Talk:Iraq War

	Pending tasks for Iraq War:
	Use <s > and </s > (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done: Remove POV Clean up the multiple wiliking in the article a little bit. Add more references. Remove (or at least simplify) the multiple references to the same external article.

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2

Stop the edit war!

There is a poll now, showing a clear majority against his position, however, instead of waiting for a consensus Rangeley reverted again in spite of the warning he has on his talk page. It was his 25th revert on this part of the "war on terror" issue only. Añoranza 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Majority isn't important. The strength of the arguments is. But who judges that? KevinPuj 10:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been a long 12 days I say. Rangeley 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You ignore others' points with perseverance indeed. Some of your reverts violated the 3 Revert Rule - which by the way does not mean "please revert 2.99 times per day" - and you sometimes even summarized "rv vandalism". Please rethink whether wikipedia is the right place for such acts. Añoranza 16:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Part of the War on Terrorism" Poll

Please explain your point shortly. De mortuis... 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" Should be used in the Infobox Caption

1. The US government has explicitly stated that it is such. The original intent was to find WMDs and prevent terrorism on the United States. The current intent is to root out the terrorists from Iraq. The fact that it is explicitly called such, and is a fight against terrorists, and always has been, leads me to believe that it should be "Part of the War on Terrorism". It doesn't necessarily have to be only those words; a statement such as "US Government includes it in the War on Terrorism would also be appropriate.KevinPuj 01:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
2. It is a term for a military campaign launched by the United States, of which it claims Iraq is a part. It it not simply a propaganda name, but also an official campaign name, as indicated by the U.S. medal hierarchy: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_on_Terrorism_Service_Medal". Moreover, despite criticism, it is in common usage. For example, the top 10 google results for "war on terror" return 6 links that conflate Iraq and the WOT, 1 that does not, 2 that are indeterminate (1 is wiki and 1 is a 2002 CNN report), and 1 that says the WOT is an illegitimate term (Chomsky). In fact, Iraq's role in the WOT is used not just by supporters of the War, but opponents such as Amnesty International: [1] [2]. If you disagree with the naming, take it up at the "War on Terrorism" page; but Iraq is unarguably a subcampaign of what the U.S. calls the WOT.

   Moreover, this absurd argument is being sparked by partisans that agree with one and not the other and want to separate the two. If it were indeed the U.S. fighting the WOT and the U.K. fighting in Iraq, you can argue away to your heart's delight to whether or not Iraq constitutes a fight against terrorism. But as the U.S. is the principal protagonist in both, and it is a subcampaign in U.S. military terms, the two are indelibly linked and your arguments over the merits of it won't change that link.--Mmx1 18:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   "not simply a propaganda name, but an official campaign name"? I cannot follow you. But does not make sense in that sentence. Añoranza 19:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   fine, "but also" --Mmx1 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   So you are saying campaign names are not invented by the department for propaganda but rather the department for truth as it needs to be seen so we must take what they say for granted? Añoranza 07:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

3. For the popular usage argument, note that the term "Iraq War" is neither common nor official. Rmt2m 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   It is not the naming that we are disputing, but whether or not the Iraq War falls under the umbrella of the "War on Terrorism". Call either whatever you like, but the two are inextricably tied by supporters and opponents. --Mmx1 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   I know. Rmt2m 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

4. It's terribly obvious to me, that the Iraq war falls under the War on Terrorism. Are you people actually disputing that? Some people wrote below to say it doesn't belong in the infobox because it just doesn't belong there...cool. But how can you say that it's not part of the WOT. Your saying that only the government said it and we shouldn't have to take it at face-value. Are you kidding me. It's not like the White House said. Abortion is wrong, and so it is. They said, the war is part of the War on Terrorism, for which it is. Don't be ridiculous and go against this just because you politically oppose our current government. Please come up with some better defenses then "it's propaganda". Chuck 09:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   It's not that I say your government did not name it as such. I say we should not use propaganda terms as wikipedia captions. It can be said elsewhere in the article what the government says and why people criticize it. If we just put "is part of the wot" it is misleading as readers may think ok, they went there to fight terror, which is very disputed. Añoranza 10:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   Then, may I ask, what you think the reason we went over there was? Chuck^(척뉴넘) 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

   I think that is the BIG question that many of the world have. But I still have to see ANY independent evidence or a reliable independent source (from outisde the government) that shows that Iraq was indeed a source for terrorists. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

5. Stated it countless times. Rangeley 00:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
6. I support this as it is the official name of the campaign being waged. HJ Res 114 uses the term repeatedly, the UK parliament used the terminology as well in their official debate before voting to goto war, even India's president uses the term and has pledged his support in the war on terror. Considering India and the US I believe are the two most populous primary english speaking nations, I dont see how anyone can say its not a popular term without posting a poll to back themselves up. --Zer0faults 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
7. The War on terrorism is a policy of the bush administration. The only acceptable synonym to 'War on Terror' is 'The Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy'. However even this term is confusing to the average american. THe term 'war on terror' is used in a bipartisan fashion and by the popular (and free) media. The war on Iraq was announced as serving the ends of that policy-- it was declared as part of hte war on terror. Mrdthree 22:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Yes this conflict should be referred to as part of the War on Terror. If it were phrased as Part of the wikipedia War on Terror series or something like that, we could categorize it correctly, without apearing to take sides. Remember, it's importaant to stay NPOV. Wombdpsw 07:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" should Not be used in the Infobox Caption

