sabow, who had been the acting Chief of Staff for MCAS El Toro at the time of his death and was a Marine aviator who served in Vietnam, suffered a blunt-force skull fracture from a club-like weapon, followed by an intraoral shotgun discharge into his brain. The DoD and USG ruled the death a suicide upon discovery of the body, which is the official determination to this day. Reason: not part of this story. Midgley 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that this article was deleted per AFD. Also, "murder" is an allegation. The official finding is suicide.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Casualties
The 250,000 number cited in the Information table is inconsistent with the section "Iraqi deaths and wounded". In fact, it appears to be high by a factor of 5 - 10. How is this number justified?--Kbk 07:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Medics in the war
I have looked all over the net and haven't been able to find much information on the Forward Surgical Teams that were implemented in this war. They were important and helped a lot of people. I know there was at least one as part of the 101st airborne division. I think this needs to be researched and added to this page. -skip (uberangryghost@yahoo.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.46.152 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Iraqi/Yemeni split
I remember that Saddam's original plan was to invade Saudi Arabia in an alliance with Yemen. Does anyone else remember this? Jtpaladin 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a Media Support only, no military allience , Palestinians and Jordon did the same . Ammar 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember the BBC making a claim of a posible alliance at the time, but it soon evaporated.--86.25.49.105 01:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet source for documents?
Hello, I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good online resource for documents pertaining to the war? I mean documents like speech transcripts (like Saddam's 17 Jan 1991 "Mother of all Battles" radio address) and declassified military documents and the like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.235.204 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC). >>>>> I don't know about the Iraqi docs, but the National Security Archives are held over at gwu.edu. They contain all of the declassified info from US sources. There is an extensive list of documents in regards to Iraq (including some goodies like Ronald Regan's signature on the bottom of documents discouraging the UN from sanctioning Iraq for its illegal use of chemical weapons).

Removed non-computer munitions reference
The paragraph referencing "computer war" erroneously contained references to the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter," which is a large conventional munition dropped out of the backof MC-130s. The primary method of locating and dropping this weapon, developed during Vietnam, is sight angle, out of the windows of the C-130 dropping it.  There's nothing "computer" about it, so I deleted references to it in the computer war section.  - Mugs 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up
I've cleaned up the 'sneaky edits' by 76.20.34.20. The dates for the start and end of the Gulf War have been wrong for a month! Maybe more people need to add this article to their watch lists. And it might be useful, in the short term, to ask editors to cite sources for their changes otherwise just revert. I've removed the cleanup tag - unless someone wants to be a little more specific on what clean up is needed. - Ctbolt 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Impact on Kuwait
There is very little in this article about the war's impact on Kuwait. I'm not trying to make any sort of political point, but since Kuwait was invaded, there should be more about the Kuwati side of the war, including the impact of the occupation, the infrastructure damage during the invasion and the liberation, the impact on Kuwati relations with foreign nationals (which was very significant), etc. I'm not asking for the Kuwati's government's official account of what happened, but simply more attention to be given to what was happening in Kuwait, before, during, and after the war. Also and while this is sort of contradictary to what I have been saying, but this article is far too long, I think more Kuwati information should be integrated in while many other sections should be shortened or split off. The introduction especially is far too long.

Iraq's Soviet-Styled Military
Where is there more information on the Soviet-styled military that this article discusses? Iraqie troops and officers were traine and equiped by a variaty of countrys, including the U.S.S.R.--Freetown 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are critics of the war?
Where's the section on criticisms or opponents of the war? There was no shortage of them at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.141.2 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
 * You might find a this interesting reading:
 * A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal, by Ramsey Clark, Brian Becker, Paul Walker etc.
 * It requires a little background checking and is slightly outdated, but pretty much sums up every argument against the war and its conduct. 88.217.69.170 (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

UN authorization
The UN "authorized" (resolution's wording) but did not mandate, any means necessary to compel Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The coalition was not a UN force, did not fight under the UN flag or with blue helmets (a la Korea). As UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar explicitly stated, "It was not a United Nations war." (Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1991) Djcastel 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

