Talk:Opposition to the Iraq War/Archive 2

The NEW Iraq constitution
One of the biggest blunders of the Iraq war is also the least mentioned. The new Iraqi constitution is based off of the Qu'ran, a religious document in which women are treated as having souls half as valuable as a mans. Don't contradict me, I've read the Qu'ran s section concerning inheritance law in addition to a few sections on war. I haven't studied it that extensivily, sure, but I have to wonder wether women were better off under Sadam. And here in the lovely, cush America the feminists are whining about the women who prefer staying home with kids instead of having jobs.

Another thing rarely mentioned is that Iraq doens't have that much oil. Coincidentaly, we are paying a war tax. Did you know we didn't pay an Income Tax until the Civil War, and that it only affected 3% of the population until World War II, and that this tax was not dropped after either of these wars? I believe that the war is about money, but I don't believe the money comes from oil.

Another oft forgotten (but easily accessible) fact was that George W Bush proposed war to a willing senate. When the time came to vote, the Senate had 77 who favored war, 23 who were against. In the House of Representatives, 296 favored war and 133 were against. If we had only 28 more good senators, or 82 good representatives, we would be fine. Goes to show how important it is to elect good senators.


 * This guy apparently doesn't read the talk page guidelines. This place isn't for personal political opinions; take your bias elsewhere.  This should be deleted immediately.Desacrator48 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. Talk pages are the perfexct place for such insightful comments on articles. ممتاز 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive
Talk:Opposition to the Iraq War/Archive 1: Disscusion of the origins of the page, Human shields section, "No blood for oil" article merge, Irish opposition, discusion of whether legal and intellectual opposition should go in this article, the role and nature of the World council of churches and the correct title.--JK the unwise 10:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Post-September 11 anti-war movement is writtern in a POV editorial orriginal reasearch fasion. I belive that this partly steams from the title which sets the article up to present an editorialised content.

To solve this problem I want to propose merging the content of the article into this page and the following pages Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War, Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, Anti-war, Protests against the 2003 Iraq war and The Left and war and then deleting Post-September 11 anti-war movement.--JK the unwise 13:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Support for the Iraq insergency
This article could do with some discusion about the debate that has gone on in the anti-war movment about what they consider the correct carecterisation of the Iraqi insurgency and about whether the anti-war movement should support it. For example .--JK the unwise 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Most certainly. I have a fair number of sources bookmarked; I'll add a section later today. Kalkin 16:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. It's a little long, maybe.  What do you think?  Kalkin 19:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the approach taken in this article. The headline seems to assert that the anti-war movement supports the Iraqi insurgency by default. It is reasonable to have a section about the place of the insurgency in anti-war lexicon and the anti-war movement as a whole, but I believe the semantics of this section are, problematic to say the least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.52.69 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

