Talk:Iraq War/Archive 2

Financial Costs
What happened to this section? It appears blank on the page as of Apr 3, 2006...
 * anon one, that text was deleted by vandal user:24.176.41.51 on Apr 02. I have restored the text.  -- thanx for noticing.--Silverback 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

POV?
This whole entry seem likes its from a liberal POV and it should be more nuetral.

This paragraph seems very pov to me: "According to opinion polls, the war was unpopular from its beginning in many Coalition countries. The war's unpopularity was reflected in widespread protests, including the largest worldwide protest in human history on February 15th, 2003 (eg., a day of Global protests against war in Iraq). The Iraq War was widely viewed by many critics as counterproductive. Many viewed the war as improper (being a moral and ethical violation) and illegal under international law. By the summer of 2005, there was an increase in the number of individuals in the United States that felt the same way."

A lot of uses of the word "Many", "Widely viewed", "many critics", etc. It claims "many" opinion polls, but does not cite them. It claims the largest world wide protest, but this is currently under factual debate and is inaccurate information. There is no compelling reason for anything but the last sentence to stay. Swatjester 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's honestly the reality on the ground for anyone living in Europe. One hardly needs to cite polls in the Spanish or Italian case for example, both of which participated initially anyway.  The only major country in Western Europe with significant support for the war was the UK.  Sure, look it up, back it up, but it's common sense to people who follow contemporary politics. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.212.134.59 (talk &bull; contribs) 14 Feb 2006.


 * I have added some ref's for the oppion polls. There are lots of ref's for lots of differnt commentators from very differnt political views claiming that the Feb15 series of protests was biggest ever in history (no need to specify "human" history as that just reads like hyperbol) on the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest page. I have not read any comment arguing that these were not the biggest protests, could you point me towards some? The protest in Rome is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history.--JK the unwise 13:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is a mess. I'd tag it, but I don't want hate messages on my discussion page.  Rmt2m 01:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

cleanup headline text
The "Headline text" header is showing on sections 4 and 5 of the ToC. How do I remove this (I didn't change anything to make it like that, I just noticed it as I stumbled across) Swatjester 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Non Aligned Country opposition
That information is inaccurate. While the other list of countries against the war is accurate, saying the "majority" of the NAM members are against is inaccurate as the majority have not even made official statements either way. Swatjester 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The header text and the explanation text are in conflict. While the header states "Countries against", the explanation text merely says the list is of countries that did not support the war. The list is correct in the latter sense, but not in the former.--Mtrisk 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, THAT's why it looked weird to me. Can we fix that? Swatjester 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi's connections to Al-Queda/Iraq
While reading the article, I happened to notice that Zargaqi's connections to Al-Queda were reffered to as only beggining with his public pledge of allegiance to Bin-Laden. A brief analysis of his autobiography makes it quite clear that he was well-aquainted with Bin-Laden, as well as the larger community of fundamentalist Islamic militants, by as early as 1991, and that these connections continued during his relocation of operations to Iraq, as evidenced by his operations in the Ansar al-Islam camp in Northern Iraq, which has been alleged by intelligence agencies and local witnesses to have connections to Al-Queda, a likely claim given the organization's ubiquitous ties to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.

Sources supporting this are numerous, two I used are here: http://www.worldhistory.com/zarqawi.htm http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

On another note, while I understand and deeply respect the open-ended philosophy of Wikipedia, I think the issues involved in the Iraq war are too contentious at present to be alterable by anyone who visits the site. I would advocate that on certain topics where are large amount of suspect information and language is routinely slated for editing, (such as is obvious here) that the general editors of the encyclopedia consider temporarily closing the topic and determining among themselves the best information, perhaps only accepting submissions for further alteration. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.231.17.182 (talk &bull; contribs).

The Lincoln Group
Where should I put information about the Lincoln Group? --Gbleem 20:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * @ the Lincoln Financial Group? JDR

informationclearinghouse?
Removed: ''In the siege of Fallujah, any person suspected of being an enemy combatant was to be targeted - at any age, with the regualar guidlines being someone over the age of 16. This information and more can be seen in the documentary - "Fallujah - the hidden massacre"''' ... from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm JDR 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Removal
I remove the following sentance: Unfortunately, the emergence of a theocracy after a civil war still seems a very real possibility. The sentence was found in a paragraph detailing what the supporters of the war were saying, so not only was the above phrased in a non encyclapedic way it also was located in the wrong section. Deathawk 04:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
I have deleted the paragraph stating that the U.S. used posion gas against civilians in Fallujah. The military used white phosphourous gas as smoke screens which is perfectly legal. This can be found atIndieJones 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hasn't it been established that it was being used as a weapon? Perhaps drawing a parallel with Hussein's use of the same materials in combat is going too far, but I'm not sure it's right to assume that it was being used for smoke screens. Anyway, the assertion has no citation, so it's OK to delete.--shtove 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

White phosphorus is not a gaseous grenade. It is an incendiary grenade. The whole "poison gas" thing is media propoganda, from people who have probably never used a phosphorus grenade before. Phosphorus grenades are used in 3 situations: To ignite sensitive, non-metallic material for destruction, to mark an area with smoke, and as an anti-personell weapon. People believe mistakenly that it is a chemical weapon because it burns people. In fact, it is a thermal weapon, and the burns are thermally/fire delivered. Oh, and I've been to Fallujah: If anyone used poison gas there, we'd know because hundreds or possibly thousands of people would have died from it.

Anyway, I agree with the other people on the talk page saying there is WAY too much POV in this article. Swatjester 21:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Schwatz, have you used a phosphorus grenade before? thewolfstar 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more. The POV appears to be consistently pro the war in iraq as well. I think a NPOV warning should be placed on top of this article. Kukini 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Protest Sizes
User:Doldrums Doldrums talk removed documented from "largest documented worldwide protest" - are there larger undocumented protests? ... A problem is that each generation and news media coverage thinks it is seeing the largest protests ever, the largest humanitarian disaster ever, and so forth. Should there be some link to some history of protests, as a proportion of the population of the day, to show how protests against the war in Iraq compare to protests aganst the war in Vietnam, against having nuclear weapons, in favor of Civil Rights, and other topics? User:AlMac|(talk) 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can't find much evidence, but it definitely is worth mentioning that it was one of the biggest protests ever, with hundreds of thousands marching in different countries, and in London there were at least a million people. Can anyone else find more research on this? JamieJones 13:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Last November, up to 200,000 people protested in Trafalgar Square when US President George W. Bush was in London for a state visit. Ahead of the Iraq war in February 2003, police estimated that one million people descended on the capital to protest the looming invasion, while organisers said the figure was nearer two million. "


 * I have no problem with claims of extremely large protest demonstrations. My problem was with an implication that protests against this were the largest ever.
 * I had indicated several areas that could be contenders for that claim. User:AlMac|(talk) 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

More info on the size of the Feb15 protests can be found at February 15, 2003 anti-war protest. While it is true that there is some contention about whether the individual protests were the biggest ever for the countries they were held in, I have not read any serious assertion that on sum (i.e. world wide) this was not the biggest protest in history. There are lots of ref's to commentators who talk about these being the biggest ever protests on the page.--JK the unwise 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole topic is POV
Why is there not a "Disputed" header at the top of this topic page? Practically everything in here is skewed to one point of view or the other and it's hard to decipher what is fact from fiction. The same applies for the 'Invasion of Iraq' topic as well.


 * Go ahead and put the appropriate tags on it then, I agree with you. Swatjester 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to go about doing that.


 * either am i, but this article is so full of crap, even from the first sentence - iraq was invaded by coalition forces (lead by us and uk) - it wasn't invaded exclusively by the us and uk. wikipedia is always full of this kind of progressive POV crap.  doubleplusgood wikipedia. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.152.53 (talk &bull; contribs) 30 Jan 2006.

You can dispute the article by putting at the top of the article.You must also explain your problem with the article here on talk. keith 03:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

formal and informal name
First sentence of article: The Iraq War or War in Iraq1,2 is both an informal and a formal American term

What is the source for this being a _formal_ name? Derex 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

War Justifications
I don't remember anything about the war in iraq being about democracy (the last point in that list) back when the Bush Administration was touting it; I'm pretty sure that came later. Anyone have a source on that? Disavian 14:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' might be a giveaway there... but maybe it isn't. Just my thinking. (t.z0n3)

George W. Bush's original reason to go to Iraq was to protect American interests by upholding their security. But since no proof of WMD's was found, the war's motto has now become "bringing the light of democracy into the Middle East". This is in my opinion, just the correct political way to justify what America is doing in Iraq. Perhaps this is a noble cause, because in the long run, a self elected Iraqi government is a lot better than Saddam's one party rule. However, I seriously doubt that was the original reason to go to Iraq. After all there's a lot other non-democratic countries in the world, whose idealogies may be opposed to the US.

Al-Qaida link as justification for war
Just ot point out, the suggestion that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida was not really used in the UK as justification for the war. I get the impression that this was used in the US, and presented as fact by certain media outlets (notably Fox News), but as far as I can remember, no major media outlet in the UK actually presented this idea as fact- or even gave it any real airtime at all. The first i heard of it were reports on the way the US media were covering the build up to the war in Iraq.

The Blair administration's main justification for going to war was that if Iraq had WMD, these could be sold/ given to terrorists.

As we now know, there were never any WMD in Iraq and there certainly never was an al-Qaida link, but I thought it was important to point out that the mainstream media in Britain and the rest of Europe, whether countries supporting or opposed to the invasion, did not follow this story.

POV!
Im putting a POV sign on this article. My problems with this are that we must agree that the "no-fly-zones" prior to the march 2003 war were in fact according to UN standards ILLEGAL, and that the note about the largest demonstrations EVER were simply deleted and not modified. I dont have the time to give you the references but i remember a figure of millions of people from the whole world, were out demonstrating against that war.131.130.138.156 Sanchez 14:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be unilateral. The largest demonstrations part was deleted because it could not be verified and cited. And we "MUST" not agree about anything, regarding the no fly zones. They were perfectly legal as part of the terms of Iraqs cease-fire after the Gulf War. Do not be so demanding, it won't help you get your way here. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Swatjester, if you remove the POV tag, please respect other edits in the article. Disavian 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jester, this is clearly a POV article, as is every war in history. As a matter of fact, one cannot have any description of nations, depiction of events or anything historical without having some kind of bias. If the POV sign is removed, people who read this article think that the article is accurate and can be used to cite. As you see, the length of this thread testifies, that this issue is clearly political. Please let the sign stand, until the issues are cleared. My proposal is that one should have two versions, or more of the article, so that a person can read both points of views and make up ones own mind. Sanchez 131.130.116.29 11:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good point Sanchez. It would be good to at least balance the POVs, so people can decide for themselves what side they are on.  It really is impossible to leave POVs out of a war discussion because people have different points of view on what happened and is happening.  Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. --Richard Armour -->That I think sums it up, as far as POVs are concerned.--Existential Thinker 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's called content forking, and isn't allowed here. This is an encyclopedia, we only make one article here from a neutral POV of things here. We don't make different versions of articles with different POV's to satisfy both sides, please see WP:NPOV for details. As for citing, nobody should ever cite wikipedia as a source on any article......everyone should know that. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  13:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooops...I actually didn't mean to revert the POV tag back out, I clicked on the wrong thing in popups. I'll go ahead and put it back up. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  13:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have commented about the size of the protests in the talk sections above (Talk:Iraq War and Talk:Iraq War).--JK the unwise 13:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

British Soldiers Torturing Children Caught on Video
The following text was added to the top of the page - while someplace for it should be found, it's certainly not at the top of this article.


 * Eight British soldiers brutually assult three Iraqi children, repeatedly hitting them with their fists and clubs, and kicking them in the groin. The soldiers batter the children's heads with blunt weapons, while the children scream and beg for mercy.  Fifteen or more British soldiers not participating in the assult casually watch it happen and do nothing as a boy screams, "please, please, please..."


 * The camera man makes violent and obscene comments that mirror the hatred and blood-lust of the soldiers.


 * As horrible as this atrocity is, it is important that the world and history know the truth. The video can be downloaded from any of the following links:


 * Link 1: Video File
 * Link 2: Video File
 * Link 3: Web Page
 * Link 4: Web Page
 * NPR Coverage
 * [UK troops brutally abuse Iraqi teens- Video

&mdash; QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

News coverage that includes video recordings of actual events are not "talk" issues. They are objective, tangible recordings and are, by definition, history. (History is a recording of the past.) Talk is about opinions. Facts, including videos that capture historical events, should be on the article's page.

You can discuss the ramifications of a video on the talk page all you want, but the video itself is a historical record and should be on the article page. In this way, videos are no different than a digitial picture of the U.S. Constitution. --

First off, according to the NPR link, they are teenagers, not children. Big difference, considering in Iraq teenagers are often involved in gang violence, sometimes even against the soldiers. Furthermore, the teenagers were throwing rocks and makeshift grenades at the soldiers, again according to the NPR link. So if we're going to be talking about showing all the facts, we need to actually DO so. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Second, the video is still an allegation according to the NPR interview, it has not yet been confirmed. I'm not saying don't put it out at all, I'm just saying wait until Tony Blair's investigation completes it's findings and proves it before putting it up. If you do put it up before then it will need to have an "allegedly" before it. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Tony Blair won't try to cover it up. Like he and George Bush didn't try to cover up the fact that they tortured to death prisioners of war in Abu Ghraib *[].  Or the fact that America and Britian are using Soviet secret prisions.  Furthermore, the video is hard evidence.  You aren't serioiusly suggesting that some frat boys dressed up as British soldiers equiped with actual military hardware (assult rifles), went over to Iraq, and staged this whole thing in the middle of a warzone!  Or maybe you are suggesting that the whole video was made by [[Pixar] using special effects.  If this was 1945, you'd be telling us not to include any footage of the Nazi concentration camps until the Germans had concluded that they commited war crimes.  Gee, if only all criminals could be their own judge and jury like our politicians are.