War start date
I'm changing the Gulf War start date to the more conventional January 16, 1991. It takes two sides to have a war, and the U.S. gave ambiguous signals in August and September, and did not receive Senate authorization to use force until January 12. No one spoke of being already at war in 1990. Djcastel 14:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note there is some ambiguity in the start date, as Bush announced the start of combat operations at 6:45 pm EST, January 16, which was 2:45 am Baghdad time, January 17. Djcastel 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that for me (a 'Storm vet) the war started on January 17 (that's what my watch said), I believe that the start date for the operation should reflect the date/time where the order to start was given. Bush was in DC, and when he said "go" it was the 16th there. There's also an issue with what time the operation began, in that while Bush went public with the order at 6:45 pm, all that says is when the public learned, not when the order was actually given. It was before 2:45 am Baghdad time when the first sorties were launched. Just my two cents. --averagejoe (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Didn't Coalition Forces Invade Iraq?
Nice article. Very thorough. One of the most important aspects of the war was the restraint put on Coalition Forces. This article needs to quote UN restrictions that saved Iraq from an invasion. Buhlah (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)BuhlahBuhlah (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli Conflict?!!
Why is there a box for "Arab-Israeli Conflict" at the bottom of this article? Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. A large coalition drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and entered Iraq. Israel's main involvement was being the subject of missile attacks, but it was not a protagonist in this conflict, and in fact was specifically asked to be, and remained, an outside non-participant. The absence of Israel throughout this article makes that non-participation clear. The fact that Saddam Hussein claimed that he was invading to "liberate Palestinians" is absurd, and should not be the reason for classifying this war in that regard. If such hyperbolic claims are to be used as the basis for Wikipedia article classification, then the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks should also be classified as part of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict" because there are Arab sources who to this day either claim the Israel occupation as the proximate cause of the attack, or blame the Mossad for having actually destroyed the towers in order to blackguard the Arabs! Of course, there are many people who would like to blame all trouble in the Middle East on the "Arab-Israeli Conflict," but by that logic then the Iran-Iraq wars should be part of the same "conflict," as well as Black September, the slaughter of the Kurds, the Hama massacre, and many others. (I originally had the Lebanese Civil War listed as another spurious case of classification, but I see that that one is already on the list, too. Jeesh!) So why is the 1991 Gulf War listed as part of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict"? --Eliyahu S Talk 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I support renaming the template into "Middle East conflicts" rather than the current name for same reason Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 11:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Commanders
I have removed all the individual commanders from each country. There were 30 some countries involved in the coalition and many other sent supplies and other forms of aid. To list ALL the commanders, from every participating country is imprudent and impractical. Listing the commander of the actual coalition is the most reasonable solution. I have done this two or three times now and it was reverted by somebody claiming WP:COI, which does not apply here. Batman2005 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's starting again. People there are THIRTY or more commanders of individual countries which participated in the UN Coalition. Listing all 30+ would be wholly impractical and would make the entire article ridiculous.  There is no debate that Norman Schwarzkopf was in OVERALL command of the coalition forces in the Gulf War.  No debate whatsoever.  There was a French General who reported to Schwarzkopf, as there was a British one, a Saudi one, etc, etc, etc.  There's no debate about this either.  Each country which participated had a commander who REPORTED TO SCHWARZKOPF!  If we're not going to list ALL 30+ individual leaders who reported to the OVERALL COMMANDER, then there is no reason to list only one.  The user who keeps removing it has made no effort to engage in this disucssion which has clearly been here since May, instead choosing to leave false warnings on my talk page of vandalism. Batman2005 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi prisoners - come on!
Tens of thousands were taken (60,000?), and they're only mentioned once as a source on casualties. --HanzoHattori 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Just add the POWs on both sides of the conflict to the war box. --HanzoHattori 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I hered i was about 55,000.--86.25.49.105 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel in the Gulf war (Iraqi Scud attacks)
not make a single mention of the fact that Israel was hit by Iraqi scuds.
 * it does mention in various places

I also agree with the above statement. I believe that Israel should have its own section (or at the very least sub-section). It was bombed by 39 scud missiles by iraq and was requested not to retaliate by the US. The lives of most of the Israelis were stopped for much of the duration of the war and they were forced to live in bomb shelters. I think this deserves a little more than a few mentions buried in the body of the article.

