Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Iraq War

Archives
Archive 1

Mediator

Hello all. My name is Daniel, and if it is fine by all of you, I will be mediating this dispute for you. If you all wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it if you indicate here whether you would prefer this mediation to continue on this page, or if you would prefer for it to continue in a private location. I will read through everything that has been posted to date, and I hope that everything can be resolved. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why it can't continue here. Thanks for stepping up and helping us out.--Rise Above The Vile 00:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like it to continue here so we can refer to it later. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Here is good. 1of3 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's fine. Dwtray2007 07:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree I like the idea that others can see it. Ursasapien (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that if the mediation continues here, it will be easier to refer to it for this dispute only. Mediation is "confidential," however, meaning that you may not refer to this case for any reason other than showing the discussion relating to the Iraq War. Therefore, this page cannot be used as evidence of any user's behavior in formal discussions such as ArbCom discussions, RfA's, etc. This page is technically visible to everyone on Wikipedia, but should not be referenced except in reference to the specific topic beeing mediated. That being said, I am more than willing to mediate on this page. Give me a day or two to do some initial setup, and then we can begin. Hopefully, we can come to some acceptable resolution. In the mean time, please remember WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and any other relevant Wikipedia policies. If we agree to cooperate, this will be much easier. --דניאל - Dantheman531 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning Mediation

Ok everybody. I have reviewed all of the material that you have provided on this page so far, and moved it here. If I am not mistaken, the main disputants in this case are User:Ipankonin and User:WLRoss. I think it would be best if these two served as spokespeople for their respective sides. In order to begin, I would like these two users to indicate below their willingness to calmly and respectfully participate in this discussion. I am not requesting this because I anticipate any disrespect. My feeling is quite the opposite, in fact. So far it seems like both sides have been quite respectful, and I would like that to continue. Mediation cannot work if there is disparagement of the participants. If everybody remembers WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I am confident that we can come to an acceptable compromise. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's the only way to do this. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how that would work for me, as I don't consider myself to be on either Ipankonin's nor Wayne's side.--Rise Above The Vile 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, would you mind dropping me a message on my talk page with a little explanation of the difference? Thanks. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Wayne 07:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding a compromise

Ok everybody. It seems to me like we should be able to reach a compromise on this dispute. To start off, I would like to make a proposal. We can modify this proposal to try to find something that everybody agrees with, or someone may present their own proposal. My proposal is a modified version of Wayne's proposal. It would read something like this. "After the invasion, small quantities of degraded chemical weapons were discovered, but the Deufler report found them to be misplaced ordinance from the 1980’s Iran-Iraq War and no longer dangerous." The differences between this proposed lead and Wayne's are the removal of the word "although" from the first sentence, and the removal of the second sentence. This would be a factual, NPOV lead. Any suggestions? --דניאל - Dantheman531 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, contrary to what I had initially argued, I no longer think mentioning the chemical munitions is appropriate for the lead, as they were a small footnote on what the ISG found in Iraq, not the major conclusions. In regards to the findings of the ISG, I believe two things need to be mentioned in the lead:

• That the Iraqi Regime retained knowledge, and in some instances technology, from their WMD programs during the Iran-Iraq war and the lead up to the Gulf war, with the intention of reconstituting these programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.
• No evidence of WMD development or manufacture after the first Gulf War by the Iraqi Regime was found.

I'm not sure on the exact phrasing, but I believe that mentioning these will give the reader a better better overview of the state of Iraq's WMD programs.--Rise Above The Vile 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

":::Adding those two points seems reasonable to me. I don't believe that anybody would object to those points being added (correct me if I'm wrong). However, since the main rationale for going to war that everybody knew about was the threat of WMD's, don't you think that there should be some mention in the lead about what was found? We could use the sentence that I suggested above, and you could add your information as well. Any comment, Wayne? --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats sort of what I meant by the second bullet point - that no evidence of the WMDs that the Bush admin. claimed existed nor development of these WMDs was found - perhaps I didn't articulate myself well though.--Rise Above The Vile 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bush made some specific statements that didn't turn out to be true, but he also made a lot of general statements about chemical weapons and WMD, and I don't recall any source where he claimed before the war that old weapons don't count. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did the Bush administration specifically include accusations that the Iraqi regime had retained WMDs from before the first Gulf War when arguing the case for the Iraq War? It would probably be appropriate for us now to come to a consensus on exactly what was the main rationale for the war.--Rise Above The Vile 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A White House press release said that Iraq had not accounted for pre-1991 weapons: Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.[1] and Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions: ...Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons..."[2] -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full document for those who are interested. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for the lead. I have italicized all changes that I made from the current version. What do you all think?