WMD's
I reverted this line "However, documents declassified in June of 2006 stated that approximately 500 weapons munitions containing degraded mustard and sarin nerve agents where recovered in Iraq and many are assessed to still exist." which was added by User:Republicanbetter on 17 July 2006 back into "Investigations after the invasion failed to produce evidence of WMDs in Iraq" with a new parenthesis mentioning the few stray shells left over from the 1980's war that has been found (see WMD article for more details on these somewhat hyped shells). Tomtefarbror 00:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You SHOULD be a bit ashamed of yourself. Basically, you saw that this example slashed your point to shreds, so you made it into a PARENTHESIS STATEMENT? Shame, shame. Also, love your language. "Oh...just a few...stray shells.", "Somewhat hyped." Ridiculous. Shame on you. And PS: if you have WMDs (whether or not they are entirely or partially degraded) that's EVIDENCE of WMD'S!Kang227 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to unbalanced site
http://www.usiraqprocon.org/, linked as "Should the U.S. have attacked Iraq?", masquerades as a balanced site, but it is nothing of the sort. It pretty much ignores the question of whether the U.S. violated international law by invading Iraq; it leaves out any clear statement that Iraq quite clearly did not, in fact, possess the WMDs that were the primary justification for the invasion. http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/, from the same organization and linked elsewhere in Wikipedia, has analogous problems. Both present what appears at first glance to be a balanced view, but for the most part they do not even address the questions that those opposed to U.S. and Israeli military action would pose. That is, while they may be reasonably balanced on any individual question, and are certainly accurate when they quote people, they are quite biased in terms of how they frame the debate. - Jmabel | Talk 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan
I don't object at all to Cindy Sheehan being mentioned in the article, but it seems a bit odd to have exactly one citizen activist—and one who only recently emerged as an activist—singled out. She made a very impressive gesture camping out near Bush's ranch in Texas last summer, but still, does this make her as much of a leader as Leslie Cagan? Or as articulate an opponent of the war as Scott Ritter? I think not. - Jmabel | Talk 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, those are excellent points, because the activists you mention, and organizations such as United for Peace and Justice, Not in Our Name, Veterans for Peace, etc. were active even before the Iraq invasion happened (some of them began their work before and during the Afghanistan invasion, actually), way before Sheehan. Sheehan's tactics got her and the movement bigger media attention but she shouldn't be given all the credit.  So, could these major groups and individuals be mentioned in one not-too-long paragraph?  That won't make the article too long?  I just think that with the title of the article being what it is, these individuals and groups should at least be briefly mentioned (with Wikilinks in the text taking people to their individual articles).  Badagnani 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Iraq war by US officials
I think that such a section should be added to the article, and that the following material should be included in it: Alberto Fernandez, director of the office of press and public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the United States Department of State, in an interview on Al-Jazeera on October 21st, 2006, regarding the Iraq war, asserted that "I think there is great room for strong criticism, because without doubt, there was arrogance and stupidity by the United States in Iraq." His comments were widely reported in the US and international press.

The State Department initially reacted by denying that he had made the comments, claiming that they had been "mistranslated." After independent translators confirmed the translation as being correct, a press release issued by the State Department quoted an apology from Fernandez: "Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase 'there has been arrogance and stupidity' by the U.S. in Iraq. This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department. I apologize." Haiduc 09:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's certainly an interesting incident, but especially given that he basically disowned his own remarks, it doesn't really seem to amount to him opposing the war, just criticizing its conduct. - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At least one news report brought up the possibility that he was forced by his superiors to retract. I agree with you about the (mild) contradiction in terms, but I do want to point out that I found this article by following a link titled "criticism of the Iraq war", which redirected here. Haiduc 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm sure he was forced by his superiors to retract. But that doesn't change the fact that he retracted. He could have resigned. That would have been opposition. - Jmabel | Talk 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Resistance/insurgency
I have changed the title of the Iraqi "resistance" to "resistance and insurgency" to reflect a more NPOV. Also, the section says:
 * "The most virulent divide has been about whether to support the insurgency. None of the major Western antiwar organizations, such as United for Peace and Justice, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, and the Stop the War Coalition, have officially taken a stance on this subject."

I just did a google site search on the StWC website for "resistance" and got 161 hits, mostly comments praising the insurgency. For example, http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=141203, http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=010205a, http://www.stopwar.org.uk/lindsey/2006_08_01_archive.html, http://www.stopwar.org.uk/march20/2005reports.asp. So, they may not have "officially taken a stance", but they seem to endorse it. Can we edit this? BobFromBrockley 16:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ANSWER has a similar approach. I'm not sure in either case there's anything we could verifiably say about them; we can't say "they support the insurgency" or "they seem to support the insurgency" or anything like that, and saying "x says they support the insurgency" makes it sound as if it's something they deny.  If you've got a solution, use it. Kalkin 01:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly UFPJ in no sense supports the insurgency. - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

this whole article is bullshit. of course there are fucking hippies that oppose the war. just like there are fucking backward ass people who oppose the idea that the earth is spherical and not the center of the universe. doesn't mean there should be an article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.57 (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Article should be retitled
This article should be retitled to reflect the fact that these people primarily oppose U.S. Involvement and not Saddam, the militias, or the car-bombers (or if they do, not as much as U.S. involvement). 65.185.190.240 01:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Speaking as someone active in the opposition to the Iraq War, and also someone who was opposed to Saddam clear back when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking his hand, I'm duly appalled by the violence by the militias and the car-bombers but (as far as I know) they are not using my tax dollars or recruiting in nearby high schools. - Jmabel | Talk 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