 * Tony Blair and George Bush didn't do anything at Abu Ghraib themeselves. Nor did the rest of the resepective armed forces condone it. You can make fun of the investigation all you want, but remember the UK army was already framed for a fake abuse incident once before. Are you saying the 9/11 commission didn't find anything? It's possible for a government to investigate itself bipartisanly. &rArr;   SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And as for your suggestions that those children *deserved* what happened because they alledgely throw rocks at soldiers carrying assult rifles, well quite frankly, I find that as offense as suggesting that America deserved the 9/11 attack because of its foriegn policies. There was no excuse for 9/11, and there is no excuse for Abu Ghraib, and there is no excuse for what those soldiers are doing on that video.  Until this kind of behavior cannot be covered up or accepted, the Spanish Inquistion, the Holocaust, and Abu Ghraib will continue to happen forever. Both sides are wrong.  Attrocities have been committed on both sides.  And until the war criminals and terrorists on both sides are brought to justice, the killing will continue.  The best thing America and Britian can do is hold every war criminal in their armies responsible and take the ethical high road for once.  If the principles upon which our countries are allegedly founded are so good, then the best way we can promote them is by actually living by them.


 * I didn't say they deserved it. But, you and I do not know what happened outside that video. I've been to Iraq, I've seen 8 year old kids holding pistols shooting at american troops. So don't immediately defend them just because their children: children can be warriors too as africa shows. I do agree with you that all war criminals should be held responsible in the armies. &rArr;   SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In any court of law in your country or mine, this video evidence would be more than sufficent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. It's funny how video evidence is unquestionable when the government uses it against civilians -- something I remind you that Britian is doing to an extreme with its road surveillance program that tracks every single place that you go (based on license plates being read by roadside cameras) -- but when video evidence is used *against* the government, it's all of a sudden an unreliable source like a drunken witness, and you can't tell what is real and what's not.  If this same exact video had shown civilians assulting someone, you can bet your butt that the government would be saying that the video evidence conclusively proves guilt.  Quite frankly, this video is of much, much higher quality and clarity than the video evidence (usually taken from close-circuit camera systems) that is used to convict murders, rapists, muggers, and even bank robbers who talk on their cell phones during their robberies. -M


 * As for "Tony Blair and George Bush didn't do anything at Abu Ghraib themeselves"... I don't know about Tony Blair, but George Bush prevented United Nations personal from observing the Abu Ghraib war prision to prevent human rights abuse.  It is blantantly obvious to everyone in the world that the reason for this was solely because Bush and his administration wanted to abuse human rights and wanted no witnesses.  It is further obvious that if given the chance, the Bush administration would have prevented the digital photographs and videos of torture from reaching the public, which goes against everything a democratic system of government is based upon.  The people have a right and a need to know the truth about what their government does or it's not a government of the people and there are no checks and balances.  Again, if there were only a dozen instances of the British and American governments violating the Geneva Conventions, I could chuck it up to a few bad apples.  But this is the six hundredth time they were caught. -M


 * No one is trying to hide anything. I think we can all agree that this issue bears mentioning, however the blurb as it stands is decidedly not NPOV, nor does it fit the formatting guidelines for a Wikipedia article. Please save the theatrics for personal blogs and try to write a neutral account. I'd prefer not to have to block anyone over a content dispute like this, however if this reversion continues there may be no other way except to lock down the article until a version can be agreed upon. Also, please refrain from personal insults and accusations and assume good faith! -Loren 19:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Loren is saying it perfectly. I'm not saying that I don't want it in there. I'm saying it cannot be at the top of the article, before even the disambiguation note. That's ludicrous. Furthermore, your format is unencyclopedic and linkspam, and needs to be reworked. Once all that's out of the way, THEN I can begin to argue my reasons for opposing it's inclusion. &rArr;   SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just move the links, which are legit and should be in the article, to a recent events section at the end of the article. That way, it's just like *every* other article about human history.  The recent events section should be updated as news happens.  Wikipedia is a live encyclepdia, and the Iraq war is ongoing.  The fact that it didn't have a recent event section so far is ludicris.

> Swatjester, justify the removing of the link to the article http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10561. The article text clearly is neutral point of view. Is there something you object to in the article, other than it was written by Muslims? Furthermore, if anything we should be adding more articles and external links, not just removing the ones you don't like. If you think an external link has point of view, then add another external link with a different point of view. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia and should have external links that show all points of views.

I'll give you an hour to justify the removal before adding it back. I know your watching this article like a hawk, as am I.

- M


 * reasons...Wikipedia is not a link farm. NPR is widely regarded as a non-controversial source. It says the exact things the article says. We don't need both. Plus, the article while itself is NPOV written, the website itself has many links I would consider biased "Palestine: stolen land"? come on. Links at the bottom to bush bashing? I have no problem with Islam, and I'll defend the right for this video to be on this page as far as it goes. But I feel that link is extraneous. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we can consider other articles written by the same source to be a legitimate reason not to link that that article. After all, every news source from Fox to the New York Times runs editorials and biased newstories.  If you refused to site an article in a news source that contained any biased article, there would be no news sources left to reference.  However, I offer the following compromise.  We'll let the next Wikipedia user who comments here decide whether or not to include the article link.  Can I trust you to have the integrity to NOT call up one of your friends and have them post a "don't include" opinion?  -M


 * Of course, I'm a little offended you would think I don't. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So will a third party give a yea or nea on this external link: *Article


 * I'd advise you to visit WP:3O for your third opinion request. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right too, there should be more links added....but we don't need more than one or two on any active topic. The NPR link and the article said the same things, but which one looks more Nonbiased? NPR does in a heartbeat. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with limiting external links to just one or two. Print encyclopedias, graduate thesis, and academic papers (which are typically the size of a full encyclopedia article) typically have dozens or external references (the paper equivalent of a hyperlink).  As long as the links are well organzied and have a blurb next to them, this is not a problem.  The article on Robots has 37 external links as of right now.


 * No you're misunderstanding me. I'm referring to no more than one or two on a particular topic. i.e. the beating videos. If we had 2 links for the videos, a link for an article about the war, a link to an essay about muslim reactions, a link to some other essays etc that'd be great. But having a huge number of external links per topic per page is extraneous. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think there needs to be a link to the video from a different site. a) the current video link goes to an error page, direct linking not allowed. b) the current link goes to a page entitled "8 american soldiers brutally beat iraqi children" which is clearly incorrect as they're obviously british soldiers. I'm sure someone here can find a better video link, if not then I will. Oh and on another note....ironically CNN has no news coverage on their website about the video. Nor does fox news. nor does abc news &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

THEY WEREN'T CHILDREN!
As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say "http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"


 * Two Iraqis claimed today they had been among those beaten in Amara, saying they would take legal action against the UK military and seek compensation.

The allegations by Bassem Shaker, 27, and Tariq Abdul-Razzak, 14, were presented to the media at the office of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the coalition forces."

A 27 year old doesn't seem like a child to me. Furthermore: "Mr Shaker said British troops fired volleys of rubber bullets at the protesters in a bid to disperse them.

Witnesses and officials at the time said British troops and Iraqi police had fired at armed, stone-throwing protesters, killing six people and wounding 11."

[b]"Assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades"[/b]

The article makes NO mention of children whatsoever. So before you all let your emotions run wild over this: a) they weren't children. b) they had hand grenades. c) they lied about their demonstrators being killed. None of this excuses the abuse. BUT we all need to approach this with a clear head. &rArr;    SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that those who were beaten up had any weapons. De mortuis... 11:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

YES THEY WERE CHILDREN!
(Stop deleting my comments on this talk page. This is considered vandalism)
 * You are so full of it. No one has been deleting your comments.  I've been responding to your comments by countering your spin with truth.  I've added my comments next to or under yours so people can see both.  If anyone here is a vandal, it's you for deleting the links in the first place.  It just goes to show how afraid military personel are of truly free speech, and what a crock it is to say that our soldiers are "fighting for freedom."  It's more like fighting against freedom.

As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say "http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"
 * Two Iraqis claimed today they had been among those beaten in Amara, saying they would take legal action against the UK military and seek compensation.
 * The allegations by Bassem Shaker, 27, and Tariq Abdul-Razzak, 14, were presented to the media at the office of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the coalition forces."
 * A 27 year old doesn't seem like a child to me. Furthermore:
 * "Mr Shaker said British troops fired volleys of rubber bullets at the protesters in a bid to disperse them.
 * Witnesses and officials at the time said British troops and Iraqi police had fired at armed, stone-throwing protesters, killing six people and wounding 11."
 * "Assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades"


 * '''Do you have any evidence that they were actually grenades or that the soldiers even really believed they were grenades?
 * Seems to me that the soldiers would be shooting or taking cover rather
 * than beating and groin kicking if they actually believed grenades were
 * being thrown at them. Watch the video.  The soldiers are clearly acting
 * in hatred and blood-lust, not self-defense. There is NO justification
 * for their actions. Defending them is like defending a child molestor
 * or serial murderer.'''


 * The article makes NO mention of children whatsoever. So before you all let your emotions run wild over this: a) they weren't children. b) they had hand grenades. c) they lied about their demonstrators being killed. None of this excuses the abuse. BUT we all need to approach this with a clear head. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready   Aim   Fire!  02:24, 15 February 2006


 * The video SHOWS children being assulted. You don't need to read an article, watch the video.


 * First of all, torturing a 27 year-old ain't acceptable either! Second, a 14 year old is definately a child.  I had to wait until the Olsen twins were 18 because at 14, they were kids.  The same goes for Tariq.  From the video, it's obviously a child's voice screamming "please, please, please".  I guess if your only 18 your perception of what constitutes an "adult" is different from those of us old enough to pay mortgages.  So ask your parent if a 14 year old is an adult or a child.  There's a reason we don't let 14 year-olds drink, vote, drive, "consent" to sex with adults, or sign legal argreements without a guardian.  By the way, can we get a verifiable source of the ages of the victims as well as the identities of the criminals?


 * I never said it was acceptable, but at 14 you are definately a teenager, not a child. 14 year olds can throw a grenade and shoot a rifle, and know the consequences of their actions. Furthermore 18 isn't the age of majority in Iraq so far as I know. In much of the world the drinking and driving ages are 14 and 16, as well as sex. The US isn't the whole world. The verifiable source was included in the guardian link. As for the child's voice, there is an investigatino into whether the tape was dubbed over. Read the link I sent. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  03:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 14 is a kid, period. Again, ask your parents.  A 7 year old has the ability to throw a grenade and shoot a rifle, and knows the difference between right and wrong.  That doesn't make a 7 year old an adult.  The fact that 8 British soldiers would repeatedly assult a 14 year old and that over a dozen other British soldiers would watch it happen and not stop it, does say something very significant about the British army.  The video footage clearly shows that the soldiers were not acting in defense or in an legitimate peace keeping or order restoring manner.  They were acting in pure hatred and blood-lust, no different than gang thugs.  I know you *want* to believe that the British army is innocent of all wrong doing, but its obvious to any objective third party that they are guilty of many heinous actions.  And quite frankly, most American citizens and most British citizens and virtually the entire rest of the world, are going to continue having a very low opinion of the British and American military until both governments take responsibility for the war crimes committed.  Britian and the United States are acting like the bad guys and will go down in history as the bad guys unless they make some drastic changes including taking responsibility for these atrocities, and ensuring the world that such atrocities will not happen again.  As long as people white-wash these despicable acts, the whole world knows that they will continue.  Quite frankly, I'm hoping that the two governments will be forced to changed by popular dissent before someone in the middle east is driven to detonating a nuclear device in London or Washington, DC.  The way I see it, if we don't clean up the scum in our military, this scenario is inevitable.  Even if you don't give a rat's buttock about the value of human life in foriegn countries, it is in your own selfish interest to stop these atrocities because such actions always cause more atrocities to be committed in return.  That is why it is important to make sure these events are not covered up.


 * The truly unfortunate fact is that this atrocious behavior is not the exception to the rule. It is the norm.  Both Britian and the United States have been caught red handed too many times for such events to be unrepresentative of the military.  When people ask me if I support our troops, I say no and then I point to this video and many other videos and pictures.  If our troops want our support, then they are going to have to take these matters seriously and purge their ranks our any soldier or officer who would commit, order, condone, or cover up these crimes.  Any one who commits such an act is a criminal.  Any one who follows an order to torture a person is a criminal.  They should be treated as such.  The only way your army can earn back our trust or respect is to stop covering up these actions and making excuses, and let fair trials bring these people (Bush and Blair included) to justice.