Iraqi casualty study
Military (20,000-26,000 fatalities) and civilian (3,500). --HanzoHattori 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

UK RAF involvement
The reference to "various aircraft" operated by the RAF seems dismissive. The aircraft included squadrons of the following aircraft: The aircraft were flown with great skill, bravery, and effectiveness, often at very low level, notably attacking heavily defended targets such as airfields in the face of intense anti-aircraft fire. I don't have time or knowledge to follow this up, would someone else please help? Some relevant details are given in the links. GilesW 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Panavia Tornado equipped with Paveway, TIALD , AVRS video recorder, etc.
 * 2) Buccaneer carrying the Pave Spike pod, which presumably provided the broadcast video images of Tornado's laser guided bomb strikes (confirmation needed).
 * 3) Jaguar

Crossing Iraqi borders
I put a fact citation in this section int he article - Now I know there was a lot of debate then about whether to depose Hussein and whether such an overthrow might exceed the limits of the UN Mandate. However I don't recall any debate on entering Iraqi territory. Further, in light of the fact that the bulk of the operation (minus the US Marine and Arab forces which attacked straight into Kuwait) was a flanking operation through Iraqi territory to cut off Iraqi forces in Kuwait, I find this whole paragraph somewhat logically unsound. I would suggest the only controversy that happened in Iraqi territory (other then what is covered) is Barry McCaffrey's 24th Infantry Division movements after the cease fire was declared to cut off retreating Iraqi forces coming from Kuwait. I'm thinking of rewriting this paragraph for that deleting what is there ... any objections? (Hardnfast 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Having driven Iraqi forces over the border from Kuwait, some coalition troops stood down, but forces from the USA, UK, and France continued to pursue the retreating remnants of the Iraq forces across into Iraqi territory. Disagreements arose over whether the UN mandate to eject Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait allowed the coalition to enter Iraqi sovereign territory or not, with some military officials arguing that it was necessary to prevent them from regrouping and attempting a counter-attack.