While that may be one view, I urge you to take another. Do you think mothers and father and children would rather have a leader who kills his own people and people who drive cars into buildings and blow it up then The United States step in with good men atleast trying to abolish the frightening atmosphere that is there. I laughed when i read that first edit. Sure some bad people don't want us there. But if i was living there not knowing if a car would ram into my living room loaded with exploses id be very happy of a third party stepping in and trying to end that. However i do respect the fact that some do oppose US Involvement. And JMABEL, i cannot believe how ignorant that is. Because they are not using your tax dollars?!!?! How selfish and ignorant can you be? Like I've said there are little children there scared out of their minds and swimming in poverty. And Your sitting over here in the United States saying "Not my problem". well It is Cause and Effect Look it up. We study events around the world for the same reasons study history so we know how to prepare when it happens again, and we know how to fight it. Its our world, there problem is our problem, we are of one race, mankind and we are to oppose those who oppose it. And believe it or not, maybe in small ways but big problems like that do affect us here, maybe not in daily life but definately does. I am appauled at that comment JMABEL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.202.106 (talk • contribs).


 * Note that the person who wrote the above also vandalised my comment, which I have reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Prior to U.S. involvement, no one in Iran had to deal with "people who drive cars into buildings and blow it up", "not knowing if a car would ram into [their] living room loaded with explos[iv]es." Thanks to the U.S., now they do. As for "a leader who kills his own people", we seem now to have arranged to give them several.
 * Apparently, either my remark about "tax dollars" was too subtle for you, or you are willfully choosing not to understand. One is placed in the position of either financially supporting the government of one's own country or risking prison for refusing to do so. That gives each of us a certain responsibility for the government of our own country that we do not have for another one. I think it is far more a citizen's obligation to be concerned with the policies of his or her own country than others. Frankly, I don't have much use for people who think that they can go out and solve the world's problems while ignoring those at home.
 * Of course it is our problem. Which we have made inestimably worse. - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag used in Italy to Protest the Iraq War
I was travelling around Italy about the time the U.S. invasion of Iraq occurred ( March 2003). This "PEACE" flag was displayed outside many people's homes and businesses etc. JohnI 18:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can find info about this falg at Peace symbol--JK the unwise 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

no criticism page, just opposition?
What about those who criticize the war? Why is there only a page for Opposition, and Criticism is a redirect?--Urthogie 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Official Condemnation of War
Why isn't Canada in the list? When Jean Chretien was still in power, in 2003, he didn't support the War on Iraq! 69.158.57.201 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Canada should be added to this list. Pendragon39 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true. Actually, Paul Martin also criticized and opposed the Iraq war.

Cam I doubt Switzerland opposed the war, being neutral! -81.145.242.97 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Userbox available

 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

--One Salient Oversight 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush quote deletion
Per the George W. Bush quote,

If you wish to delete this quote, please elaborate why it should be removed,

given that; Byzerodivide (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is a quote
 * 2) It is relevant to the article