I'm not going to argue with you any further. Please donot take this personally, but I do not think you can view this with an open mind. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto


 * First of all, "teenager" and "child" aren't mutually exclusive. A teenager of 14 is a child, just as a teenager of 19 is an adult. The video should be added, with the text introducing it giving the information that is generally accepted to be accurate. Sources for that text are widely available as the content of the video is widely known. Whether or not the acts depicted are justified or not isn't our concern; we're not interested in reviewing the facts anyway. Personally, I find this article to be slanted in favor of the US occupation. There's virtually no detail on the Abu Ghraib atrocities, no mention of the number of Iraqi civillians killed, etc. If I get around to adding content, I will, but as it stands, this entry is SEVERELY POV biased. Amibidhrohi 02:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is little more than propoganda as it currently stands. There is no mention of the people tourtured to death, of people who were forced in naked homosexual pyramids, of soldiers who used attack dogs to bite at the genitals of naked, unarmed prisioners of war, of the boys and girls under the age of 10 who were killed by American soldiers, of the even younger children who watched their unarmed parents shot and killed by American/British troops.  A lot of ommissions that might show a not-so-nice side of the war. -M


 * By the way, I would have supported taken Saddam out of power even without ANY evidence of weapons of mass destruction, if only we didn't replace him with a far worse monster: our militaries. In an ironic twist, our troops used the exact same torture rooms that Saddam used.  Any objective, neutral point of view article has to include the attrocities that have been committed without white-washing it.  To omit this acts would be like having an article on World War II without mentioning the holocaust. -M

SWAT, being able to throw a grenade and shoot a gun is not a rite of passage to adulthood. The United States Government (indirectly, through the CIA) trained child soldiers in El Salvador to fight against the FMLN. Were these forcibly conscripted children (who were as young as nine) adults? I appreciate that a United States soldier such as yourself is participating with wikipedia; however, I currently can't see how this article has a NPOV. --SeanMcG 08:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sean: I understand this article is VERY POV. Note how I've not been involved in this discussion for the past what, 10 days now? It's just too stressful dealing with people who have never had to deal with the personal experiences of having children shoot at them. Let me put it into context for you. About 3 months after my unit entered Baghdad, around July/August-ish, I was on a M240B machine gun post on top of our barracks. I was monitoring a street in front of our compound known as "ambush alley" when I noticed a woman perhaps in her mid teens (16, 17, 18 maybe?) in black hijab fiddling with a package directly in front of our building. I called it in over the radio and as our QRF was preparing to come out I ordered her verbally to stop. She did not, but I couldn't do anything as I had no proof that she was doing anything wrong, and at the time our ROE did not permit the firing of warning shots. I watched aghast as she pulled out a pistol, gave it to the 8-year old child she had with her, and pointed at me. The child fired between 4 and 5 rounds in my direction, one coming as close at 4 feet from my position. I tried to fire my weapon at them but as this all happened shortly after assuming my post, I had erred and not visually inspected the weapon before taking charge of it....the last guard shift accidentally loaded the rounds upside-down and they would not fire. By the time I had performed remedial action and fixed it, the woman and child fled but were tracked by the QRF who had just arrived on scene into their house. The package was found to be a modified 60mm mortar shell rigged as an IED, and they had a bombmaking factory in their house as well as a mortar tube and several rounds. I'm not speaking for the child, but the girl knew exactly what she was doing. She made an adult choice, a conscious decision to do it. Want another instance? A soldier in my unit was fired upon by two 14 year old gang members in Iraq. A long, in-depth investigation was done into the shooting as to whether they had any ties to militant groups but the fact was found that they just stole their parent's AK's and started gangbanging against the Americans. That's an adult decision to make.

You can all misrepresent my opinion all you want, but I'm only defending that the ones in their teens should be considered adults. It's ludicrous to claim that an 8 year old is an adult. But the fact is in much of the non-western world, you are a man at the age of 16. In Judaism, the passage to manhood begins at 13. In African countries it can begin in the 14-16 period. That is ADULT whether our western customs like it or not. The world is not centered upon our American beliefs, and it's high time that we started accepting that in ALL situations, not just the ones we deem acceptable. (Oh, it's ok to shout that we're spreading our american imperialism with our viewpoints on democracy, and religion, but god forbid we kill or beat armed teenagers with hand grenades and suddenly we should be demanding a US-centered viewpoint.)

Now I only came back here by request. I'm absolutely sickened by the brainwashed vehemence and anti-US hatred expressed by so many so called "liberals" on Wikipedia. So I'm going to stay out of here again, and any further questions about it can take place on my User Talk (click my name in my signature). Cheers. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  09:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd further like to clarify one thing you point out in your example Sean: The CIA's clandestine operations are not the dictated policy of the Department of Defense, nor necessarily that of the President. As is mentioned in a link from the article here on the National Clandestine Service, the CIA's Directorate of Operations is required to conduct an estimated several tens of thousands of activities that would be considered by a host country as "illegal" yearly. Their agents are placed in great danger on a daily basis, and as such, their activities cannot be directly supervised by the DDO. I don't say this to defend individual agents, or justify past actions, just a warning against the habit of painting the "big bad government" with a wide brush..... So many people here like nothing better than to bash our government, bash our military, but yet make no effort whatsoever to understand it, to gain knowledge of it, or even to join it and effect change from the inside. It sickens me. When I was fresh back in the states from my deployment, and coming to terms with my PTSD, I nearly took my own life after being spit upon and called a baby-killer by some brainwashed hippy who, upon questioning from one of my friends, knew nothing about the military, did not know me, didn't know the basic concepts of civics and american government. Unfortuantely that's the view that I get from many people who claim to be "liberals" or "anti-war" on wikipedia, indeed on the internet as a whole.

I find that the only way to win, is to not play the game at all. If you want further enlightenment, you can talk to me on my talk page, but as for this I'm going to stay stress-free (as much as possible) and keep away from here. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  09:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is much about the US I'm very fond of, but sometimes what a branch of the US government does is revolting. To disagree strongly with "our government" -- glad you recognize it is ours and not yours -- is not necessarily to bash it. I think many of us would argue that we feel it is our duty to strenuously disagree; to do so is to honor what so many of our forebears sacrificed for. I'm sure you'll agree.


 * I'm not a liberal. I actually consider myself to be an Independent. Thank you for your insights, although I still do not agree with you. You must understand that we have differing world views, and that is all. --SeanMcG 07:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the english language the word adult is generally not used for people under the age of 18. If you want to use it differently you need to explain it in the article in order not to be misleading. I am sorry for your personal experience, Swatjester, it shall however not lead to redefining words and opposing legitimate criticism of abuse. Given that you describe yourself as suffering from a post traumatic stress disorder I think you make the right decision not to edit articles you currently seem to be unable to deal with in a levelheaded way. Please calm down and do not personally attack others as "brainwashed" or spreading "hatred". Nameme 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor is the term "children" generally used for teenagers. Dictionary.com gives it as "A person between birth and puberty." --Mmx1 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Declaration of war" blurb
The "declaration of war" blurb in the second paragraph is a hypothetical "example" of the controversy which only serves to obfucsate getting to the real controversy over the definitive usage of the term Iraq War (which itself is rather limited). To my knowledge there is no debate about referring to the Iraq War as a "war" due to a lack of formal Congressional declaration. Some still claim that the Vietnam War should be referred to as a "military action", but even that usage is so limited that it makes any debate "settled." Because there is no application to the current conflict, its usage is unnecessarily hypothetical and is therefore out of place, out of context, and out of order. -Ste|vertigo 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Costs Of War: Civillian Deaths, Allegations of Abuse And Torture
A section should be added that correctly illustrates the costs of this war. This article seems to be assuming the position that most western media takes: to whitewash over the distruction and civillian casualties that have been produced by this war. The section should include abuses and atrocities committed by both sides, of course...Any ideas? Amibidhrohi 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article mentions damages to the Iraqi infrastructure under "Costs of War" but there is no mention of what the Coalition has done to improve the infrastructure, which I'd be willing to bet far outweighs the damage done to it. KevinPuj 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)KevinPuj
 * I added a "citation needed" to the infobox. I'm not sure if citations work well in the infobox, but the statement that the result of the Iraqi war is infrastructure damage is very POV.  It resulted in initial damage to the infrastructure, but the US has also rebuilt the infrastructure.  The article needs a source that states which(the initial invasion or the rebuilding) has had a greater effect on the infrastructure, and what the overall result now compared to pre-war is. KevinPuj 23:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the Casualties template used here?
Why isn't this template included on this page? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. I would support using your new template --SeanMcG 08:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Torture
"Numerous human rights abuses, most notably those at the Abu Ghraib prison led to widespread criticism of the occupying forces." Is it correct to say "numerous?" Yes there were abuses, but nothing accepted as standard procedure as far as we know right? We could say, "A series of abuses" or something like that. Rmt2m 13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A series sounds good to me. Nameme 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Arabic version
Eagleamn helped with the translation of this article. I copy it from my talk page to allow everyone to benefit from it. Thank you very much, Eagleamn ! AlIAS 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I wouldn't consider the article being featured in the Arabic Wikipedia a definite sign of any extra information or even better representation of facts. The Arabic Wikipedia has much lower standards than most other versions. In other words, the English version which is basically written based on media information looks more neutral in my opinion. Having said that, I will describe the Arabic article and let you decide if you would like to use any of the information.


 * Introduction: List of names used to refer to the war, e.g. Operation Iraqi Freedom, Invasion of Iraq, Gulf War 3. Stating that the coalition was called the Coalition of the Willing, and 98% are US and British forces.


 * War-rationale. Since all items were originally imported from Western media, I don't think there's a need to use any of this section.


 * Anti-war speculations: This is a list of hypotheses why the US went to Iraq. Most items listed are either urban legends, scientifically invalid, or just too unencyclopedic. E.g. the claim that "the US went to capture the world's largest oil reservoirs," while it is well known Iraqi reserves are by no means the largest (let alone the fact that it is not economically viable, and even if that is true, there are easier ways well known in the oil industry). All other claims are again not backed up with any sources.


 * WMD: This section if filled with quotes, from President Bush to the Time magazine to other people and reports. All of those are translated from English and are therefore available without translation.


 * Relations between Saddam and bin Laden: 9/11 report, other congressional hearings and reports.


 * War from legal perspective: Mention of War Powers Resolution, and some information from and, both originally in English.


 * List of countries in the coalition and those against the war.


 * Prior to invasion: History between 1991 and 2003


 * Combat. No sources cited. Various information not linked together.


 * "Iraq after April 9": Only listing allegations of items looted from the museums.


 * Casualties: All numbers except two are replaced with "?", the other two are the "verified casualties in Iraqi civilians (unsourced, 31,160)" and "unverified casualties (unsourced, 100,000 to 194,000)."

Let me know if you would like anything else in the article translated. - Eagleamn 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

TwoThirty notes the following on his talk page: The important differences between the Arabic article and the English article are:
 * The Arabic article has a section about the legality of the war
 * A list of nations that supported the Iraq war (percentage of support was sometimes included)
 * A reference to opposition to the war (Three is a picture of protestors in London)
 * Reasons given by the American government for the war.
 * Reasons given by protestors for the war. AlIAS 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

False Information from Eagle
Eagle does not have the authority to represent the Arabic section of Wikipedia, he is representing his own opinion, we in Arabic Wikipedia who participated in the article will translate it as soon as we can, Eagle have minor editions in the Arabic article of Iraq invasion which was deleted later because it was biased in nature. Again eagle is only representing himself and he is not the writer of the article. Classic 971 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

while Eagle just wanted to put his own opinion in teh arabic article without discussing it in the discussion page, other editors like Classis_971 did professional work by adding a work supported with refrences ... What eagle considered silly about the iraqi Oil , is really mentioned here ... maybe we havn,t that high standards for featured articles ..but at least we work honestly and avoiding any POV --Chaos 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Calm down guys, fortunately we are not at war here. And thanks a lot for letting us know what the Arabic article covers. Good to have an exchange. De mortuis... 01:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-From Chaos' link:

"During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades."

Sounds a little skewed to me. And to think this comes from a UN site. And to think that the US government has taken to working outside such a 'neutral' body. Rob 11:01, 8MAY2006 (UTC)

UFO sightings duing Iraq War
Have there been UFO sightings during the Iraq War?, if so here are the sources I'd found.

http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=598 http://www.rense.com/general37/filers41603.htm http://www.ufodigest.com/newsletter/2003/2003-04-17.html http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/baghdad.htm http://ufocasebook.com/iraq040304.html

Storm05 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate article to ask about UFO sightings. Nothing in the article mentions anything about UFO's having any influence whatsoever on any events related to the Iraq War. DarthJesus 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats why I put the sources here in the talk page, so someone can write about UFO sightings in Iraq. Storm05 20:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it was well-known that the UFOs are behind it all?

Likewise we should add some sources describing Bigfoot aiding the insurgents. I know I guy whose sister's friend read about it The Star. I'll see if I can find the link.
 * WOW! UFO'S IN IRAQ! ALERT THE PRESS!!!!... If this holds water then we have witnessed a rare event in the history of War, UFO Sightings during war time. Someone already wrote an article on it so we need to go look on the internet and find any and I mean ANY infomation because UFO's in the IRAQ WAR is headline material and because the major networks seldom if even bother to report weird and unexplaned phenomenon that nobody can explain during the Iraq War I see fitting that we include any weird event in the main article and back those facts up with evidence. Come on someting weird must've happened in Iraq. Ether bigfoot, UFO's, rocks falling out the sky, anything. So I'll say congradulations to the guy who made that Iraq War UFO sightngs article or whatever you call it. Weirdstuffhappens 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weird stuff in Iraq, I dont know. Outside of UFO sightings, info on other weird stuff during the Iraq War is scant. Storm05 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way I created the Iran-Iraq UFO Sightings article, If anyone is interested in adding more infomation, feel free to do so. Storm05 18:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph change
The official DoD policy in refrence to the Iraq War is to refer to it as Operation Iraqi Freedom, with a numeral after that to denote which "phase" (apologize already for an ambigious military term). I've been busted out too many times myself for calling it the Iraqi War! Gottalove the Military. Sinnabar 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank God this encyclopedia is not owned by your DoD. De mortuis... 00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the introduction isn't the best place for the term, but I think it is notable for inclusion. Many battles across WWII were known by their Operation name.  Seems no different here. Sinnabar 04:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Harsh criticism of US Iraq policy
The following information is related to parts of the article, but I am not sure if it fits here: Insurgencies, frequent terrorist attacks and sectarian violence lead to harsh criticism of US Iraq policy. . After the Al Askari shrine bombing in February 2006 the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad warned that sectarian violence spread might lead to a civil war in post-invasion Iraq and possibly even the neighbouring countries. De mortuis... 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strange isn't it. You would think the criticism should be directed towards the insurgents, terrorists and sectarian zealots who are violating individual rights rather than US attempts to protect individual rights and democracy.--Silverback 12:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, you can't be biased one way or the other.

Thoughts from the brain of a teenager
Its kinda amusing actually. The US ousts out a dictatorship government and then replaces it with a so-called democratic government that would most likely be a puppet government that wins every election and favours the US.

By invading Iraq, the US really can't pull out of it now. If it tries to get out, the whole damn country will definitely collapse into a civil war.