Commanders

 * Ok, it's starting again. People there are THIRTY or more commanders of individual countries which participated in the UN Coalition. Listing all 30+ would be wholly impractical and would make the entire article ridiculous. There is no debate that Norman Schwarzkopf was in OVERALL command of the coalition forces in the Gulf War. No debate whatsoever. There was a French General who reported to Schwarzkopf, as there was a British one, a Saudi one, etc, etc, etc. There's no debate about this either. Each country which participated had a commander who REPORTED TO SCHWARZKOPF! If we're not going to list ALL 30+ individual leaders who reported to the OVERALL COMMANDER, then there is no reason to list only one. The user who keeps removing it has made no effort to engage in this disucssion which has clearly been here since May, instead choosing to leave false warnings on my talk page of vandalism. Batman2005 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that not every nation commander should be posted . but Khalid is a co-commander of the coalition not only the saudi forces. i think this should be posted . Try to read the references before you remove any. And please don't try to Americanize the events even if Norman is the top commander. please co-operate my friend.
 * Secondly, the infoBox is made to handle much more than 30 names , whats the big damage of keepin that ?
 * Plus, Removal of content is Vandalism . Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well no. Removal of content that is false is not vandalism.  You were vandalising by NOT participating in talk page discussion, then placing false warnings on my talk page.  Don't insinuate that I don't know what i'm talking about either.  You say i'm trying to Americanize the page by listing what is factual...yet you're not trying to make it more pro-saudi by saying that Khalid was co-commander and not realizing that he was subordinate to Schwarzkopf in every way.  There is NO questioning the fact that Schwarzkopf was calling the shots in the Gulf. EVERY country sent their own commanders who ALL reported to Schwarzkopf.  The info box should be for easy reading and for factual information.  I have no problem with listing, in the text, the individual participating countries and the commanders of, but listing Khalid and implying that he was somehow on anywhere near the same command level of Schwarzkopf is FLAT OUT WRONG. Batman2005 08:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the first source says absolutely nothing about "co-commanding" anything. If anything it furthers my point that Khalid was the commander of the Saudi troops, not whatever equal you think he was to Schwarzkopf. The second source does not go into command structure.  EVERY individual country commander COULD say they "co-commanded their troops" with Schwarzkopf.  This is really a pointless argument.  Like I said, every historian, every history book, every big of verifiable fact asserts that Schwarzkopf commanded the UN Coalition forces in the Persian Gulf.  How can you argue that? Batman2005 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt there was a Co-Commander . And with my respect to French and British And General Norman, but no . In fact , Khalid was the Co-Commander according to many Reliable sources . such as the following:
 * "Khalid is best known as the commander of the joint Arab forces during the first Gulf War".
 * "General Khaled, as co-commander with U.S. General Norman Schwarzkopf of the allied coalition that liberated Kuwait"
 * "In the 1991 Gulf War, the Sandhurst-trained Prince Khaled bin Sultan al-Saud was co commander of the US-led coalition and, with General Norman Schwarzkopf...."
 * "General Khaled was Co-Commander, with U.S. General Norman Schwarzkopf, of the allied coalition that liberalized Kuwait. He was at the very center of the action during the crisis."
 * And sorry for the first source you're talkin about, it was from The Time Magazine which they replaces the article space to another story. Anyways, these are some examples to proof my information . do you have an inverse sources against that ? Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 08:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that Khalid played a roll above what most other Generals involved did, albeit having a less prominent 'show face'. Without his logistical and infrastructure support, Schwarzkopf would have not been able to fufill his role. Schwarzkopf litterally had to ASK Khalid for things, whereas he commanded other Generals forces.  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you can find as many, if not MORE sources which will still say that Schwarzkopf was the commander and everyone else was subordinate to him. Like I said, there is no debate that it was a US led, UN coalition.  There is no doubt that Schwarzkopf was the commander of the coalition.  We can't rewrite history.  Perhaps a "Combatants" section where each countries contributions can be listed.  Either we list ALL the commanders of the individual countries, or we just list the coalition commander.  Anything else is showing a favoritism slant.  Also, in the "Combatants" section in the infobox, it shouldn't say "United States, Saudi Arabia and US-led coalition." It should simply say "UN Coalition" or some other form of that. Batman2005 19:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everybody agrees that Norman was the top commander and thats not the problem now . The point now : these references confirm that Khalid was the co-commander with Norman and not just a single nation's commander like other generals . Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 23:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You just said it yourself, Schwarzkopf was the top commander, Khalid was a co-commander, as was every other commander of every other country involved. I still think a "combatants" section, with each countries contributions clearly outlined is a better solution.  Like I said, there's no doubting, no debating and no denying who was in charge....Schwarzkopf.  Listing ONLY the Saudi "co-commander" is incorrectly slanting the article in one direction.  Batman2005 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the begining you wanted me to prove that he is in equal level to Norman, And i did find you several diffrente references . most of them are american references even . and now you Oppose again for no real reason . please co-operate my friend and stop removing sourced data. Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 12:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you found a source which calls him a co-commander. I advised you that you can find thousands of sources which call EVERY OTHER GENERAL a co-commander.  Simply put, there was NOBODY who was on an even level with Schwarzkopf...no matter how much you want to make the article pro-saudi.  If you're happy with posting false information on wikipedia, then I'm through arguing with you. You're incorrectly slanting the article.  You appeared, at the start to be rational, however your incessant claiming that making legitimate edits is "vandalism" is mind boggling.  YOU should co-operate and get over your embarassment that the United States led the coalitition and that Schwarzkopf was in charge. Stop rewriting history. Batman2005 20:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The few days before invading Kuwait
Hi I'm looking for Iraqi newsreader reports and the style of which they informed Iraqis about deploying more troops to the orders of Kuwait. There is a lot of stuff about the 2nd august and the invasion but nothing at all about the few days before the invasion. Any link will be very useful. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.79.230 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1991 Uprisings
Should there be a wikipedia article about the 1991 uprisings in the N and S of Iraq? Can anyone create one? I'm not sure what the best name would be for the article. BobFromBrockley 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