 * It's certainly relevant to the article but I'm not sure it's relevant enough. The rest of the quotes are expressing opposition to the war, which this one of course isn't. A quote directly about people in opposition ("those opposers are so silly because...") would also seem to make sense. But this isn't that, either - it doesn't mention people who oppose the war at all. It's a quote expressing the opposite view - i.e. support for the war - so in that sense it's a rebuttal to opposition, but it's not directly about opposition. The article says at the top that it's "about parties opposing to the [War]... For opposition rationales, see Criticism of the Iraq War." So perhaps this quote, which doesn't mention said parties, would be better in that article? An article about support for the war would also be a suitable place for it, or perhaps US government position on invasion of Iraq, or perhaps somewhere else. I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions on this though. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Using your criteria for inclusion, the 1994 quote by Dick Cheney should be deleted. Byzerodivide (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in two minds about that one to be honest. On the one hand he's definitely expressing opposition to an American invasion of Iraq. On the other, he's talking about doing that in 1994 - clearly he'd changed his mind nine years later - so it's not really opposition to the 2003 war which this article's about. So on the whole yes, maybe I am in favour of deleting it, but not as strongly as the Bush one.


 * What do you think of my argument as it applies to Bush's quote? Olaf Davis | Talk 14:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The quotations section is a general collection, there are no specific attributes cited for inclusion other then the intro “This article is about parties opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Iraq War from outside Iraq”. Generally the quotes are listed out of context, and do not declare any formal opposition, the following topical headers would place the quotes in context.

Byzerodivide (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotes opposing the intended invasion of Iraq
 * Quotes opposing the actual invasion of Iraq
 * Quotes opposing the occupation of  Iraq before a government was established
 * Quotes opposing the occupation of Iraq after a government was established
 * Quotes criticizing the intended invasion of Iraq
 * Quotes criticizing the actual invasion of Iraq
 * Quotes criticizing the occupation of  Iraq before a government was established
 * Quotes criticizing the occupation of Iraq after a government was established
 * Quotes cited by people opposing the current war in Iraq, in support of their arguments opposing the current war in Iraq


 * Sorry for the delay in replying; I've been pretty busy.
 * You're right that the quotes are given out of context at present, and that needs dealing with. In fact, thinking about it a 'quotations' section is maybe not the best place to present them for that reason. How about working those quotes which can be into the body of the article, moving those which can't to Wikiquote, and putting where the current section is? Do you think that's a good idea?


 * Regarding the Bush quote: clearly it's not in any of the first eight of the categories you give. Are you saying it falls into the ninth? If so can you point out who has cited it in support of their arguments opposing the current war in Iraq? If not, why do you feel it's worth including? Olaf Davis | Talk 13:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bush quote can be categorized under the topic, “Quotes cited by people opposing the current war in Iraq, in support of their arguments opposing the current war in Iraq”, as this quote was repeatedly cited by Cindy Sheehan, for one example please see; In general the correct venue for the quotes should be wikiquotes, however the Bush quote did reveal George W. Bush's obscene indifference to human suffering which resulted in notable press activity about the quote and thus the article should have a section reflecting said activity. Byzerodivide (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Commas for Profit


 * Can you give some examples of that press activity which aren't blog posts? Something like a news article talking about how Bush pissed people off with the quote would convince me, but I'm afraid a post on Daily Kos can't really count as a reliable source. I'm glad you agree with me on the other quotes; I'll copy them over to Wikiquote and integrate them here in the article. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't mean to pester - I know my responses haven't all been that swift - but do you have any suggestions for sources as I mentioned in my last post? If not I'm still inclined to remove the quote for the reasons I go into above. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see; "``opponents of the war have seized on the formulation, seeing it as evidence that Bush is indifferent to suffering. To them, it sounds as if the president is dismissing more than 2,700 U.S. troop deaths as 'just a comma.'``" --Byzerodivide (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Just a Comma' Becomes Part of Iraq Debate


 * Thanks Byzerodivide. With that source I no longer have any objection to including the quote. In line with the idea of moving the quotes into the prose sections, would you have any objections to a sentence which read


 * "Opponents of the war accused President Bush of being indifferent to the suffering caused by the invasion. In 2006 for example he opined that when the history of Iraq is written the period would 'look like just a comma', prompting criticism that he took the more than 2,700 US troop deaths lightly."