Oh yeah, by the way, where are those WMDs that Bush kept talking about?

Thats all on my mind now.

AllStarZ 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you ask that question to the Kurds or the Iranians that watched their family members die from chemical weapon (WMDs) used by Iraq? It is clear they had them at one time.  The real question is:  where are they now? 68.17.252.203 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This section is for the discussion of editing the page in question, not a soapbox for people's politics. Please keep posts relevant.

NeoFreak 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)NeoFreak

Amends== Is it possible? ==

Why can't we just kiss and make up? What is it that seperates us from the Middle Eastern World? Is it because our differences? Aren't we similar? Don't we hate each other equally? If so why? I think this is deeply rooted in our relations with the Iraq War and it deserves thought.

Here is a quote: "The love of one's country is a splendid thing.  But why should love stop at the border?" Pablo Casals I hope that means something to you.

Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched. Guy de Maupassant Think on that one too. Oh, and what ever happened to diplomacy? What happened to reason? Just thought you mightlike to think about it.

--Peter bergquist 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence of "hate" in the sacrificial role the U.S. played in freeing the Iraqi people? You commit an injustice by equating the coalition with those who spout hate and seek to terrorize or oppress.  Nationalism based on racialism is the virus that poisoned the 20th century.  Individuals not races and sects are what matter (and what has physical mass rather than just a subjective or conceptual existance), and a state that violates individual rights has no sovereignty worthy of respect and a state that protects rights has legitimacy even if it is defined by the racists to be an "exploitive" colonial or imperial power.  --Silverback 12:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear there is intelligent life on Earth!
You bring up a good point. This is the area of Foreign relations where things get muddled. First of all, did we really "free" or are we "freeing" the Iraqi people? They are in a state of civil disorder much worse than under the rule of their previous dictator, Suddam Hussien(Iraq War). Sure he was a terrible guy, but that doesn't justify the occupation and terrorization of a country's people. Surely the extension of the first Gulf war (headed off by Bush senior) into the "War on Terror", is a mockery within itself. It is not the Iraqis who are terrorizing us it we who are terrorizing them. Is it not? We invaded Iraq. First we were set to find WMDs that the President reported to have "thought" they had them and that we should go "get 'em." Of course there was no evidence found to back this "theory" up. Then, it became an operative to catch members of the Al Qeada(Iraq War). That was settled, but did really have to do much Iraq? At any rate it left the people in a worse situation again. Now it is the idea that we are going to "free" the Iraqis and give them Democracy. Absolutely outrageous! Who are we to say "our" ways are best(Nationalism)? So, when you say that this has nothing to do with nationlistic values and imperialistic ambitions, think again. There is much to gain from this war economically in the U.S.(Iraq War), despite its high cost of life. Do you really think that the 21st century is immune to Nationalistic poison that you spoke of? Peter bergquist 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt there is much to be gained economically, unless the US were to take the oil, but there is no evidence the US is paying any less than market prices. Why blame the US for the current violence?  The foreign terrorists and Bathists insurgents are not forces of nature, they are personally responsible for their behavior.  If the insurgency were not going on things would definitely be improved over Saddam's regime, and for most of the people of Iraq things are improved even as they are.  The actions of the US are justified, and those of the insurgents are not.  BTW, even the failure to find WMD does not negate that reason for the invasion, because the US did find evidence that Saddam fully intended to start his WMD programs again once the sanctions ended. I agree we still have the nationalistic poison, we see that in the Balkans, the rising protectionism in Europe and the US, the Communist Chinese continued claims of sovereignty over the democracy in Taiwan and its occupation of Tibet.  Note, China is not trying to get out of Tibet like the  US is trying to get out of Iraq, etc.--Silverback 18:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dissent and Deliverance


 * I think the U.S. is going to benefit from the invasion of Iraq and its placement of government that has been proposed as some type of justification for our billigerent actions. You are right to state that there are cruelties on both sides, that certainly is a truth.  However, the U.S. has tryed and is trying to escape these moral stains.  Certain "scapegoats" were made by placing the reason for invasion on an evil dictator and his plans to manufacture WMDs, and possibly use them.  Lastly our projected plan is to free the Iraqi people and give them democracy.  The people who live there are in civil termoil and divided greatly between philosophies and regions.  I am afraid, and when I say this I don't mean to make generalizations, that the people of Iraq are not prepared for a democracy or even know the first thing about it.  They were under the rule of a dictator and will have a difficult time adapting to a new form of government.  I have no idea what possessed us to do this, and I highly doubt it will prove successful.  After we have established a strong national military station in Iraq and left them to their "democracy", it is doubtful that our ties with Iraq will be severed.  With all the "help" we have given them, or trouble as you will, they will owe us something.  Maybe it will be the monopolization of their oil or a say of what goes on in their country, and possibly they will be allied to us by default.  At any rate it will be something of great value to the U.S.  I can't think of anything more valuable then black gold.  This, I theorize was the initial effort and plan of the Iraq War.  This is but one imperialistic initiative that may begin the manifestation of something greater.  Possibly it could lead to a global monopolization of markets (at least in the category of crude oil) and strong-headed policies bent on the fuel of greed--that has become our true failure in the care for the thoughts of others and their ways of life.--Peter bergquist 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be valuable to hear from someone from Iraq, preferably a citizen of Iraq and a U.S. soldier. This would really be the POV I would like to hear, but I know it would be difficult or unlikely for this to happen. I don't know enough about what the people in Iraq think, and it was wrong of me to judge so. However, it would be interesting to hear these POV of an Iraqi citizen and U.S. soldier. Sorry for any misunderstandings or bad judgements in my previous article.--Existential Thinker 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You want to hear the opinon of a US Soldier who served in Iraq? Too bad. I served in Iraq for a year, including in participating in the initial invasion. I tried editing this page for 3 months. I got sick of the rampant ignorance, the mindless euro-centric US hating, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld bashing etc. Just look at the self-righteous comments on this talk page: Anon's babbling about "Oh it was about the oil of course" like they're a famous political scientist, or an expert in national defense studies. If you want MY POV on the war, you can come find me on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to give it to you there.  &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  03:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was about oil, of course, but not about taking it, the US could have done that with fare less collateral damage to civilian life, and it would be easier to hold, since the oil fields are not densely populated. Saddam's only "right" to the oil was that he had the power to control it, so the "right" of the US was greater because its power was greater, and while in the short term there have been disruptions, in the long term the world will be better off if such wealth were not in the hands of someone with Saddam's intentions.  The US has not taken the oil, but it has put the oil wealth in more reasonable hands, and is a powerful voice opposing the use of oil as a weapon and against the use of oil wealth for nationalistic and sectarian purposes rather than just material improvement of individual lives.  There should be limits to anyone's "care for the thoughts of others".  Individual human lives are not those worker ants to be used only to serve someone else's collective or  reproductive purposes.  I respect other life, catching mice in live traps and releasing them outdoors and shooing wasps out doors when possible, but I use anti-biotics and bug bombs when my life and health are threatened.  Yes, part of me thinks the Bathist's or wahabi's are quaint lifestyles with as much right to be themselves as we have, but they are also quite virulent in their intent and hostility towards others who may not submit enough for their liking.   Perhaps, a reservation or coventry can be set aside where they can practice and preserve their native way of life, but they are not so easy to tolerate when they aspire to modern weapons and to spread their "thoughts" through terroristic totalitarian control and with mindless mental drills in madrossas.  It is racism or parochialism to suggest that these primitives have a "right" to that oil because of mere geographical proximity or somekind of collective tribal tradition.  It is the demand and technology generated in the rest of the world that gives that oil value, otherwise it would still be in the ground and these virulent cultures would be oblivious to it and no more threat to us than the Sudan.  If those in geographical proximity to the oil can't enjoy the wealth offered to them, instead of using it to oppress each other, and to seek to destroy the culture that gives the oil its value, then there are natural consequences they will face.  It is to the credit of the US, that at great sacrifice in lives and wealth, it is attempting to avoid those natural consequences.  Bush has faith that the individuals in this region have individual dreams and aspirations and are not just pawns of a virulent religious or sectarian collective.  Yes, just taking the wealth, and leaving the dictators and collectives emasculated of its power would have been cheaper, but the lives of the individuals in the area would be even more miserable.  The hope is that individualism and democratic self rule will influence Iran and Saudi Arabia.  This expensive and sacrificial strategy would not work in populous Iran.  There it would be best to take control the oil, and just starve the command and control of its wealth and power, and take pot shots at the leaders when they rear their successive virulent heads until a leader emerges who would be a better steward of the lives of the people and the wealth that just happens to lie in geographical proximity.--Silverback 10:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK...so what else are we going to do with oil than use it?--Existential Thinker 01:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The place where we differ in the understanding of the Iraq War is its purpose If we are really set out to bringing democracy and reconstructing Iraq then why did Bush start bombing Iraq again? He referred to the "air strike" intiative in Iraq as "Political maneuvers." The Bush Administration is quite infamous for their fancy euphenisms and parliamentary rhetoric used to confuse a great deal of the fooled populus in America. It seems strange that we are trying to help a country with reconstruction while bombing more cities in that country. I fail to comprehend the logic of our Administration. Another suprising thing is the lack of evidence the Bush Administration has provided to back up their ideas or theories. In reference to IEDs in Iraq and our trouble dealing with them in the battle field, the President said they contained components from Iran. Although they said they had no evidence to back this up in the conference at The Defense of Democracy. Our strange strageties that we are using fit under a quote from Ed Helm (from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart)regarding our recontruction efforts, "we're not good at infrastructure, we're good at un-frastructure."--67.138.36.33 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did Bush start bombing Iraq again? It is unclear when you mean by "again"? Operations since the toppling of Saddam or those that toppled Saddam?  In either case precision munitions were used that carefully minimized collateral damage to civilian infrastruction.  If you will objectively apply just war theory criteria, you will see that this latest Iraq conflict is arguably the most just war the U.S. has every fought.   Compare it to the Serbian conflict, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc. where either civilian infrastructure was purposely targeted or conscript/slaves were used, or to the "Drug war" where nearly all victims are innocent civilians merely desiring to use or sell recreational drugs, and NOT oppress others.  In criticising the U.S. efforts at "un-frastrusture", did Steward provide more than just a sound bite?  Did he criticise the insurgent violence or assess how those efforts might have gone without such insurgent efforts and assess under just war criteria whether the insurgent actions are justified and what the "purpose" of those insurgents are?--Silverback 12:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When I said "start bombing again" I meant the "Shock and Awe" (the spread of democracy) on March 10, 2003.--Existential Thinker 01:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it clear then. We have been occupying Iraq since the Gulf War, and you are right by stating my misquote (regarding Bush and the "again"). I meant to say the U.S. in general. Although, I was alluding to the original air strikes in the beginning of the war. I have no clue where you got the idea the this war is a "just" war. The lack of initial evidence in the invasion of Iraq was astounding. The fact that there was a cruel dictator does not justify our actions. The mere fact that we invaded without the proper U.N. authority, since the invasion was in direct violation of U.N. charter. This was a grave error by the current Adminsitration, therefore making the Iraq war a perfect example of imperialistic action and enterprise. There is no way one can crawl from this hole, and the U.S. is trapped in it. That's my POV.--Existential Thinker 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC) The only way one can justify our invasion of Iraq is if that individual sides with imperialism.--Existential Thinker 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only way one can oppose the invasion is to suggest that Saddam had more right to oppress the Iraqi people than the colalition had to liberate them. Your "reasoning" in this regard should be interesting.  You forget that the UN is a fascist organization where nations and dictators have rights that supercede those of living organisms such as human individuals.  Saddam's "sovereignty" was unworthy of respect.  The initial evidence in support of a just war was astounding, a murderous dictator who had been defying UN sanctions and intent on acquiring wMD, an internationally sanctioned state of war existed already.  Do you think the US would not have considered a externally imposed no fly zone on its territory a state of war?  Iraq was firing a airplanes in the no fly zone and only the no fly zone was preventing Saddam from attacking the Kurds.  The coalition had tried sanctions and other international policy actions for over a decade and only invaded as a last resort, and the war was fought by moral means a volunteer rather than conscript/slave military and the most precise targeting in history (to-date).  Look at the just war criteria and see if there has ever been a more just war across all the elements.--Silverback 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * CORRECTION, instead of "only", I should have mentioned that a true pacifist could also oppose the invasion or that someone wishing to get laid by conforming to peer group misperceptions could also justify opposing it.--Silverback 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, your claims on the U.N. are very biased and unsupported by data,"You forget that the UN is a fascist organization where nations and dictators have rights that supercede those of living organisms such as human individuals." The U.N. is an international organization and remains relatively neutral in partisan and is affiliated with any sects.  However, you claim they are fascists, even though they are manipulated by large governments, especially the U.S.(e.g. the Hutu-Tutsi issue in Rwanda and the invasion of Iraq).  They are not totalitatrian or dictator like.  They are easily controled by influential governments, and don't follow the idea of Fascism, that is parallel to Nazism.
 * Anon one. In the UN, nations have sovereignty rights that are acknowledged and protected even when those nations violate rather than protect the rights of their population.  That is the fundamentally hegelian/fascist notion of the nation as a organism with rights to survive and defend itself.  Look how careful the UN was to respect Iraq's sovereignty even though Saddam's regime was an abomination.  Look how nations that are notorious human rights violators are allowed to serve on the human rights commissions, etc.  The UN pays lip service to individual rights, but is far more concerned with the rights of nations.  Cuba and China still impose severe restrictions on emigration, yet the UN has done nothing.   The US oppresses innocent civilians who have done nothing more than use or sell recreational drugs, yet the UN not only supports the USA's "right" to do this, it supports the spread of this oppression to other nations.--Silverback 09:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I still fail to comprehend the reason that justifies the U.N. as a fascist organization. Often the U.S. tips off the U.N. in order to carry through with aggression policies (e.g. the Iraq War).  I wonder why the U.N. didn't support the invasion of Iraq?  My guess is that they didn't want to get involved in a international affair that could get them in trouble.  In the incident in Rwanda the U.N. backed out of supporting the Tutsi minority because they lacked government support.  It is taken for granted that they are an entirely independent organization, and they should be.  However, they are easily manipulated by world dominating governments, such as the United Kingdom and us of course.  The new evidence that has shed light on this problem with the pre-war plan and what reasons the U.S. had to invade the Iraqi nation can be found in the "War Planned in Advance?" section of this discussion page.  It was found that in the pre-war "talk" Junior (formally known as George W. Bush) and Blair had decided that whether there were WMDs or not the war was to happen on the 10 of March, 2003.  This is surprising because it shows us that the administrations plans were not in regards of finding WMDs, but taking out a dictator (which was placed there by the Bush senior, ironically), essentially continuing the Gulf War.  On that very date that was projected by Bush, the "Shock and Awe", or the massive bombing assault was released on Bhagdad, bringing peace and democracy to Middle-eastern world.--Existential Thinker 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are getting caught up in the details. The reason the UN is a fascist organization is right in the charter where it acknowledges the sovereignty and rights of nations.  This comes into conflict with the rights of individuals and is a basic flaw that is institutionalized in how it is organized and makes decisions.  In case you haven't noticed, Nations have the right to vote, whether they are violators of individual rights or not.  It is the very notion that nations have an existance and rights beyond those of their component individuals that is fascist.  The UN implicitly in many of its important actions acknowledges and respects the rights of nations to oppress their "own" people.  Once you understand this, you will realize that all your talk about plans before the war is just irrelevant noise.   The very existance and nature of the Saddam regime was carte blanche for anyone with better intent to take it and its supporters out.  Saddam's regime had no right to exist necessitating respect.--Silverback 10:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You still fail to define the terms: Fascism- A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. (Dictionary.com)