note
Could ya'll please spell right? This subject is very dear to me, because my dad is a gulf war veteran. So could somebody please learn how to spell?? 75.20.231.241 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Me no englas speek do can. Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
Could someone please check this edit out? ←Ben B4 01:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he/she is right, and i also think its wrong. Right but it should be renamed to Operation Desert shield . And Wrong , because there were Two operation Desert shield , one in the end of 1990 , and the other is post-war in spring 1992. Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your source for the 1992 O.D.Shield? &larr;Ben B4 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dodmedia.osd.mil, Search for Desert Shield and you'll find 80% of images has been shot in 1992 . This simply means there were two operations with that name and the one in 1992 has much more equipments. In fact ,its known that the saudi government spent billions of dollars to arm its military forces port-war to stand against repeating the iraqi senario . Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can use that as a source. We need something that says they were two separate operations, instead of just one interrupted by the war. &larr;Ben B4  22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Desert Shielf & Desert Storm
We need to expand the article by seperating between Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in independed articles. anyone can help ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, they seem intertwined. I changed Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm to redirect to sections instead of the whole article. &larr;Ben B4 14:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets seperate them and keep a stub in this article, they are full with events . speration will make them easier to read. Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that they are seperate events in the minds of most people? I bet if you googling [1991 "Gulf War"] gets many more hits than the two ODSs combined. &larr;Ben B4  21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In Operation Desert Shield, coalition were trying to defend Saudi Arabia from any iraqi possible advance into Saudi. That the reason it is a Shield. After that Operation Desert Storm , the coalition were trying to liberate Kuwait and advance into Iraqi desert to terminate the iraqi powers. The two operations is a biggest part of several Operations in the Gulf War.
 * And as i told you Above there were another Operation Desert Shield post-war, Training saudi forces from any future threads , and cleaning up remaining iraqi mines fields . I'll find you more web-sources for this :) Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 13:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And sorry my friend for my limited English :) Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 13:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian inteligence information
I added this part to the article. Please have a look Mortyman 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I attempted to fix the grammar mistakes. One term that was used that I'm unsure of the meaning to is "wartheater." Perhaps a place of military command? Also, the source cited is in what I'm guessing is Norwegian, so I can't verify the truth of the content. --Dragonlizard89 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The source seems ok   A M M A R   21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, a call recently placed to several US Governmental agencies including the Department of Veteran's Affairs gives a very extended date for each of these operations, as well as the war itself - and officials from the VA, even after repeated calls and repeated requests for clarity maintained that Operation Desert Storm has STILL not ended, and that there are not in fact two gulf wars, but one very long one - insofar as they officially document such things.
 * That probably bears some investigation - the dates don't jive. I have friends that were in the military as late as 1994 that were discharged as Desert Storm veterans, and this has been verified many times over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.207.190 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The first Gulf War or the second?
Since many argue that the Persian Gulf War was an outgrowth of the Iran-Iraq War, should we then call it the Second Gulf War? An advantage to calling it the Second Gulf War is that it situates the conflict within the context of Middle Eastern history and places the U.S. on the periphery--America was, for better or worse, reacting to events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigaba (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Shorter Paragraphs
I personal think that people should shorten this thing or edit it because it is way to much to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testalor000 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statements
This article has waaaaayy too many unsourced statements. Just glancing at the introduction, for example, reveals at least five. I'd give them the "citation needed" thing if I could, but I don't know how. Could somebody please source them, or at least mark them as being unsourced? On second thought, maybe the entire article should be marked as being unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.69.132 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just put a "references need improvement" banner at the top of the article.  Equazcion •✗/C • 15:37, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)
 * Add the text below beside the unsourced statement
 *  A M M A R   15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  A M M A R   15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For an article this long, nobody is going to know what refimprove is referring to. Please use facts instead, so something can actually be done about the problem that you see. FarmBoi (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BATTLESHIPS YAY
I think that the iowa battleships should be put into the strength part of the us infobox. First of all they where very significant vessels and had their own battlegroups. They where and arguably still are incredibly valuable ships and are considered capital ships when in a battlegroup. If Iraq had BBs they would be put into the infobox because of there importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.135 (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And why did you post that under the "unsourced statements" topic? 66.159.69.132 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably just didn't add the == signs before and after the heading. It is now fixed and in own section. Jons63 (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Saddam vs Hussein
In the article we should be consistent when we shorten his name from Saddam Hussein. Currently in the article we use both Saddam and Hussein as the shortened version of his name. I wanted to bring it up here first to try to get a consensus before just changing all the shortened versions to one or the other. Does anyone have any preference? Jons63 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the full name "Saddam hussien" is better because King Hussien of Jordon is also involved in the events. Dont you think this will cause a miss understanding ?   A M M A R   22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the his full name is probably even a better idea. Any other thoughts?  Jons63 (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Long time no replay, Let's do it .   A M M A R   19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I came back and saw my earlier comments. Still no one has objected so I did it. Jons63 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Desert Storm
In my opinion, I think the article on Operation Desert Storm could be separated and expand on, so that people can know more about Operation Desert Storm and can find it easily just by typing it in the Search box, instead of being diverted to "Gulf War". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shao jie (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, very good idea . The article is a mess now .   A M M A R   19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