The Iraq War, also known as the Occupation of Iraq, the Second Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq.

The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Spain José María Aznar and their domestic and foreign supporters, was the belief that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Diplomats from countries on the U.N. Security Council that opposed the war made statements that supported this belief. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. After the invasion, small quantities of degraded chemical weapons were discovered, but the Deufler report found them to be misplaced ordinance from the 1980’s Iran-Iraq War and no longer dangerous though it is believed (by some? are there any sources for this claim?) that the Iraqi Regime retained knowledge, and in some instances technology, from their WMD programs from during the Iran-Iraq war and the lead up to the Gulf war, with the intention of reconstituting these programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted. Some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No evidence of any operational or collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda has been found.

The war began on March 20, 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland invaded Iraq. The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between many Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. Coalition nations have begun to withdraw troops from Iraq as public opinion favoring troop withdrawal increases and as Iraqi forces begin to take responsibility for security. The causes and consequences of the war remain controversial.

--דניאל - Dantheman531 03:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this a lot better. It hits on the first key findings of the Duelfer Report. The D. Report can definately be used as a source that Iraq retained knowledge (it was one of the key findings in the "regime intent" part). Technology was a topic that Vile and I discussed, and he quoted from the report that technology was found in the homes of scientists. I think you can take out "it is believed" and replace it with something stronger. I don't remember seeing anything in the report that said it was possible that he gave up WMD forever. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the discovery of a relative handful of decayed chemical shells merits inclusion in the lead, although they should be mentioned in the main body. Firstly, as I've said before, munitions are not weapons. Secondly, the inspectors expected to find decayed remnants of pre-1991 stocks but this is not what they were looking for -Charles Duelfer was explicit about that (and I've quoted him to that effect previously) that they do not count as WMD:

"We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard." (Talk of the Nation, NPR June 22nd 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 ). (My italics)Dwtray2007 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Further confirmation, from Fox News:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."" ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html ) (my italics) Dwtray2007 09:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is added to the intro, this sentence must remain. "After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of the WMD or programs the administration claimed existed." After all this was the main point of dispute before the invasion. No one argued Saddam didn't kill anyone or didn't persecute Kurds etc no one even argued that there were no old WMD at all or that he didn't intend to have WMD at some point in the future. A majority of people and experts claimed the WMD and programs that Powell specifically told the UN Iraq had, did not exist and should not be used as a rationale. To exclude that sentence gives the impression that the rationale was a reasonable assumption that had flexibility. Never did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Powell indicate they included old inactive ordinance in the rationale. As for technology, it was limited to knowledge not equipment which was certainly not prohibited by the sanctions. Wayne 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see why they would have to indicate what date the weapons were made for them to count. I don't think it would be realistic to expect them to do that. You seem unwilling to compromise on the point that I have objections with. Is our mediation doomed to failure? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Technology was not limited to knowledge, in some instances equipment was kept.--Rise Above The Vile 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But not by the "Iraqi Regime", which is what your compromise wording (below) states. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the Duelfer Report, it specifically states in there that the Iraqi government kept knowledge and equipment, and it specifically states that it is the belief of the ISG that Saddam intended to reconstitute WMD programs if UN sanctions were removed.--Rise Above The Vile 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WLRoss here. It is a fact that the WMD stockpiles and programs, which the Bush Administration claimed existed, were not there. Decayed ordinance was not used as a rationale and cannot be used as mitigation now. I would change the sentence above, at the very least, to "After the invasion, small quantities of degraded chemical munitions were discovered but these did not qualify as the WMD the Bush Administration alleged to have existed." As for the reasonability of the rationale, I think the article should have a proper section discussing the absence of consensus before the invasion. It is widely claimed now that 'everybody' thought Iraq had WMD when this is categorically not the case. The French and Russians did not, Scott Ritter did not, Dr. David Kelly did not, and the CIA did not. Dwtray2007 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What does everyone think about this? The wording might not be top-notch, but what about the content?--Rise Above The Vile 13:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