Under what terms is the U.N. a fascist organization? They are not an oppresive or dictatorial government system. They are an international regulator in the actions and decisions of countries. Claiming the U.N. to be a fascist group is not only false, but the intentions are obviously to blacken their name. They probably had good reason to advise the U.S. that invading Iraq (without any evidence on their claims, what so ever) was unwise. In hindsight it is quite apparent that we stuck or selves in a thick quagmire in the beginning. The claims made to the U.N. is certainly your strategy in justifying the invasion. In your response, "you will realize that all your talk about plans before the war is just irrelevant noise." I thought it interesting that you made such a statement. This means we went to war on irrelevant noise, does it not? What does that make every million (exaggeration) reason that the Administration calimed after the war was started, about what the reason for our actions were. '''No, I'm afraid not, the Bush administration completed the invasion under the terms of what now is said to be democracy, even though its true ambtion were entirely imperialism. The dictator that was removed was our own doing, and the war we debate today is the job Bush senior couldn't finish, and his son is now finishing. Thus, is the Bush legacy and their grab for power in this world that has corrupted the people and the government. The government leaders that can be observed in the U.S., in my opinion, are completely moronic and incapable of any intelligent governmenting observable in the history of mankind. They deserve to be displaced from their seats of power before this war becomes a global affair, for it could be the end of us all.'''--Existential Thinker 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon One, I prefer a definition of fascism that retains its original meaning, I summarize/excerpt from the fascism article in the Encyclopedia of Philosphy. Fascism is a mixture of extreme socialist or syndicalist notions with a Hegelian or idealist theory of the state...liberalism saw the state simply as an institution created to protect men's rights, fascism looked on the state as an organic entity...to uphold the moral integrity and higher collective purpose of the nation.
 * While the U.N. pays lip service in its charter to human rights, the charter also asserts the sovereignty of its member nations and in practice pays far more respect to that soveignty regardless of the member nations' records on human rights. By respecting Iraq/Saddam's sovereignty the UN and apparently you are accepting this fascist notion that nations have rights, whereas, the liberal position (read "classical liberal") is that the Iraqi state was not fulfulling its only legitimate purpose to protect men's rights and in fact was violating them.--Silverback 13:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You still need to understand that fascism requires a dictator or totalititarian leader--which doesn't exist in U.N.'s circumstance. Besides, degrading the U.N. doesn't justify the invasion.  You have to understand that U.N. had no reason to back the U.S. in the invasion, since there wasn't any presented evidence, it was under false pretenses. --Existential Thinker 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, even a democratic republic like the United States can be fascist in its conception of the nation over the individual. Look at this excerpt from Conscription in the United States:


 * '''This comment is very POV, factually unsupported, and false. If you check the Websters Third New International Dictionary you will find,"Fascism: any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."

First, the U.N. is not a national program it is international; second, it is not autocratic because there are many representatives from countries all over the world (who each have a say in what is decided internationally). The U.N. has establishments all over the world, therefore making them an international program. The fact that the U.N. is not only one nation but many, making it impossible to fall under nationalistic terms. That is the complete irony of the situation. If anything the term fascism falls much more closely to defining the U.S.'''--Existential Thinker 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) .  The Court detailed its conclusion that the limited powers of the federal government included conscription.  Its only statement on the Thirteenth Amendment issue that had also been raised was:
 * Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
 * Note mind numbing nature of fascist thought. It limited the conceptual ability of even justices of the supreme court. "Exaction ... of ... performance" has some similarities to "involuntary servitude".--Silverback 12:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What relation does the Supreme Court and WWI have to do with defining the U.N.'s policies? I fail to comprehend your various digressions of thought.--Existential Thinker 01:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gents, 99% of this discussion has nothing to do with the article. This is not a blogspace for your rants and tangents concerning your views on the Iraq war.  Unless it pertains to the article please take it elsewhere. --Looper5920 01:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then what is the purpose of the article? I thought had to do with the Iraq War.  That is what the Title of this discussion page is stated as, is it not?  Please redifine your hypothesis if you believe differently.  Much is to be gained from discussion, we can better understand other views, and through that better understand the topic.--Existential Thinker 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

POV -- still
Folks, this article is very POV. I am opposed to the war and I think most reasonable people, when provided with accurate, neutral information also oppose it. Passages like

''The more exclusive definitions of the "Iraq War" term...rest on rationalizations that tend to disagree, in various opinions, with direct or meaningful comparisons with other conflicts, though these are largely found in stated (or perceived) goals by the Coalition for the invasion and occupation. A better metric to determine precisely who the war is being waged upon should compare the number of unarmed civilian Iraqi deaths by the various combatants with the number of armed civilians and Iraqi soldiers killed in the war....''

can't be in here. This is biased, uncited original research. The topic here is "rationalization", but this is trying to declare "who the war is being waged upon". Who came up with this "better metric" and why is it used at all in this paragraph?

The chemical weapons stuff is way over hyped. People were burned to death -- horrible yes. Chemical weapons -- no. The grenades utilize chemicals, just like every sort of grenade utilizes chemicals, just like every sort of bullet and bomb use chemicals (just like humvees and helicopters use chemicals). Merely using chemicals does not make a weapon a chemical weapon. Killing is a morally abhorrent thing, but keep the bias out. For anyone with a soul it would be bad enough to just say that people were burned to death by phospohorous grenades.

Justforasecond 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pointless to claim bias when you make blanket statements like "I think most reasonable people, when provided with accurate, neutral information also oppose it." Do you have any evidence to support that? What is accurate, neutral information? Is it the information you have? Have you been to Iraq, have you interviewed soldiers who fought there? My point is that your statement itself is POV, and asserting it as a reason for changing this article is grounds for disaster. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ..And by stating so, you are also making your POV. Funny how that works?--Existential Thinker 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the first one I think it's biased, please someone modify it. As for the second one, it seems good extra information to the reader, because they are internationally banned specifically as chemical weapons. --Christinam 10:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is nearly useless and unreadable. WAAAYYY too much POV, uncited sources, poor grammer, and generally just really crappy writing. Regardless of whether someone is opposed to the war or supports it--putting all these points and counter-points in an article just make the article more confusing and unreadable--not to mention a poor reference. Please stop adding things about how bad or good something is based on your pro/anti-war position and focus on adding actual relevant facts--let the historians sort out who was right or wrong.Publicus 13:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I am sorry for my extremist POVs, and if I affended you I hope you will forgive me. As you can tell from my articles I am at best an amateur writer, not to mention a minor. I understand all that the public domain in this discussion page has made several comments on my contributions, stating that I should drop my "biased" POVs. Maybe I have been unfair in doing so. I will work hard at being a little more balanced in my POV and support my articles with more data. I am working towards becoming a better Wikipedian and writer, fore I am new to Wikipedia. I thank you for your suggestions and comments and I hope you can give me some tips and pointers. However, I'll have you know that I am strong in my belief of what I think is right or wrong. I see these values on either side of the current war in Iraq. It is hard to weigh the rights and wrongs of each side, as you know. I am not trying to judge people for their actions and form irrational conclusions, for it would be wrong of me to do so. No, I am here to rationally distinguish certain wrongs on each side and back it up with some evidence. I have reason for my action. If this discussion page is more concerned with who is using POV or showing too much opinion in their articles, than getting to the bottom of things in a reasonable manner, then I will have nothing to do with it. POV or opinion is a right that we hold, and should be exercised, it makes us unique as indivduals. Facts are facts and that's a fact. However, how you interpret that fact is POV, and that is partof the beauty and intelligence that is valued in discourse. It is a value, I think that has been left to rot in our society. That is my POV on POVs.--Existential Thinker 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Existential Thinker, I understand that POV can be a difficult thing to deal with especially on something like a war. But keep in mind, you can always create references to an infinite number of related articles on any subject. However, there needs to be at least one starting point that everyone can agree on from which to link these other articles. The main goal (especially with this article) is to present all the relevant facts and information and then link articles on relevant points.Publicus 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The removal of quotes wasn't discussed here. The deletion of large sections without good reasons is called blanking. I see no good reason stated here, so please do not blank the quotes again. --  Orbit One    [ Talk 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Bush quotes to the Iraq disarmament crisis. There was no analysis of the quotes within this article they were simply a list of quotes. Since all of the quotes deal with a time period before the war and contain language rationalizing the war, I feel they are a better fit to a specific article dealing with the runup to the war--rather than a general article discussing all aspects of the war.Publicus 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this article
Agree with Publicus and Justforasecond that the article needs a lot of work but I think the major problem isn't POV, it's that the article starts off with long-winded, pedantic asides on terminology and rationales. We shouldn't be calling "Iraq war" an informal term, it is simply the standard term routinely used by journalists to refer to the fighting which started with the 2003 invasion and continues to this day. There isn't really much of a difference between "Iraq war", "Iraq War", and "war in Iraq". The first alternative, with lower case "war", seems to be more common in news reports, so we should just use that and stick with it. Also, though we should briefly summarize President Bush's justifcations for the war, the long passages from his speeches are not necessary. Primarily this article should present the basic facts, the groups involved and the phases of the fighting, with links to other, more detailed articles on each of these. Brian Tvedt 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am new to Wikipedia could anyone give me tips on citing sources,etc?--Existential Thinker 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the "Iraq War" informal-formal stuff. Would anyone have any problem with simply removing all of that and replacing it with a much simpler intro from a previous article version? Here is a September 8, 2005 version of this article that I think has a much better intro: So what say you all, better intro or not? -- Mr. Tibbs 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also Publicus the long series of edits without any edit summarizes messes up the article history. Please use fewer edits and provide explanations in the edit summary box. It makes it easier for everyone to track whats going on with the article. -- Mr. Tibbs 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the version which Mr. Tibbs points to is much better, both in the introduction and overall structure. Brian Tvedt 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I like that intro too Mr. Tibbs--a lot cleaner. Sorry for the numerous edits wtout edit summary, a lot of them were just typos and moves within the article, housekeeping type stuff, etc. The article was just so unuseable, I guess I went a little edit-crazy-lol.Publicus 13:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a subtle POV all through parts of this article. Take for instance the caption "Unrepaired infrastructure and a risk of being killed either by U.S. occupiers or insurgents had made life difficult to average Iraqis." The use of weasel words and phrases like "killed by U.S. occupiers " shifts the tone of the article to be somewhat anti-war. --204.77.40.48 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I dont know, I think this article lookos okay to me. Kappa 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As can be seen from the history, User:Kappa has not edited this page. The above comment was added by User:E-Series. He will be blocked if it happens again. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

Saddam the top Opponent?
I think it is somewhat innacurate to have Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the top opponent. While they obviously were the opponent during the invasion itself, they are no longer being fought in the Iraq War. Rangeley 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite true. Justifications for the war should also be expanded to include the racial or sectarian excuses the insurgents and al Qaeda use to justify their attacks upon innocent civilians. I doubt they would meet just war criteria.  They didn't spend over a decade trying to resolve whatever issues they had in the U.N., they certainly haven't used moral means, and they didn't resort to war as a last resort.  In fact things would be much better if they didn't resort to war at all.  The desire to oppress others is not a valid justification under Just War theory.--Silverback 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Original Goals?
It states in the opening paragraph that it wasnt originally said that the war was for humanitarian reasons and democracy. This is false. Iraq_War-_Rationale. Donald Rumsfeld gave these as the reasons prior to the invasion. Saying that they werent given as reasons does accurately represent a common anti war talking point, however it does not accurately represent reality, or NPOV. Rangeley 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

War planned in advance?
Should something be added to the article about the Tony Blair\GWB meeting that said the war was planned in advance? I think the memo is linked as an external site, but shouldn't there be something about it in the article itself?