National troop associations/involvement inaccuracies
Greetings all; My attention was caught by this comment: "Post-war military analysis ...Although it was said at the time that Iraqi troops numbered over a million, the Syrians 600,000, and the Jordanians 54,000 today most experts think that both the quantitative descriptions of the Iraqi Army at the time were exaggerated,..." This suggests that the Iraqi forces were joined and augmented by Syrian and Jordanian forces. I believe this to be completely inaccurate, as in fact Syrian and Jordanian forces worked *with* the coalition specifically to clear Kuwait proper. I think this needs to be corrected. In addition earlier in the document this appears: "... On February 26, Iraqi, Syrian, and Jordanian troops began retreating out of Kuwait, setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields as they left..." I have never elsewhere encountered documentation of regular Syrian or Jordanian troops fighting against the coalition. I believe this needs to be corrected as well. Jdallen wa (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some idiot vandalized the article: I think I cleared most of it. Kelvinc (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory Info
In the lede the article says:
 * Seven days after Iraq invaded Kuwait on 1990-08-02, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ... pressured President George H.W. Bush into intervening in Kuwait and then the United States started to deploy Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, and Coast Guard units to Saudi Arabia

Then the Desert Shield section says:
 * Acting on the policy of the Carter Doctrine, ... President George H. W. Bush quickly announced that the U.S. would launch a "wholly defensive" mission to prevent Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia —Operation Desert Shield—and US troops moved into Saudi Arabia on 1990-08-07.
 * On August 2nd, 1990, within forty eight hours of the initial invasion of Kuwait, P-3 Orions were the first American forces to arrive.
 * The United States Navy mobilized two naval battle groups, the aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Independence and their escorts, to the area, where they were ready by August 8.

The two sections seem to contradict each other and the Desert Shield section seems to contradict itself. From the lede, the US did not even start to act until after being pressured on 9 August, but according to the Desert Shield section, US troops moved into Saudi Arabia on August 7 with the first ships arriving August 8, but on August 2 (within 48 hours of August 2) P-3s arrived. I am not sure how to reconcile these contradictions. Jons63 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the lede and removed the unsourced info that was creating the contradiction. Jons63 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

oilfield fires - details not found
I accessed this page to research the oil field fires that Iraqi forces started toward the end of hostillities. I could not find any information pertaining to them. Perhaps i scanned the article too hastily. 68.41.82.18 (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) w3igt
 * Try looking here Kuwaiti oil fires Jons63 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual spark of invasion of Kuwait
the spark was an insulting comment made by a Kuwaiti ruler, like "we will punish you (oil price wise) until every Iraqi woman is a whore!". Saddam took such offence that he launched this invasion in response. He unleashed all the subsequent problems over a personal slight and an offhand insult. He admitted as much to his FBI interrogator after has was caught. Its on youtube. The article (invasion of kuwait section) makes no mention of these newly established facts. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Do you have a citation for this? To my ear, it sounds completely fabricated, and I can find no credible source to back it up.24.11.122.71 (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Dave

Link to malware
At the bottom of the article page there is the section External Links. It contains a link to www.desert-storm.com. Upon entering that site, Avira AntiVir gives a virus warning about "HTML/Crypted.Gen". Not wise to include links to malware-spreading sites. Priest zadok (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed per your complaint, you can do this also Jons63 (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

France 18,000 or 14,600 troops?
I see that the article mentions 18,000 troops, (twice), but the table "List of Coalition forces by number of troops", mentions 14,600.