“ The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Spain José María Aznar and their domestic and foreign supporters, was the belief that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Diplomats from countries on the U.N. Security Council that opposed the war made statements that supported this belief. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. Additionally, some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. After the invasion, the ISG found that the Iraqi Regime had saved knowledge, and in some instances technology, from their WMD programs during the Iran-Iraq war and the lead up to the Gulf war, with the intention of reconstituting these programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted. However, no evidence that Iraq had continued to develop or produce WMD after the First Gulf War was found. The ISG also found that in some cases Iraq had not fully destroyed all weapons and delivery systems banned under UN sanctions, however it was determined that the retained weapons were not a significant threat. No evidence of any operational or collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda has been found. ”

I agree with Dwtray2007 and Wayne. There's no reason to mention the decayed munitions in the lead, or the claim that "the Iraqi Regime had saved knowledge, and in some instances technology, from their WMD programs during the Iran-Iraq war and the lead up to the Gulf war, with the intention of reconstituting these programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted". None of this was part of the rationale for the invasion, and it's brazen revisionism to suggest that it was. (If the Bush Administration had stated in early 2003 that they were invading Iraq because Iraq possessed some decayed chemical munitions and dreams of a WMD program, they would have been laughed at.)

The lead paragraph must be clear that everyone now accepts that the stated reason for the invasion (that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to international peace and security) was wrong. All this talk of Iraq retaining WMD technology only serves to make this less clear to the reader. The compromise wording is not neutral, as it gives undue prominence to claims that most people consider incorrect and irrelevant. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how is this factually incorrect? And exactly why does Saddam's intent have no bearing on this discussion?--Rise Above The Vile 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi RATV -thanks for your efforts. I'm broadly supportive of the content there. I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, I would change 'belief' to 'allegation' since the former implies sincerity -which is POV. An argument can be made that Bush and Blair did not genuinely believe that Iraq had WMD but we want to avoid that debate here. That they made the allegation is neutral and indisputable.

Secondly, while some people who opposed the war believed that Iraq had WMD, many did not. The French and Russian Governments, for example. I think this is a topic for the main body but the header should not give the impression of consensus where none existed.

Thirdly, I think the statement that the "Regime" retained knowledge and material with the intention of restarting programs is too imprecise. What the Duelfer report states is that "Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone." It also states that

"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them." ( https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html )

In other words, the Iraqi "regime" or state intended nothing. Rather, Hussein aspired, at some point in the future, to redevelop WMD. As a side point, I should say that I think Duelfer was clutching at straws here, since of course Hussein would have liked to have WMD -I doubt there's many leaders who wouldn't -and an aspiration at some undefined date in the future is nebulous, to say the least. However, that's my POV: our job is to accurately relate what Duelfer said. I would change the wording to reflect this, saying that Hussein aspired to regain his WMD at some point in the future and had retained some expertise and material to that end.

Fourthly, as to the final disposition of Iraqi WMD, I think the summary can do no better than quote Duelfer: Iraq ended its nuclear programe in 1991 and never restarted it, "abandoned" its biological weapons research and had no ambiton to restart it, and that it unilaterally destroyed its chemical weapons in 1991. The source for this is the following:

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

"With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad’s ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

The issue of the shells should be discussed in the main body. This allows a better discussion. Your wording is accurate but is susceptible to the interpretation that "incomplete" destruction of chemical weapons suggests dishonesty when Duelfer's logical implication is that incomplete destruction was the result of partial records and oversight. In other words, the small amounts of shells were almost certainly not known to the regime itself. These munitions were not operative and not in the same category as the WMD for which the ISG was searching.