68.148.168.84 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may find it interesting to know that the War was planned ahead of time in the talk that Dubya and Blair had pre-war. It was aggreed that the war would happen on the 10 of March, 2003, whether or not there were any WMDsand .  It beats me.  The new evidence on this is outrageous,  however true, and I found it enlightening.  That was what the "Coalitoin of the Willing" was about.--Existential Thinker 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This new evidence you undoubtably be placed in the artcle under Just war criteria, as an un-justification. The evidence that has shed light upon the Iraq War, surely proves the aggressive tactics the Administration were performing.  It did not matter whether they had any proof to go to war, only that it was to happen.  The true reason is very much controversial and I don't wish to end in more POVs.  This new evidence needs to printed in the article, and stated that it left all post-invasion excuses and "justifications" exempt from the Iraq picture.  It was definitely not about WMDs because it did not matter, and all the other reasons were stated after the War started.  All the "new" justifications" were probably, in my opinion, excuses to keep the War a popular idea despite its true ambitions.--Existential Thinker 11:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox POV?
"Instability and a massive amount of terrorist acts committed against civilians". I think that "instability" is debatable and so is the phrase "massive amount". 68.100.115.135 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)KevinPuj
 * There are attacks killing dozens of people every other day, if you do not see that is a massive amount and creates instability maybe that is just your POV? De mortuis... 00:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A "massive amount" of attacks implies a large quantity of attacks, there are at most several a day. KevinPuj 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)KevinPuj
 * The word massive itself is POV. Massive to me means something like Hiroshima, where more were killed in an instant than in four years of fighting in Iraq.  Rmt2m 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I will point out that many of the things are rather silly to include. Civilian Deaths, damage to the infrastructure, economic shifts... All these are results of any war. I mean look at the WW1 and WW2 article, even the Korean War or Vietnam war. They dont include every these things in their infobox, despite the fact they happened, and were even more devastating. Im not downplaying anything here, but the infobox isnt meant to be used for this purpose. Some simple things should be there, Overthrow of Saddam, establishment of elected government, ongoing conflict between coalition and insurgents. At most it should be a sentence or two, not an article itself. Rangeley 15:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Get Your Facts Straight, Mother F****ers! (just a silly headline to catch the eye)
The following facts you may or may not know:


 * -Pre-war 9/11 terrorist attacks had nothing to do with Iraq, it was merely corperate media fabrication and illusion.
 * -In fact NOT a single hijacker was Iraqi, they were mostly Saudi.
 * -The Al-qaeda were trained and supplied by the C.I.A., a U.S. intelligence agency.
 * -Suddam was placed in power by the U.S., and supplied with chemical weapons that were used in his gasings of the Kurds.
 * -There were no WMDs found after the investigation.
 * -The U.S. directly violated U.N. charter, placing the Iraq invasion under an act of aggression.
 * These are not reasons we went to war, but are misconceptions that are not known by the average american.  Not to mention, the media keeps it locked away, and would rather fill the mass with crap.

Basically we created our own war, so if you say that there is any other reason, you are merely stating fabrication and pretense that the U.S. Administration planned. Obviously there is some other goal in mind when it comes to the Iraq War cause, I will not state my opinion on this subject since it is heatedly debated and argued with vehement passion by many. I don't wish to take part in that war. To justify our actions by "bringing democracy" to the Middle-east is by far the most illusive of all fabrications. Hello, wake up and smell the coffee, it's time for "Shock and Awe" (a cruel euphemism which translates to "air assault") for breakfast, then a little "Democracy" with your afternoon tea! I don't think it could be anymore crystal clear, but then comes the question, what are we doing in Iraq and why are we doing it? (links to factual references are to follow)--Existential Thinker 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously there is a much bigger picture that we aren't seeing. I'm not saying I see the whole picture, only pieces of it.  I hope you and many others will help me and the world by piecing this quite complicated puzzle together.  There is obviously more to this war than spreading "democracy", removing a dictator, and trying to put blame on others while, we are also to blame.  This link leads to an enlightening article on the culture, political histories, and ideas on Islam and the MIddle-east.  It is a very good read and will certainly open up, or at least I hope, your mind to new thoughts and ideas.  It is an interview with a former Iraqi citizen, now an american, and his experience in the Middle-east.Read this:
 * I read it. He seems to think freedom is relative and is very racialist and fascist in his thinking.  He thinks a people have a right to oppress others as long as they are of the same kind.  They have a right to select ayatolahs as rulers and oppress others of their kind if they so choose, yet he hypocritically criticises the other oppressive regimes in the middle east. Democracies have no more right to oppress than kings or dictators do.  He is also racialist in his criticisms of the US policy, hold past US actions against current US citizens as if there is collective guilt.  He is distinctly irrational in is defense of the insurgency, ignore their attacks upon innocent civilians and the implications for individual rights if the insurgents were to actually win.  All that matters to him is that the US is a foreign occupying force, and he ignores the morality of US actions, and holds the US responsible for the violent climate created by the insurgents, as if the insurgents were racially entitled to be violent and not responsible for their own actions.  I suggest you read the article again yourself.--Silverback 23:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * '''Wow! I never thought I would see the day of such foolish and imprudent statements as this, "He is also racialist in his criticisms of the US policy", in reference to Ebrahim Moosa's interview.  Let me ask you this, how can someone be racist to US policy?  The last time I recall policies did not have races or any kind of ethnicity.  I believe they are more abstract than people.--Existential Thinker 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that he uses racialist reasons to critisize US policies, for instance, he argues that only the people of the countries of the Middle East have the right to overthrow their dictatorships, as if being of the same race or in geographical proximity is required to oppose oppression. It is the same old racialist, nationalist, fascist stuff that ruined the 20th century.--Silverback 12:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it, do you? How can he be racist to his own racist?  What he is trying to get a across to U.S. is that they lack in history of the Middle-east, are ill-informed, and U.S. should keep its head out of the rest of the Middle-eastern world.  We are an imperialist country whether you accept it or not.  If we stopped worrying about others people's business then we wouldn't have to worry about people messings with ours (i.e. "terrorists").  Why do you think we are hated so much by other countries, especially the Middle-east?  Maybe it has to do with our imperial power messing with world affairs.--Existential Thinker 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He can be a racist because he thinks in racial terms. BTW, calling people imperialists is not a substitute for thinking.  Imperialism and colonialism are terms used by racists to convince people that they are better off having their rights violated by people of their own race than having their rights protected by people of another.  If race matters to one, then one is a racist.--Silverback 23:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * '''You can't be a racist if you think in racial terms. To be a racist you must be in discrimination of a race and have a feeling of superiorty towards that race.  Ebrahim Moosa fits none of these qualities; you do great injustice by claiming him to be a racist.  I hope you can give a better moral and social judgement of peoples' character discussed on this page.  What you fail to do in your analysis is to give somewhat of a logically based argument and conversation worthy of discussion.  Each time I have brought something forward you state, by some means, that my information is corrupt and fraudulent.  You do so by discrediting my evidence and speculation, and claiming the organization or individual (i.e. in the predecessing chain of statements, regarding Ebrahim Moosa).  No my friend, I am afraid what you claim is fraudulent.  All it takes is reasoning to place the disclaimer on your statements.  I suggest you use it a little more efficiently.--Existential Thinker 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically I probably should call him a racialist instead of a racist. You must admit he favors the current middle east ruling hierarchy over U.S. rule of the region, even though if the U.S. were to take over and perhaps even eventually admit them to the union as several states, the human rights situation there would be MUCH improved.  Should the world community really be persuaded by the self serving thugs in the region they they have a right to self-oppression, that supercedes the rights of individuals?  There is the practical problem that racialism in the region has inspired religious-like zeal for national aspirations that the thugs are able to exploit to sustain violence.  For this reason racialism should be attacked not just militarily but should also be confront as the intellectual vacuous fiction that it is.--Silverback 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing in your list related to a "reason" for going to war was the WMD, which while not found, even the UN agreed had not been accounted for, and still has not been accounted for to this date. It has been confirmed, however, that Saddam fully intended to restart his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, so only the details and not the danger he represented are different.  As you know from our previous discussion, the threshold for justifying removal of a rights violating regime such as Saddam's is low, basically, it is only a matter of whether it is worth the trouble and the collateral damage.  However, those who take such heroic action as removing this regime are responsible only for their actions, not the actions of others.  Where is your outrage at the insurgents and foreign fighters (al Qaeda) that are instigating attacks upon civilians and the generous and thoughtful coalition forces?  What do you think of their justifications?  Why not aim some criticism at those engaged in sectarian violence as well?--Silverback 12:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And by the same terms you stated we exploit the world. What makes our reason any better then theirs?  Our feeling of superiorness, since the begining of our country, is the same reason we subjugate other countries.  If you think their reasons are more fabricated then ours, look again.  It seems both sides share prejudice against each other, however neither side should be ignored.  The greatest mistake we can make is not examining ourselves.  As Ghandi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."--Existential Thinker 03:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghandi is an illustrative example of my point:
 * "It is debasing human dignity to force men to give up their life, or to inflict death against their will, or without conviction as to the justice of their action." -- Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, et al, in the "Manifesto Against Conscription and the Military System"
 * Contrast this beacon statement of individual rights with the nationalism he encouraged in India, where instead of reform of British colonial rule within the British tradition of individual rights and rule of law, he was a knee jerk advocate of "self-determination" on a racial basis. The result was a sectarian split that cost millions of lives, and a flirting with the communist/socialist paradigm, of imposing central planning from "above" on all of those "below", instead of the distributed decision making of the market economy.  What makes our reasons better than theirs is the relative level of freedom from coercion.  This is something real, not fabricated.  It is the superiority of allowing individuals to make their own decisions, rather than insisting they be subjugated to a religion or regime.  Of course we should be examining ourselves.  Some individual behavior in Iraq has been immoral butfortunately not due to central policy.  We should withdraw all support of Israel until it ends conscription of its innocent civilian population.  And our worse offenses are here at home where restrictions on chemical freedom destroys millions of lives.  Personally, I'd like to emigrate to Mexico, but fears that my children would be kidnapped for ransom, restrictions on ownship of property by foreigners, shakedowns on the highways by armed roadblocks and a requirement to grease the palms of government officials, unfortunately make that relatively less attractive.  In your haste to oppose one of the most morally justified and waged wars in world history, don't lose sight of a rational assessment of the admittedly "relative" merits of each side.  Minor faults on one side cannot justify murder of civilians on the other.--Silverback 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are wrong about the policies of our central gov't, that they have no effect on the individual behavior in Iraq. In fact they do have a great effect.  They play as guide lines and rules that people should follow.  However, when individuals are held accountable for terrible acts (e.g. Abu Gharib prison abuse), their higher officials must also be accountable.   It is their duty to make sure their soldiers are following the rules. If rules are broken it is not only the fault of the individual, but the greater power (or higher ranking off.) is also at fault.  It shows they weren't doing their job by regulating conduct in the prison.  Blame cannot be pointed at individuals because we all play a role in a great network of living and relations.  "With great power comes great responsibility."  It is also true that the higher ranking officers and government representatives must take responsibility for what happened.  You make very good points in your response.  We should withdraw support of Israel.  It is tearing apart the Middle-east.  Our relation with Israel has be come a great lever which we push to give us the desired effect.  For one thing it has led to a monopolization of oil sites in the Middle-east (Iraq is soon to be among the many oil sites of U.S. oppression).  It is definitely wrong to subjugate others for reasons that fall under white supermacy and religous "Divine Mission" and conversion.  However, sometimes we may not even realize that we are subjugating a people.  This is not a good situation.  It is when things lose meaning and politicians try to redefine the terms in parlimantary or euphemoric rhetoric to confuse people of its true meaning and put basis on their own interpretation.  We must think more objectively and speculate more often.  Step back from your religious bias or political wings and think for yourself.  Don't let Bill O'Reilly or Colbert speak for you, speak from your heart and mind.  That was one of Ghandi's teaching of individualism.  We all play a part in this world, whether or not it is trully you or someone else, you must be the change you wish to see in yourself, before it reaches the rest of the world.  Ghandi had troubles like us all, and after the freedom of his people from British rule, his people became seperated.  They had become seperated by views and religion.  It was Ghandi's teaching that saved his people from British rule, yet he could not save his people from his people.  They didn't have the same views or religions, thus it ended in bloodshed and the assissination of Ghandi.  The worst part is they all forget the power of the individual, and that with indivduality, diversity coincides.  The individual deserves respect for it is all powerful and diverse from others.  The nation is not the individual, as you stated, and does not share its diversity.  It is the nation that divides, not the individual. --67.138.36.33 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I should feel any outrage toward the al-Qaeda, for I have nothing to hold against them. Sure, they took part in a terrible drug trade business and ruled over most the people in Afghanistan, but the truth is they are less economically stable (the poor are suffering as a consequence) than before the al-Qaeda were in power.  In the Iraq-Iran war which raged for 10 years, the U.S. was unsure of who to side with (originally we sided with Iran, then it flip-flopped to Iraq).  When the other countries in the Middle-east (e.g. Iran) saw that the U.S. took sides and actually provided Iraq with chemical weapons in the war, they got pretty pissed, as one would assume to be in human nature.  Today, as true in the past, the U.S. has sided with Israel against the vast majority of the rest of the Middle-east.  The U.S. looks at Palestinians as a very large terrorist group, when really the Isrealites also commit terrorist attacks on Palestinians.  This I believe is part of the Imperial power's (i.e. the U.S.) exercise to monopolize the Middle-eastern territories, by keeping the Middle-east in a state of instability (e.g. the placing of Suddam in power).  There are many examples of strange things most Americans wouldn't think of if they were in a state of extreme Nationalistic chauvinism.  Who is there to question the government, if not the people, and ask what is happening in the Middle-east?  The answers are hard to find, and aren't going to be spoon fed by the government(or the press for that matter).  When you question my point of view on the Islamic world and its people, I question the Christian world and its people (including the government of both factions).  Maybe you are asking whether I'm a good patriot or not?  I find it hard to yes since, "It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind."-Voltaire

