Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Camembert (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 21 March 2003 (on SCUDs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This entry badly needs an introductory paragraph. --The Cunctator

Unless I'm missing something, isn't the naming a bit premature? Just because it's very likely to happen doesn't mean we can pretend it has. - Khendon 10:36 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Surely you cannot doubt the combined forces... of the tarot, crystal ball, the I Ching and the countless confirmatory organs of divination relied on by Miss Cleo?!?!?!? How boring and dull to wait for something to happen before you report it, when you can predict it and scoop all the other wikipedias!!</sarcasm> -- Someone else 10:53 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

S.E. actually has a point, Khendon. As of Monday 3/17/03 the "plan" to invade was upgraded from a possible scenario into a fairly stern threat. I'd say "prospective invasion" was fair at this point, although I still have hopes that Bush will listen to Rev. Moon and call it off. Violence cannot make peace; only God's parental love can reconcile warring brothers. --Uncle Ed 19:06 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

However, it may turn out to be a US-UK-Australian-Turkish invasion of Iraq, or some such combination. ( 19:12 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Then we can simply rename it Invasion of Iraq or if there have been too many invasions, Invasion of Iraq (2003). Perhaps at some point we should re-organize or re-title some of these articles, though, because I've lost count of how many there are discussing the prospect or possibility or plan for a US-led invasion of Iraq, in the aftermath of 9/11.

See also:

--Uncle Ed

This may be moot as of tomorrow, but I strongly agree that this article's title is premature. -- Zoe

I think it should be renamed (maybe to Military buildup for the 2003 invasion of Iraq) and a new page created if the actual invasion takes place. ( 12:42 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
How about US preparations for the invasion of Iraq ( 23:41 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

I think we need two separate article:

  • preparations and discussion prior to the invasion, and
  • the courese of the actual invasion

For one thing, there are 46 (I counted 'em) REDIRECT's to U.S. plan to invade Iraq, which is currently a redirect page to US invasion of Iraq. --Uncle Ed 16:23 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Statements such as "many people have expressed" and "few military analysts believe" are merely hearsay. The article *must* provide exactly who said what and when. Which military analysts? What exactly did they say? Kingturtle 17:26 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

...."and allegations that he was involved in the September 11 attacks."

Who has alleged that Saddam was involved in the Sept 11 attacks? This has never been the U.S. government's position. I'm sure that connections were investigated, but I haven't heard anyone actually claim that he was involved...

I saw a CNN survey on Sunday which said that 51% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, though I haven't heard any official allege such things. -- Zoe

I don't believe any reputable source has "confirmed" that the missiles fired into Kuwait were SCUD missiles, at least not yet. --AW

I'd also not heard any such confirmation, but Reuters here reports a couple of such claims. It would be best, I think, if we said exactly who had confirmed these were Scuds though, because an Iraqi spokesman appears to have denied they were (in a rather confused sentence which you can read in several different ways, but still). I'll let somebody else pick it apart though, I'm off to bed. --Camembert
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq/Archive_2&oldid=763637"