I hope all that's clear and reasonable Dwtray2007 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the Iraqi "regime" or state intended nothing. This contradicts the quote you gave. His lieutenants understood that WMD would be reconstituted. To paraphrase the report, Saddam Hussein was the state, and it was clear to the people around him that he intended to reconstitute WMD programs.

I don't care whether or not the munitions that have been found are discussed in the lead, but we shouldn't ignore them altogether and insert a statement that pretends that they don't exist or that the Bush administration stated before the war that old munitions don't count without a reliable source that says so. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right that I was a little imprecise. Duelfer says that the regime's strategic intent "was his alone" and that, in the strategic sense, he was the regime. Fair enough. But it does not say that Saddam was the Iraqi state. Saddam himself was probably a very firm believer in l'etat c'est moi but that's irrelevant: there was an extensive state apparatus beyond him, which had no written or formal strategy for restarting WMD programs. To equate Saddam with the Iraqi regime is a pretty esoteric (or desperate in my view) usage of the word -most people understand regime to mean government, not a single person. Therefore, it would be misleading to the reader to say that the Iraqi regime intended to regain WMD when what Duelfer actually meant is Saddam personally.

What Duelfer makes clear is that Saddam personally aspired to regaining some WMD capability (nuclear eventually but focusing on chemical weapons) but that neither he nor the state had taken any formal steps to implement this. It was simply understood that this was what he wanted to do at some unspecified date in the future. The article should make this clear.

As for the discarded munitions, I agree that they're not important enough to go in the lead and I'm sure no one proposes to ignore them. We don't need to find a statement from Bush saying that they didn't count, however. We know that they didn't count because Duelfer himself said so, in the report:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter"

And on radio:

"We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard." (Talk of the Nation, NPR June 22nd 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 ).

And so did the Defense Dept.:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."" ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html )

The ISG was charged with finding the weapons that the Bush administration alleged to exist. If the ISG head says that the munitions aren't what they looking for (and is backed up by the state department official quoted above) then it's elementary logic to state that the munitions do not count. Bush said we have to invade because of X. The ISG is asked to find X. The shells are found and the ISG says 'these are not X'. As further evidence, we know that, when they were found, the White House did not claim them as vindication. I think we can reasonbly assume, given how eager they were to find WMD that if they could possibly have claimed those shells (with a straight face), they would have. They did not. Dwtray2007 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't give the whole story of what the Duelfer Report said about the chemical weapons. I've compiled the relevant quotes from Volume 3 at User:Ipankonin/Duelfer Chemical Weapons quotes (I copied all relevant quotes regardless of whether or not they supported my position). Among those is, "The destruction years ago of the bulk of Iraq’s CW munitions not withstanding, ISG remains concerned about the status and whereabouts of hundreds of CW artillery rounds. Previous assertions that the munitions were all destroyed have been undermined by reporting that the munitions remain intact in an unknown location." There are a few others that are interesting. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's caveats throughout the report because this is not a precise science. Many of the quotations you supply are also listed under 'preliminary findings'. It is highly unlikely that every last shell, nut and bolt will be accounted for because, most likely, no one -including the former Iraqi government- had full records (even the US and UK Government misplace materiel from time to time and they not been subjected to months of bombing). It's not the purpose of the article to relate the 'whole story' as you put it -otherwise we may as well transcribe the entire report. It's our job to accurately report their settled judgement, which is the one I quoted above. Anything else is to second guess Duelfer, which is beyond our remit. Duelfer reviewed the evidence and took it all into account when reaching its conclusion. This is also backed up by one of the quotations you provide:

"ISG has obtained no evidence that contradicts our assessment that the Iraqis destroyed most of their hidden stockpile, although we recovered a small number of pre-1991 chemical munitions in early to mid 2004."