I cannot check the source, (18,000), and there isn't a source for the other number. What is the correct number? FFMG (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Needed more about the consequences in Iraq (overally on Wikipedia)
See my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1991_uprisings_in_Iraq#A_main_category.3F --84.234.60.154 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I won't check here, so please decide to something this among yourselves. What, say, happened to the marshlands needs an article just like if not more than the Kuwaiti oil fires. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement and Source Dispute
I am going to have to dispute the neutrality of the source used in this following line: The British High Commissioner drew lines that deliberately constricted Iraq's access to the ocean so that any future Iraqi government would be in no position to threaten Britain's domination of the Gulf. I've tagged this statement and the link as being questionable because it links to what is evidently a non-neutral, non-vertifiable source. ThePointblank (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for intervention POV
I just edited the what is now the "Reasons for intervention" section and was previously titled "Justifying the war." I hope I've made an improvement on it, but there's still an egregious, almost completely unsourced incident of alleged Kuwaiti propaganda. That paragraph begins by mentioning the well-documented Iraqi abuses of human rights, but the incident it then relates seems quite irrelevant, or at least totally insignificant next to the aforementioned human rights abuses. I'm in favor of deleting that paragraph from the otherwise well-written and very thorough article. We could also add some more information on the very relevant human rights abuses. Do you think it would be right to delete the paragraph? KNVercingetorix (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's better to have both sides showing how unbalanced they are than to just show one side and leave people wondering. CKCortez (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Showing both sides is always a good intention, but the offending paragraph was not a representation of "the other side." A single, unverified incident of perceived Kuwaiti propaganda does not show readers "how unbalanced they [both sides] are"; it instead lends legitimacy to an unconfirmed story that is not even comparable to the credible human rights-related justifications given by the Coalition. Paragraphs where every sentence has a "citation needed" label don't belong in articles. Anyway, the larger issue is that when aiming for balance, we should not include minor and unconfirmed stories simply to portray an "other side" when we know of none. If someone finds actual incidents of propaganda in Coalition justifications, by all means put it in the article. KNVercingetorix (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I recall, that single event received a *lot* of press in the U.S. By "unverified" are you saying the sources are not reliable? Listing Port (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you have to click through the Nurse Nayirah wikilink to get to the sources.... Listing Port (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

French troops
As a french Navy officer, I can testify that we were 14 600 in the Gulf at this period, not 18 000. I'm actually translating this article into French. Thanks to all the contributers of the original article. comment added by (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Captain B.

commanders
were the british prime ministers actually commanders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.51.117 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) They should be on there i added them because they were the leaders of the armies as was George H.W. Bush and all the other kings, prime ministers, and presidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) And it might be easier to make a page called leaders of the gulf war like the world war II one involving all the countries and their presidents prime ministers and kings or queens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