I think it is good to understand both sides of the argument, and I'm glad you're playing your role so well, but always remember to question yourself before others. It is easier to put blame on others than to accept the blame and be shameful, that is true courage.--Existential Thinker 03:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because there are two sides to an argument doesn't mean they are equally valid. I do question myself and the U.S. government, but what the U.S. government did in liberating Iraq, even with some of the mistakes is nothing compared to the oppression the US imposes here in the U.S. Where is the world community when the U.S. wages a drug war against innocent users and sellers of recreational drugs?  Where is the world community when the U.S. government (FDA) kills hundreds of thousands of innocents by delaying access to life saving drugs as they did by delaying access to beta blockers such as inderal or clot busters such as TPA and streptokinase?  Do they think the US government has a right to kill us because we are U.S. citizens and somehow are "owned" by it?  There is no racial right to oppress others even when those others are of "our own kind", the world will be better off when we all learn that.  Bush and company treat the Iraqi's far better than those of us here at home.  The death toll and the prisons tell the story.--Silverback 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence of this article, which begins "Majority of the costs to Iraqi people consist of large amount of dead civilians..." is POV, and also does not belong under the heading "Financial costs of the Iraq war" It has little to do with the finacial costs of war, and placed under that heading only serves to elicit a reader response to the phrase "dead civilians." I'll try to find some sources about actual infrastructure damage and economic disruption. 71.132.24.187 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)bamonster
 * I think we have all seen enough pictures of Iraq to know of the damage to its infrastructure.--Existential Thinker 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * During the invasion, in response to administration claims of the precise nature of the bombing, opponents of the war were trying to exagerate the destruction by comparing to a map of Iraq with 40,000 pins stuck in it. In response to this some reporters did some virtual flyovers of satellite images of Iraq and stated that the country looked suprisingly untouched, it was very difficult to find any damage.  I did my own calculations based on the pins on a map analogy.  If each pin head represented a 50' by 50' area destruction, to get the scale right the map of Iraq would have to be over 300 feet wide.  40,000 pins wouldn't look like much on such a map.  The pictures you have seen are not a random sample.  The coalition knew that it would have to rebuild any infrastructure it destroyed, so it only destroyed dual use infrastructure and took that out in the least destructive way possible, attacking power lines instead of power plants for instance.  The insurgents have been purposely attacking infrastructure and repair efforts such as waterworks that were not even targets during the invasion.--Silverback 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just mean that the majority of finacial loss to Iraq has not been the civilian casualties. Iraqi post-invasion crude oil production is hundreds-of-thousands of barrels less per-day than it was pre-war, and it's not getting better because foreign investors and expertise are being scared off by the insurgents' attacks on the oil infrastructure (oil pipelines have been bombed about a dozen times, & Saddam mined many of the oil pumps pre-invasion just to make things difficult). I think we should try to get info in about that.
 * Well I guess you're learning. Why do think we started in Afghanistan?  Hmmmm...maybe it was to secure the oil lines.

Oh, and the part about civilian casualties and financial loss, where did you come up with that? I think it comes as a given that civilian casualties are not a financial loss, I mean when has life been worth anything in material? Infrastructure, as well as oil lines (which are part of the infrastructure), has been the largest cost to Iraqi nation.--Existential Thinker 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert Explanation
"At the same time, we must remember that an investigations after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way." In other words, Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector, found such evidence. KevinPuj 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, "intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way" does Not equal "However, evidence has been found to suggest that there were attempts by the dictatorship to start a nuclear program and manufacture weapons of mass destruction". There's a pretty big difference between Intent and an actual attempt. So you putting that rationalization in there is trying to make this issue read like: "Suspect A shot Victim B claiming self-defense in reaction to a displayed firearm. No firearm was found on Victim B. However evidence has been found that Victim B intended to buy a firearm once he was let off probation." Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? And Duelfer was not Ever talking about Saddam restarting a nuclear program, in all cases he is talking about a chemical weapons program, see Yellowcake forgery. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point. There's an important difference between the two.  I believe that the findings by Duelfer should be reported though. KevinPuj 00:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a big difference in terms of the danger that Saddam posed. It was more than "intent", it was his plan to get the sanctions lifted so he could procede with what the sanctions were intended to prevent.  A better analogy would be "Good samaritan USA and the coalition of the willing, caught and imprisioned A, to foil a conspiracy to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, and did so only after A had established a record of mass murder and continued to shoot at and defy UN sanctioned authorities enforcing the no fly zone, other UN "authorities" being politically impotent due to jealousy, infighting and corruption."--Silverback 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

white phosphorus
I corrected the caption because it was incorrect. White phosphorus is an incendiary, not a chemical weapon. TheKaplan 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Results in Infobox
Frankly, it looks like shit. Info that extensive doesn't belong in an infobox. Moreover, the war is ongoing, so "results" is not wholly accurate. Phrases like "unprecedented terrorism" is OR and POV. Serbs might beg to differ. I would reserve "results" for permanent changes, so things like the corporate management of resources and destruction/rebuilding of infrastructure don't belong. Please do present all sides in the article.....but this is an infobox! Point by point:

* Overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government.
 * Keep, this is hardly likely to change.

* Civilian deaths of at least 100,000-300,000 and multiple times more of injured civilians
 * Needs to be more properly cited. Lancet study didn't even quote this high.

* Destruction of infrastructure (homes of entire cities, electricity, water, schools, medical care)
 * remove or mention reconstruction as well. Side toward removal as it's ongoing.

* Large instability, massive amount of random civilian deaths caused by Iraqi insurgency and the occupying forces, general worsening of security conditions
 * Rm words like "massive". Particularly as it's ongoing and subjective, would remove.

* Unprecedented terrorism.
 * remove or restate.

* Election of a representative government. Full participation of minority Kurds and majority Shi'ites in governmental power while Sunnites lost significant power.
 * Keep election as it has happened; remove the next sentence or rephrase to shorten.

* The switching in the currecy used to sell Iraqi oil from Euros back to US Dollars
 * insignificant except for a few petrowarfare theorists.

* Management of natural resources moved from the Iraq government to multinational corporations (mainly based in the U.S.)
 * also ongoing process during turnover; remove

* Termination of the U.N. Oil for Food programme
 * um...duh. this follows from over throw of Hussein's regime. Remove.

I'm removing the last three. --Mmx1 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've migrated this to use the standard Infobox Military Conflict template. The results section is still far too long, though, even for an ongoing conflict; strictly speaking, everything other than "Ongoing" (perhaps with a mention of the overthrow of the Baath government) is probably too much detail for the infobox, and should be in the body of the article instead. Kirill Lok s  h in 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very glad the infobox is being changed. Previously it was just a long laundry list of reasons not to support the war, and was very POV. KevinPuj 12:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rmt2m 16:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed everything but the removal of Saddam, and the election of a representative government. Everything else can be discussed in the body. Rmt2m 17:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and wikified various things that Rmt2m's version left out, it made it a bit longer, but it's still shorter than the prior version. Please keep the wikilinks intact, as it makes things easier on the reader given the large amount of articles on this subject. Next thing on the agenda is we need a picture for that infobox like all the others have. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you coincide rebuilding and destruction of infrastructure as the same thought? It would be as if I said that the ongoing progress/retrogress of the war has left many civilians without families and food.  I hope you revise that on your part.--Existential Thinker 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Major problem with all articles relating to Iraq
The major problem that I see with the articles on Iraq, the new Iraqi government, human rights abuses in Iraq, etc. is that the articles are more pro-war and anti-war editors trying to justify or criticize the war than editors documenting historically significant things about the war. These articles are not encyclopediac at all. Twenty years from now, most of this extremely specific information won't be useful to someone researching these events. They'll want to know what happened, rather than every single case for and against the war. This article needs major work. Thoughts? KevinPuj 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why the infobox should be reduced to removal of Saddam and election of a government. Every nation at war goes through instability, destruction of infrastructure, casualties and etc.  I think the body of the article should deal solely with military operations and the series of events in the war itself, not what uninvolved nations and the UN have to say about it. Rmt2m 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Twenty years from now they Will want to know exactly what led to this war and the political ramifications, just like people do with the Vietnam War today. However a Military Aspects of the Iraq War page could be made. In summary what happened Is "every single case for and against the war". This is particularly true of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq itself whose military aspect only lasted about a week but whose political, economic and strategic ramifications are being felt and escalating to this day. And Rmt2m it is not true that "any nation at war goes through instability..." there are numerous conflicts that were relatively clean such as Operation Just Cause (US invasion of Panama). But even in such conflicts the negative effects of the conflict must be documented, and cannot be white-washed. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Operation Just Cause was condemned by quite a few different institutions and nations, and there were similar cases of looting as there were in Iraq, granted Iraq is 8 or 9 times larger than Panama in population. Fact is in war people die, and that is never clean.  As is, this article is terribly POV, and for starters the murders of Nick Berg, Fabrizio Quattrocchi and others should be mentioned under the Human Rights Abuses section.  Why are these insurgent crimes not mentioned?    Rmt2m 21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Operation Just Cause was condemned by quite a few nations and if you'd read that article you'd see that it Also lists casualties, reasons for the invasion, and post-invasion looting. My message being that Operation Just Cause had no where near the popular condemnation that this war has and even in that relatively clean conflict the negative aspects are Not ignored: see the casualties in the infobox, detailed reasoning for the invasion, post-invasion looting etc. And this is exactly why those things need to be in the infobox in the Iraq War article. If you want to add a bullet point about Nick Berg in a certain section go ahead. But your idea of omitting the negative aspects of the Iraq war is POV in and of itself. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to having negative aspects of the war in the article, but I don't believe the infobox needs to be a detailed list. I think the body of the article can be a good place for anything that happened, good or bad, as a direct result of military action.  My problem is that the article seems to only want to deal with coalition abuses, not insurgent ones.  Like the specific targeting of children waving at American soldiers in convoys, indescriminate use of IED's, and etc.  Rmt2m 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not opposed to negative or positive aspects of the war either, it's just that I see every single minute reason and detail for each side in the articles, and this is not appopriate for an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia should have the historically significant ones.  For instance, think of how the Vietnam War article would have been as the war was going on.  On the other hand, the information that is still significant is limited to specific important events: the My Lai massacre, the Nick Ut photo, and Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing the prisoner.  Compare that to the multiple sections in this article under the name "insurgency".  Just something to consider while editing this page.KevinPuj 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism
You're simply pushing talking points. Why not list "Part of the Global Struggle Against Extremism?"

Placing "part of the war on terror" in the title is placing a POV of a heavily contested point. This is a war. Give it a name. Then, in the body of the article, discuss the history of war, and justifications for entering it.


 * I would like to see verified, unequivocal evidence as to why this article should not have the War on Terrorism link. Like it or not, Operation Iraqi Freedom is a part of the administration's declared War on Terror.  Rmt2m 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is generally accepted to have been an intentially falsified claim (read Paul O'Neill and other Bush Administration defectors). Of course, it is a historical fact that the Bush Administration claimed that the Iraq War was part of the WOT; but in that case this should be mentioned as such within the body of the article, along with references to former members of the Bush administration who have since come out saying that they wanted to invade Iraq from the start and that it had nothing to do with terrorism.

In other words, the "War on Terrorism" timeline doesn't belong in the References section, because it appears to give credibility to the Bush Administration's false and now wholly discredited claim. --Borisknezevic 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Boris Knezevic
 * So it's POV either way. Rmt2m 12:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone vandalized the war on terror thing to remove it out. It isnt really POV, because whether or not you think it was started to fight terror (which was given as a reason for war), they are fighting terrorists now in it. 9-11, 4-11, and 7-7 are all included in the war on terror, and terrorist attacks happen nearly daily in the Iraq War, so yea, its part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 03:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good luck trying to keep the link in the article though.  Rmt2m 11:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, by that rationale, any conflict that the US engages in could be part of the "war on terror", whether the government in question does have links to international terrorism or not..?

In other words, we can invade any country we like, destroy its military force, and when people in desperation turn to terrorist tactics to oppose the US military, we just say "we're fighting terrorism", and voila - the invasion is now justified, even if it wasn't in the first place. Brilliant - you know, that's how the Nazis justified severe treatment of local populations in the countries they occupied - by calling the resistance "terrorists", against whom all measures are justified...(In fact, I think that they were the first to popularize use of the term, in WWII.)

Sorry, that doesn't work. Try again.

--Borisknezevic 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again with the Nazis. Use someone else, or even better, leave hyperbole out of this.  Rmt2m 13:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This same discussion is happening at Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq --Hermitage 09:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The "War on Terrorism" label is a partisan label, it is not objective. This article deals with a description of the ongoing Iraq War, POV labels are unhelpful. For example, no one calls World War II the "war on fascism" or the "war of European liberation." If you want to talk about how you think Iraq is part of a "war on terrorism" then create an article titled as such with a link to this article. Or create a subsection on this article under "rationales for war."Publicus 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
There is a moral distinction between torturing and executing non-combatants and victims of collateral damage. Moreover, the named individuals were made into media spectacles and are notable enough to have articles of their own.

Secondly, what's Heavy? Compared to 0 or a car crash, it's heavy. The survivors of Iran-Iraq or Stalingrad might beg to differ.

--Mmx1 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Collateral damage" is when you drop a bomb to destroy a military installation, and it unavoidably kills civilians. When you shoot people at will (as US troops customarily do), that is not collateral damage. THAT, if you like, is when a conflict moves from "collateral damage" to "heavy" death toll. 30,000 is not collateral damage. 30,000 is heavy.

By your reasoning, we just need to kill more people, and we can reclassify past conflicts as "not heavy"...So if a nuclear war happens and, say, a billion people die - GREAT! Then we can say that WWII, and (to use your examples) Iran-Iraq War, Stalingrad, did not have "heavy" casualties, after all.

Heavy is anything more than necessary, and a lot of people think (more than you can imagine) that none of it was necessary.

--Borisknezevic 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what gives you the right to say these things, but you aren't helping your side of the issue. And know I kindly point you in the direction of Godwin's Law.  Rmt2m 00:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like you smartened up and removed that last line. Good for you.  Rmt2m 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes the American civilians who were killed notable? Because they were made media spectacles? So what you're saying is essentially that the Wikipedia article should reflect the biased obsessions of American media, who extensively report "notable" American deaths while practically ignoring the damage of the war to Iraqis?