So have a number of pre-1991 shells turned up? Yes. Is it possible that a few more may turn up? Yes. Are these shells the weapons the ISG was sent to find? Categorically, no. Did the ISG ever find the weapons it was sent to find? Categorically, no. Was the final judgement of the Duelfer report, after reviewing the competing evidence, that Iraq destroyed its CW stocks in 1991 and never resumed production? Categorically, yes. Dwtray2007 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All I'm arguing against is the phrase no evidence of any weapons. That is clearly not the case if you look at the report, and I don't think you have the authority to speak on behalf of the ISG as to what they were looking for. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Two quick points. Firstly, while there is obvious evidence of weapons manufactured before 1991 (although no actual weapons, only munitions), there is no evidence of weapons manufactured after 1991. The ISG was not looking for weapons manufactured before 1991, it was looking for the weapons and programs alleged to exist by the Bush Administration, which were the justification for the attack on Iraq. These have never been found. If the ISG had found the weapons for whichthe US "went to war", it would have reported this -it did not. Therefore, it would be fitting for the article to state that "While some remnants of known pre-1991 WMD have been found, the weapons used by the Bush Administration to justify the invasion have never been found."

Secondly, I have not made any statements on behalf of the ISG. I have not needed to do so. I have simply quoted the verifiable and sourced statements of Charles Duelfer and a DoD spokesperson -both of whom have made clear that the abandoned shells are not the weapons the ISG was established to find.

After all this, we should be able to agree on two plain facts. One: pre-1991 munitions do not count as the WMD used to justify the invasion and both the DoD and Mr. Duelfer have stated this explicitly. Two, the post-1991 stockpiles and programs used by the Bush Administration to justify the invasion are officially judged not to have existed -even Bush admitted this in October 2004: "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there" (ttp://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041008/news_1n8weapons.html).

I don't see that it can be any more plain. Dwtray2007 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dwtray2007, in regards to your comments about my suggestion, if I am understanding you correctly most of them seem reasonable. If you have specific phrasing for the lead I would love to see it. I've been away for a while and haven't had been able to actively monitor this discussion so correct me if I'm wrong, but is the content of the last sentence of my suggestion (pre-Gulf war WMD) the only significant disagreement that we still have? On a side note, I've seen you repeatedly state that munitions are not weapons - I don't quite follow that logic. If you could expound upon this I would appreciate it.--Rise Above The Vile 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes that we're talking about here, munitions can be called weapons. It's a technical spin. Nobody says "Munitions of Mass Destruction" -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Munitions" in military use technically refers to the tools of war, weapons, bombs, ammunition, shells etc. In the more common usage, munition is the word used describe anything that is fired or dropped rather than launched. A missile or a torpedo is launched and is self-powered and, to varying extents, even self-directed. Bombs, shells and bullets are dropped or fired but, once on their way, can't really change course or power themselves.

The relevant point is that a shell is not a weapon -the gun that fires it is the weapon. You wouldn't say a man was armed if he had some bullets in his pocket but no gun. Likewise, a shell by itself is no use unless you can thow it very far and very hard.

I will have a go at writing the lead paragraph and then present it here. Dwtray2007 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq declared that 550 shells filled with mustard had been "lost" shortly after the Gulf War.[3] The White House issued a large press release[4] that detailed all the reasons to go to war on Sept. 12, 2002. Included in the release was the statement, Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent. Yes, old weapons were used as a reason to go to war. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know that Iraq had unaccounted for materiel but the US mounted the invasion on the basis of ongoing and active weapons programs. The shells found were not WMD and were not part of the reason the US invaded Iraq. If you personally choose to disagree with the Department of Defense, Charles Duelfer, and your Commander in chief, that's your right but wikipedia has to accept the word of authoritative sources. The Duelfer report took into account the abandoned shells when reaching its conclusion and predicted that more would be found:

“ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts.

• All but two of the chemical weapons discovered since OIF were found in southern Iraq where the majority of CW munitions were used against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.” (ISG, Comprehensive Report Addendums to the of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2005/isg-addendums_mar2005.pdf)

The DoD knew about the abandoned shells and stated that they were not the weapons for which the US went to war. George Bush knew about the shells when he declared that the weapons weren't there.

"NBC News and news services Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET June 22, 2006

"WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.

"Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday pointed to a newly declassified report that says coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.

[...]

"But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.

"Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time." (my italics) ( www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/ )

This is the bottom line. You are entitled to believe what you want but the Pentagon disagrees with you. Time to move on. Dwtray2007 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stop trying to convince me that they don't count as WMD. It's simply not true as far as I'm concerned. I think we should concentrate on getting the wording right so everybody will be satisfied. It's a fact we have to live with that we don't all have the same point of view, and trying to change each other will not get us anywhere. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure that you understand that, where there's a conflict between the Pentagon, the DoD and Charles Duelfer, on the one hand, and you, on the other, wiki has to go with the former. Dwtray2007 10:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand you not wanting the article to say "no evidence of any weapons" but it does not say that. It says "no evidence was found of the WMD or programs the administration claimed existed." What was found is mentioned in detail in the "Rationale" article and I have no problem with it mentioned in the body of this article. They were not part of the stated rationale so should not be in the lead. If they are to be mentioned in the lead then it should be additional to what is already there and not as a replacement for it. Wayne 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, I agree that the detailed discussion of the abandoned shells should go in a separate section in the main body. Here's my proposal for the revised lead two paragraphs (the first is unchanged, actually):

The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark (other countries were also involved in its aftermath) began officially on March 20, 2003. The invasion launched the Iraq War, which is still ongoing.

The official trigger for the invasion was the Bush Administration’s claim that Iraq had failed to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, which they and their partners alleged Iraq possessed. President George W. Bush stated that the objective of the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." In January 2005, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no WMD at the time of the invasion. Although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, US Government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US invaded.

Too ambiguous and vague. It doesn't give sufficient weight to the rationale that Powell gave the UN. That speech was the major event that convinced many countries to support the invasion. I can accept that last sentence being added to the existing text. Wayne 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How about changing the first sentence to read:"The official trigger for the invasion was the Bush Administration’s claim that Iraq had failed to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, which they and their partners alleged were an ongoing and intolerable threat to world peace." That seems to cover all the bases that an introductory needs to. Is there something specific from Powell's address that you think should be mentioned, besides the general allegation that Iraq was an immediate threat? Dwtray2007 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with that as long as "no evidence was found of the WMD or programs the administration claimed existed" is included. To the world Powells speech is synonomous with the rationale and readers will be aware that that statement refers to it and the wording leaves the door open for WMD discovered that were not part of the rationale. Wayne 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking specifically about Powell's speech, why not mention Powell's speech? It needs to be a little more specific as to which WMD were not found. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 04:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Too limiting as it leaves it open for people to claim other rationales Powell never mentioned. The current statement is already specific as to which WMD were not found...the ones claimed to exist by the administration that were a threat. Even most war supporters don't claim the WMD actually found so far are a threat. Wayne 04:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence doesn't say "that were a threat". It says all weapons that the administration claimed existed, and I've already touched on the fact that the administration claimed that Iraq had old weapons. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They may have claimed it (they claimed a lot of things) but they also admitted these were not included in the rationale. I dont need to mention the WMD were a threat because it is unarguable that what they claimed existed was a threat. If they weren't thought to be then they would not have made the claim as it would carry no weight in the rationale. Wayne 14:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Dwtray2007, Wayne and Bob Roberts. If these chemical weapons were known to the regime, having been deliberately concealed from inspectors, then we wouldn't be having this discussion -- it would be in both the main body and the lead section, without hesitation. But in fact, these old munitions were found in "ones and twos" and described as "inert" during a US House Armed Services Committee hearing in 2006. According to the hearing 1) They were produced in the 1980s and are of the type used during the Iran-Iraq war. 2) Projectiles are badly corroded in most cases and can no longer be discharged as designed. 3) They were found in a variety of locations: Some had been improperly dismantled and/or destroyed; others were found abandoned on the battlefield; and other unmarked munitions had been misplaced in conventional storage bunkers. 5) Some of the weapons remain hazardous and potentially lethal, and one might die if exposed to a sufficient quantity of degraded agent in a confined space over a prolonged period of time, otherwise the consensus was that these no longer constitute "weapons of mass destruction" in the any true sense. Here is a picture of some residual pre-1991 chemical weapons discovered in Iraq Both David Kay and Charles Dulfer, two of George Bush's handpicked weapons experts, said they could pose a "local hazard". I'm all for mentioning these things in the main body, but I'm not convinced they merit inclusion in the lead section. smb 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never really advocated mentioning them in the lead. All I'm saying is we shouldn't state that no weapons were found at all when we can easily say that no new weapons were found. They don't have to be mentioned at all in the lead, but at the same time we can't pretend they don't exist. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is pretending they don't exist. They have a section in the Rationale article and I have no problems with a mention in the Iraq War article and any other deemed appropriate. The current lead does not say no weapons were found but that none of the WMD claimed were found. It is irrelevant that any not part of the claim were found (in the lead) unless they were still viable and Saddam knew they existed as viable weapons. Wayne 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Convenience break