C-130 Picture
I think the picture of the Hercules aircraft from three different nations is a fake. The flags do not shade in with the rest of the picture. It looks like a badly done propaganda mock up. I will remove it unless given proof. Mindstar (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Entire Consequences Section
Clearly, the "Consequences" section need to be updated and/or reworked. There are so many parenthetical phrases and "citation needed" marks that it is nearly impossible to read. Further, the author of this section shows personal bias in several areas. The one that stood out in particular to me was the "Bill Clinton ordered air strikes to distract from Monica" statement. I even agree with this, but the evidence to support it is limited at best, and certainly needs citation. I urge the powers that be at Wikipedia to review this section of the article. Elwood64151 (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I agree -- Even I am shocked by the amount of bias in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.46.21 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Technology Section
First of all this quote is completely wrong: "Precision guided munitions (PGMs, also "smart bombs"), such as the United States Air Force guided missile AGM-130..." The AGM-130 was not used in ODS, it did not become an operational weapon until 1994, and was used for the first time in combat in 1999 during Operation Allied Force. Source ( http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-130.html ) This line is just plain ridiculous: "Other bombs included cluster bombs, which break up into clusters of bomblets and often cause civilian casualties years after conflicts finish" This doesn't even accurately describe how a CBU works, the bomb does not "break up" it dispenses cluster bomblets. I don't even want to get into the blatant POV of the end of the sentence, but it hardly sounds academic. Next there is: "and daisy cutters, 15,000-pound bombs which can disintegrate everything within hundreds of yards." I really would think an encyclopedia would at least refer to the weapon as it's actual nomenclature, the BLU-82B. The description is not very accurate of its effects and hardly academic. Only 11 BLU-82's were dropped in ODS, all on minefields to test the weapon's effectiveness on such a target. Also I thought this section of the article would focus on all the new warfighting technologies that made their debut in combat during ODS. Cluster bombs were not new, and the BLU-82 was used extensively in the Vietnam War, and certainly not used enough to be mentioned as predominantly as it is in this section. A reader with no military knowledge would assume every Allied aircraft were dropping "daisy cutters" on every mission. Also the only "PGM" mentioned was a munition not in service at the time of the war, and is optically guided. Optically guided weapons have been around since WW2, and while laser guided bombs were not exactly new in ODS, it was the first time they were as widely used as they were. I think the PAVEWAY bomb system should get a mention. The section then has the longest paragraph, which is about the SCUD missile. The SCUD was not exactly new, or very technologically advanced. Why would this weapon system have the longest description in the section? I feel the ENTIRE section needs a re-write with actual relevant and accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.247.196 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Taken from the infobox
1,820 fighter aircraft](1,376 American, 175 Saudi, 69 British, 42 French) 3,318 tanks (mainly M1 Abrams (U.S.), Challenger 1 (UK), M60 Patton (U.S.) 8 aircraft carriers 2 battleships 20 cruisers 20 destroyers 5 submarines 649 fighters 2,000 tanks (Chinese Type-59 and Type-69s, self-produced T-55 and T-62, about 300 Soviet T-72) I cleaned-up this a bot, too. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * strength1=956,600
 * strength2=260,000

Crossing Iraqi borders
Currently this section as written is incorrect. I have never heard of this controversy so I am not sure how to fix it. It appears to say that US/UK/French forces entered Kuwait and then crossed the border into Iraq in pursuit of Iraqi forces. US/UK/French (XIIX Airborne and VII Corps) forces entered Iraq directly from Saudi Arabia, they did not enter Kuwait and then pursue Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Some of them may have gone from Saudi to Iraq to Kuwait and back into Iraq in pursuit, but most of these US forces never entered Kuwait. I am placing a disputed tag on this section until it is either fixed or has references. Jons63 (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was very astonished to see this section, as I had just looked at the image Image:DesertStormMap v2.svg. (find it at header Ground Campaign) They cannot be both correct. Better remove the section, I think, it seems to be completely misleading. Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Tread" :

Norway
Does a minor Intel operation conducted by Norwegian forces really warrant the longest paragraph in the "Coalition" Section? It seems to be Norwegian propaganda. Not saying the operation didn't happen, but it was nothing more than a footnote in the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.247.191 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Great source for Gulf War casualties
Here is a great source for Gulf War casualties. Can someone try and use it in the article and espically the casualites and lossses section? --EZ1234 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this fit in to the article? American children and Gulf War
I found this Houston Chronicle page http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1990_732902 - how does this fit into the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC) http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1990_747557 Also this is about oil prices dropping after Baker-Saddam talks. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Media section
I have tagged the media section of this article with worldwide because that section is based exclusively on the US media reaction (which is covered in some detail). I can understand prominent comment on the US Military's policy regarding interviews with personnel (given that the large majority of coalition troops were American) and Iraq's policies on satellite transmission and media censorship for Baghdad-based reporters and suchlike - but the article goes a lot further than that, going into some detail of individual US networks' coverage of the war without mentioning any non-US media outlet. Pfainuk talk 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Israel !!
It's the first time that I know that Israel participate in the war !! I don't think that they have any role in it. --Qadsawi (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Desert Sabre
Operation Desert Sabre, redirects here, but isn't mentioned at all. Some clarification by those with more knowledge on the subject would be helpful. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Desert Shield was the initial defensive build up. Desert Storm was the air phase (with some minor ground operations) and Desert Sabre was the official designation for the actual ground campaign (see ). So I don't think it needs its own article, unless much more detail is added, but I agree that there should be a mention of it in the appropriate section. I'll add it. Thanks for pointing it out. §FreeRangeFrog 01:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. That clears it up nicely. No problem, glad I could help. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)