--Borisknezevic 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It says "civilian populations," which would not be the vast majority of Americans, or it did say that before you reverted it, again . I refuse to get into an edit war with you, but I will report you if you continue.  Rmt2m 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Their deaths are notable because the insurgents wanted their deaths to be. The manners in which many of them died, together with the fact that the executions were videotaped and then sent to Al-Jazeera should make it fairly obvious as to why they are notable.  And many are not American anyway.  Rmt2m 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Al Jazeera was the first to air most of the videos, and aired many that western TV refused to show. So much for "western media". They were clearly significant to the insurgents as well, since they sought and got a spectacle. "Heavy" is "more than necessary"? So a car crash that kills four people is "heavy casualties", then?--Mmx1 01:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Al Jazeera also regularly airs images of Abu Gharib torture, Iraqi civilian deaths, etc. They show a lot of stuff resulting from American military action, and more often, that American (I didn't say Western, actually, and on purpose) media don't. That's the whole point. What you said is a credit to Al Jazeera, that's all. See, you have to think your arguments through before you make them. Otherwise, they just don't work.

Needless to say, nothing you have said in any way indicates why any of the relevant events should be included under "Human Rights Abuses".

As for the heavy casualties, since you need it spelled out, I'll spell it out for you. We're not talking about car accidents, but about war. For a car accident, yes, actually, four dead is a LOT. That's a heavy death toll for a car accident, but in a car accident that's not a matter of necessity. What are heavy casualties in war? "More than necessary" means more than necessary to achieve LEGITIMATE objectives. When you kill 100,000 people, 30,000 civilians (at least) those are heavy casualties. If you don't believe me, maybe you should go fight in a war and see for yourself instead of sitting at home and devaluing human life. At the moment, human life doesn't seem worth much to you, unless it's your own or that of nations you care about. 30,000 more than necessary is "heavy".

When you put someone's words into quotation marks, it would do you good to actually cite the correct words.

--Borisknezevic 09:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So you lay the blame at the feet of the insurgency? They have killed far more civilians than the Americans have.  Rmt2m 11:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen to yourself. Heavy introduces POV considerations of necessity and value. In your case anything >0 would appear to be "heavy". It is a subjective an POV measure that should not be included when casualty figures are already included.
 * Regarding, the individuals, the insurgents and Al Jazeeera made their identitites significant because they thought it was important for their propaganda. --Mmx1 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, in a war, the primary question is who started it, not who did more damage to whom. The fact that the insurgency has killed more civilians is only a reflection of their military (in)capacity. They can't get to the Americans often enough. Given the American military and technological might, they shouldn't have killed any civilians, but they do, because they're all a bunch of trigger-happy, scared momma's boys who shoot at the first sign of danger. And they started the war, so yes, they carry the responsibility for all casualties, whoever causes them.

Ever hear generals talk about sustaining "heavy casualties" in combat? It's pretty standard talk, for your information.

But since you can't seem to do the math, I'll do it for you. 100,000 dead (civilian and military) is about one third of a percentage of the total Iraqi population. What's one third of a percentage of the American population? Well, just over 1 million people. Now say that there's a war and just over 1 million Americans die - you'd say that's not "heavy", huh? Tsk, tsk.

I was ready to let it go, but since you pushed the issue and made me think about it, I'm changing it back. It's not POV. If that's POV then everything is POV and nothing can ever be said about any war without POV.

As for your comments on Al Jazeera, you're still missing the point and I don't feel like repeating myself.

--Borisknezevic 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican City has roughly 90 people living there. If one person were to be killed, thats well over a third of a percent, but would it be 'heavy?' To call it heavy is POV, as is this. Generals speaking of heavy casualties are also using a POV. Just use the number. Further, you cant blame it all on the side that began a war. You place the blame on the person/side that did the killing. Rangeley 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the statistic for deaths should be used and qualitative words like "heavy" should be avoided. KevinPuj 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican City has 90 people living there? Gosh, you should have looked it up on Wikipedia before saying that. You've reduced it to one-tenth of its size. Just for reference, it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City.

Whether you like it or not, what the American army has caused in Iraq is equivalent to killing 1 million Americans. What you obviously fail to see is that your pretense to neutrality is actually a point of view, no less biased than calling the casualties "heavy".

Yes, those who start wars bear the moral burden and blame. Those who do the killing bear it too; but when you start a war, especially an unjust one for selfish reasons, you cannot wash your hands of the consequences.

--Borisknezevic 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess your right. After all, it couldn't be Saddam's fault that he screwed up the weapon inspections process, that he shot at coalition aircraft in no-fly zones, that he supported terrorism against Israel, that he invaded Kuwait, that he oppressed minorities etc, etc. And obviously there was no conflict and people had happy and carefree lives with no fear before Uncle Sam screwed them over. CJK 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? We wanted their oil.  Duh.  Cause gas prices are so much lower now...Well, I guess not.  OK, I got it, we wanted to establish strategic positions in the Middle East...Well, no, bombers regularly fly missions out of Missouri and bomb camps in Afghanistan and Iraq before returning to the US in one trip.  Stupid selfish Americans.  Dang!  With our democracy and freedom, who do we think we are trying to spread that crap?  Those Islamo-facists really got the right idea what with the head chopping and suicide bombing.  And our soldiers have refused to fire on mosques!  Ugh, could you be more noble?  Rmt2m 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Boris. Replace Vatican City with Pitcairn Islands and there you go. Heavy is a POV, 100,000 is NPOV. And you know which one is welcome at Wikipedia. Rangeley 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You obviously no clue about the history of the Middle East, Rangeley, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. I don't really feel like giving you a history lesson, except to point out - have you asked yourself why Saddam wasn't removed when he was actually committing all these atrocities? (Now almost 20 years ago)...Why the first Bush administration turned a blind eye? Bush the elder said something to the effect, he may me a murderous dictator, but he is OUR dictator.
 * No, he didn't. CJK 19:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did - or someone in the administration did - look it up. They not only helped the Ba'ath to power, but funded Saddam throughout the Iran-Iraq war. That's pretty uncontroversial, for anyone who cares to be informed.

--Borisknezevic 10:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that brings into play issues you have no knowledge of and which I don't care to educate you about...

If it's not about oil, why Iraq and not North Korea, which satisfies all the criteria, AND actually is known and has been known for a while to possess nuclear weapons?
 * Norht Korea is harder to take out and would cause problems with China and South Korea. CJK 19:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so you attack a country that doesn't even have WMD, or links to international terrorism, to show how tough you are on WMD and terrorism?? So it's really not about principle, for in that case the US would be attacking North Korea too - it's simply about powerplay and realpolitik...Gosh, what was I thinking - of course we can't attack North Korea even though they actually have WMD and are an evil totalitarian country, because of the repercussions, military and political.

But that's the point anyway, isn't it? I mean who in their right mind would attack a country that actually has WMD?? If Iraq actually did, and we knew they did, or had powerful neighbours who do to protect them (like N Korea/China), who in their right mind would invade Iraq?

Or Saudi Arabia - a dictatorial, totally undemocratic, Islamofascist nation which supplied 19 of the 20 September 11 hijackers and clearly DOES have links to Al Qaeda - BUT is friendly with the US and happilly collaborates with the US in the oil business through private channels...?
 * The fact that the hijackers were Saudi does not indicate that their government has ties to Al-Qaeda.

Oh really? But Saddam of course did have ties to Al Qaeda, right? even though there was even less evidence that that to support the link. (if you can't read the subtext, it's as follows - there is more evidence linking SA to Al Qaeda than there is linking Iraq)

Jeez, you really gotta think your arguments through, man.

Osama bin Laden, by the way, does have links to the Royal Family, even though they claim to have disowned him...

Are you even aware that America and Britain have frequently overthrown popular, democratically elected governments in the middle east?
 * One time = frequently? CJK 19:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Let's say around the world, then, not just in the middle east, where there hasn't been that much democratic fervor lately anyway. Or, without even going that broadly, the Arab world. Take Algiers, for example - military dictatorship rules with Western backing for 30 years, democratic elections ten years ago or so, Islamic party wins, the militarists take back power in a bloody civil war with deaths in the hundreds of thousads, America and Europe hardly bat an eyelid.

The fact that Saddam was a dictator was just a convenient excuse to invade and kill thousands of people to protect Western oil interests.
 * Who are the interests? CJK 19:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Bruce Willis and yo mama. --Borisknezevic 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

An excuse they didn't have in Iran in 1953, when immediatelly following the Mossadegh government's announcement that they would nationalize the oil industry, American and British spies engineered the overthrow that brought the Shah to power. A year later, the new government signed a new oil deal with a consortium of American, British, Dutch, and French oil companies.

Mind you, Iran was not only democratic in the 1950s (before the West intervened), they were more progressive than many western nations were at the time. Islamo-fascism has gained ground since then, as a reaction to Western meddling in the region...extremism begets extremism. --Borisknezevic 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Iraq =/= Iran. The U.S. thought that the guy was tilting towards the Soviet camp. CJK 19:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Right - so that makes it justified? Moving toward the soviet camp in what way? So, that means democracy is okay, so long as people don't vote socialist governments that will ally with the Soviets? In that case, we can overthrow democractic government and impose our own dictators, to show them the RIGHT path. Oh but wait, why were we fighting the soviets in the first place? Didn't it have something to do with democracy? Gosh, what a stupid argument, CJK. To tell you the truth, it's pretty uncontroversial that the Americans and British got involved in Iran purely for economic reasons, and in fact immediately after the world court decided they had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter of the oil concession contract between the Iranian government and the Anglo-Iranian oil company, because it was not an 'international treaty' for their purposes, but a mere contract...that pissed off the British big time...

Oh, I see, because oil is expensive that means that can't have been the cause (of the Iraq war). Scuse me - who is getting hurt by high oil prices? The oil companies? Yeah, sure, I bet Bush's buddies are suffering a lot, what with oil costing so much, having to sell it so expensively and getting all those nice plum contracts...

It's not about prices, stupid, it's about who controls what and who is making money on it. It's about power - economic and political. As for prices, there is much more than the Iraq war affecting them.. And again, if you look beyond your tunnel vision, you might see there are people benefiting from high oil prices.

Sorry that you are so misinformed. I wish I could spare the time to tell more, but I really don't feel like it. Clearly you not only lack knowledge about the middle east, but you badly need a crash course in economics, too.

Saying that 100,000 isn't POV while "heavy" is is a bit like saying that calling what the Nazis did to the Jews, or the Serbs to the Bosnians, is not "Genocide". So, we have to stick to numbers - who's to say that 6 million, or 250,000 is Genocide? Who's to say that 10,000 (much less than Iraq, mind you) Kosovars constitutes a humanitarian crisis that calls for military intervention? You might find a kindred spirit there in Noam Chomsky, who denies that there was Genocide in Bosnia, or that Kosovo was justified. Of course, he would treat Iraq differently, because like you, he is a moral opportunist and will use whatever suits his agenda...

There is in some ways little difference between hard left and hard right - maybe you should think about buddying up! You might have some substantive political disagreements (say on whether the Iraq war was just or not) but you're both moral opportunists and both morally crooked in similar ways...

--Borisknezevic 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * An argument Boris style: "You're stupid.  You're a Nazi.  Bush is selfish."  Add about 1,000 loaded words and a conspiracy theory or two, and you got it. Rmt2m 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you cared to look it up, it's no conspiracy. What I said about Iran is pretty uncontroversial. And you will find the same pattern throughout the middle east.

--Borisknezevic 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting irrelevant fast. Its interesting that you question my knowledge on the middle east, because if you were right and I knew nothing, it would hold no bearing whatsoever on this POV issue. "Heavy" is a point of view, whether in the sense of weight, or in the sense of casualties. If I were to pick up a box filled with books, I might say that it was heavy. You might pick it up and say no, it is not heavy at all. As 'Heavy' is relative, it would be innapropriate to choose the view that it is heavy over the view that it is not heavy for the purposes of a neutral, factual encyclopedia such as this. You would instead put down that it was 50 pounds, as this is not relative, and is factual. Likewise, you would use the factual statistics for the purposes of this, and not a relative term like 'heavy,' or 'light.' Rangeley 01:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to other comments, not just yours, might have mixed up who was saying what...

--Borisknezevic 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, it was directly below my last response, and began "You obviously no clue about the history of the Middle East, Rangeley," so yea. Rangeley 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure all this helps to improve the article? In case you want to have a discussion about the war you may want to do it by email or chat. De mortuis... 22:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop the edit war!
Instead of just changing the grouping under "War on Terror" back and forth, let's discuss it here, please. KevinPuj 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would point you to here where the debate is also taking place. Rangeley 21:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, lets take it elsewhere guys. May the war on POV and editing continue...--Existential Thinker 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

hmm The Haunted Angel 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (The Haunted Angel 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

I'd propose removing the "War on Terror" grouping, adding a subsection explaining the contoversey (which occurs outside wikipedia as well) and linking to the appropriate articles in said subsection. We can get into the same huge debat on the 2003 iraq invasion page or we can just recognize that people disagree about whether or not Iraq is part of the War on Terror and explain the debate within the article. If people agree I'm happy to write it up. --Jsn4 10:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree fully; please do it. It's too much of an incendiary issue on these pages and you're right, the controversy occurs outside wikipedia and should be noted more accurately rather than WP taking a "side."--csloat 10:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as the War on Terrorism article cites, the term of "war on terrorism" has been in existence for many years--Ronald Reagan used it in the 1980s when all those hijackings, etc were going on. So, putting the Iraq war into this "war on terrorism" label confuses rather than clears up the issue. It's obvious that the label is more of a rhetorical tool used by various leaders than an an actual "war." Again, I agree with Jsn4 on this--leave the label out and address the dispute elsewhere in the article--I've added a "war on terrorism" link to the prelude section, which someone should expand to address this dispute.Publicus 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)