 * or something similar? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No objections forthcoming, so I've made the change. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush quote fidelity
Per the George W. Bush quote,

The fidelity of a written quote should be as true as possible to the original, since this quote was recorded with audio/video media, we are able to create a written quote that maintains high fidelity with the original quote. Those that value historical accuracy and truth, should oppose any changes that decrease the written quotes fidelity with the original quote. Byzerodivide (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. As I said on your talk page there are two main reasons I think we shouldn't use the version with the "um"s and so on. Firstly Wikipedia doesn't normally include them - there are thousands of quotes on various articles and most of them don't contain any verbal placeholders like that, though undoubtedly many of their authors hesitated once or twice while speaking. So in this respect we don't make a policy of fidelity to the original (though obviously that's important with the actual content). I don't see any special reason why this one should be different.


 * The second reason is because we have to rely as much as possible on secondary sources, not primary ones. Writing down a transcript from the audio of the interview is using a primary source. All the secondary sources I could find (see for example, , and , used in the article) omitted the slips, as is standard practice when reporting the text of speeches. If it were standard journalistic practice to include references to people's body language or facial expression as they spoke then Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, ought to reproduce them - but it's not so we don't. Similarly with "um"s etc.


 * As for "historical accuracy and truth", per the first sentence of WP:V it's not Wikipedia's business to determine that. We rely on secondary sources to report facts, then collate them here. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Orwell quote
I've removed the George Orwell quote below, added by DC76:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'"

The only direct relevance to the article that I can see is that it's talking about people who opposed a war - WWII - as is this article. But that by itself doesn't mean much. Many of the groups listed in this article were in favour of, or indeed participants in, WWII. If the quote's relevance is that it's about pacifism in general, it seems more suited to inclusion at pacifism, which is already in the 'See Also' section of this article. Including a selection of quotes / passages about pacifism in this article which aren't directly linked to Iraq seems unnecessary to me. If the quote's been widely cited in reference to Iraq War opposition then perhaps it could be included, either here or in some other article in Category:Stances and opinions regarding the 2003 Iraq conflict, but it will need sources to indicate that that's the case.

Let me know if you disagree with my reasoning. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I do not disagree with your reasoning. I made 2 edits, but when reverting myself, I only pressed one undo, sorry for your time. Pacifism article indeed seems more logical, but as you correctly said, one needs direct sources to indicate it's in use. Thank you very much for correcting me, Dc76\talk 14:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and there's no need to apologise - it was no big inconvenience. I'm glad we're in agreement. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 22:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

European Opposition
I don't think there is enough elaboration on the assertion that European opposition to the war was economically based. There is only a sentence and a single citation, when there is more evidence pertaining to arms sales with Iraq, oil sales, the negative impact of the UN sanctions and the other stories which could be cited in additon. Also, there is no mention of the French supposedly briefing Iraqis on the meetings with the US (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85274,00.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously? What about the USA's support for Iraq only decades earlier?  And its selling of weapons to the regime?  The same applies for almost every war that the USA has fought - first they sell them weapons and influence their governments or industry and later when things aren't going well they invade (Iraq, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc.) or support a coup (Chile, Argentina, Georgia, etc.).  Plus the most obvious answer is that it is the USA which is wanting war for economic reasons (oil and of course the corrupt system of selling contracts to private US firms).--Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 14:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

American bias yet again?
Why does the section about US opposition appear first on this page? It doesn't seem right especially as the USA was one of only a few countries worldwide where the majority of people actually supported the war because of their right-wing attitudes and non-independent media. The section about European opposition should appear first in this article because nearly every European country had a majority of its citizens opposed to the war. American bias in Wikipedia is becoming a joke.--Xania talk 14:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Raised fist intro picture
In Europe the raised, clenched fist, as the woman in the picture is doing is synonymous with communist terror and opression. Opposition to the Iraq War is certainly not synonymous with that ideology, so can we have a different main picture? - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)