How about the following:

The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark (other countries were also involved in its aftermath) began officially on March 20, 2003. The invasion launched the Iraq War, which is still ongoing.

The official trigger for the invasion was the Bush Administration’s claim that Iraq had failed to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, which they and their partners alleged Iraq possessed and were an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace. President George W. Bush stated that the objective of the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." In January 2005, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no WMD at the time of the invasion, although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, US Government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US "went to war". Four and a half years later, the weapons for which the US and others invaded have not been found.

Surely that is an accurate enough summary for the lead paragraph? It's all factually correct and fairly succinct.Dwtray2007 08:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fairly balanced, although I would change the last sentence to something like, "The weapons for which the US and other countries invaded were never found." The only reason is so that we don't have to keep updating it as time goes on. Otherwise, I think it looks good. Anybody else? --דניאל - Dantheman531 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit weak but I can accept that. I suggest "the weapons for which the US and coalition partners invaded have not been found.". Wayne 02:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan,I accept the dating point -that was more a literary effect, to indicate that they're 'unlikely' ever to be found now. Wayne, how would you wish to strengthen it? It's fairly neutral in its phrasing, I know, but that's deliberate. Much as I might want to use more condemnatory prose, it's not appropriate and will only invite charges of bias. Do you have any suggestions? Dwtray2007 08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't think of anything atm. My problem is that the rationale is not getting the due weight which the original gave. The administration arguably lied, exaggerated and cherry picked but we can't say that in the lead, so the fact that nothing claimed was found should be prominant to avoid the invasion being presented as justified despite nothing found (by having it as a small part of a paragraph). Wayne 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I sympathise with your views (and share those that you've expressed) but it is important to put them to the side as much as possible and relate the facts. The are damning enough as it is. Unless anyone else involved in this has any objections, I suggest inserting this revised paragraph into the article and then moving on. Dwtray2007 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this a lot better. I don't really have any objections, but some people might find it contradictory that it says that no WMD were found when the very next sentence says that some old WMD were found. I have no problem inserting that, but it might cause problems later with people who haven't participated in this discussion. I recommend changing it to "WMD stockpiles" or even removing that phrase, because it's kind of redundant. However, if that phrase must be in there, it's acceptable to me if the next part is in there about the old weapons. Wayne's version of the concluding sentence is perfect.

As an aside, I'm confused as to how SMB joined the mediation. Was he invited, or did he just join? I have no real objections, but I'd like to know if some procedure was followed. This isn't an RFC. People can't just join whenever they feel like it. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So how about we change the ending of the paragraph to look like this:

In January 2005, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no WMD at the time of the invasion, although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, US Government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US "went to war". The weapons for which the US and coalition partners invaded have not been found.

I combined two of the sentences, and I think that makes it a little clearer. I also substituted Wayne's version of the concluding sentence for the current. --דניאל - Dantheman531 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I'm happy for it to go in. Dwtray2007 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree although I would suggest making "although some misplaced......" a new sentence to improve flow. Wayne 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Since this compromise seems to be agreeable to everybody, I will replace the lead to the current 2003 Invasion of Iraq page with the compromise lead (I will slightly modify the last sentence per Wayne), and I will make a change to the current Iraq War lead in the spirit of this mediation. If it's not a problem with anybody, I will also close this mediation is successful. Congratulations to everybody on coming through and coming up with something workable. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Dan -it's appreciated. Dwtray2007 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)