1. It is a non-neutral propaganda term not in use everywhere, especially not without inverted commas. The category and the template should be deleted. De mortuis... 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I do think the term "war on terrorism" should be used somewhere in the article--however not in the title bar where Rangeley keeps putting it. Along with the WMD argument, there is certainly a group of people who think the Iraq war is part of that conflict. However, the Iraq war being a more common usage I think we should simply leave the title alone and save the argument for the article or other related articles-I think I've added a section somewhere that talks about the "war on terrorism" rationale for Iraq. As I've pointed out before, the "war on terrorism" label is not unique to Bush--Reagan used it in the 1980s, Israeli PMs have used it as well in their various conflicts--and it appears to be more of a rhetorical term similiar to the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", the "war on crime", etc. Continuing to add this term merely confuses the issue and takes energy away from editing the actual substance of the article.Publicus 12:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   Also, the "war on terrorism" label is appropriate in the Afghanistan war--since that was a direct reaction to terrorist attacks on the U.S.--NATO even invoked Article 51 of the Brussels treaty (attack on one member is attack on all) to advocate military action against Afghanistan. That war is far different from the Iraq war, where the "war on terrorism" rhetoric was secondary to the WMD rhetoric and the "clear and present danger" phrase used by the Bush administration.Publicus 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   Oops wrong vote, thanks Mr. Tibbs.Publicus 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

2. The war has generated terrorism, is sometimes sold under the guise of that war, but is in reality NOT part of the war on terrorism. KimvdLinde 22:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Should NOT be used. Even if you believe it IS a neutral term the fact that there is controversey surrounding its use here (and in the real world) is enough justify removal. As I suggested above, a subsection should address the debate over the proper use of the term in describing the Iraq war. The argument for including the tag is as strong as the argument for tagging it with "Part of America's Imperialist Expansion". This shouldn't be a hard decision.--Jsn4 05:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Well, the government came up with the title H.R. 4437, but I've heard it referred to as other things, so which is it? Is the government wrong? Chuck 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia does not exist to take sides in political disagreements. As long as there is notable disagreement that Iraq is part of the WoT, any mention of the WoT needs to be accompanied by a mention of the proponents of the term (e.g. "President Bush calls the war part of the "War on Terrorism"). Using the term for purposes of categorization suggests that Wikipedia endorses it. That is unacceptably POV. --Hyperbole 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   What is disputed is whether or not Terrorism was a sufficient justification for Iraq, not whether or not it was launched under the auspices of Terrorism in the "War on Terrorism". The Senate resolution clearly states the ending of Iraq's support for international terrorism as one of its goals. Now you can feel free to use the Iraq war as an example of why the GWOT should be call "War of Hegemony" or "War of Imperialism" or whatever name you wnat to come up with, but the fact is indisputable that the Iraq War was launched under the auspices of the "War on Terrorism" --Mmx1 00:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

5. Should not be used in the infobox. A section on the controversy about it is fine, but it does not belong in the category. As discussed on the Talk:2003 Invasion of Iraq page, it is unacceptably America-centric POV to put that partof= on this page. Why not have it say partof="Jihad against Jews and Crusaders"?-csloat 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Its "America-centric POV" when India, UK and US all use the terminology? Doesn't that cover more then 50% of the english speaking population of those nations who claim english as their primary language? --Zer0faults 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Should not be used in the infobox. I don't see Iraq, Iran or North Korea being tagged as "Part of the Axis of Evil", so why parrot this particular talking point? Possible compromise would be quotation marks around War on Terror or renaming. (also voted on 2003 Invasion of Iraq talk page) - Mr. Tibbs 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
7. This should most definetly not be in the infobox. The Iraq War was seperate from the War on Terror, until the Iraqi insurgency. Now it very much is part of the war on terror which is why the template should remain. Falphin 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

   According to HJ Res 114 you are in fact wrong. The House and Senate voted to goto war with Iraq and used the terminology war on terror repeatedly in that resolution. Not only that but terrorism was a stated reason in the resolution as well. --Zer0faults 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

8. Kevin Baas^talk 14:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC) popular opinion does not support this association. Kevin Baas^talk 14:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Any support for this? KevinPuj 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please link to the poll you are using. --Zer0faults 15:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. No, it shouldn't be used. Again, an identical discussion is happening in two places, which is not efficient. Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#War_on_Terrorism --Hermitage 03:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

De mortuis, time and time again points against the term have been raised and have failed. You are essentially stating that regardless of this failure, you will continue to fight it without base. I will be the first to admit that it is likely that most people will vote along what they see as 'party lines' so to speak. They have not participated in discussion and have not seen how they have gone, but you prove that even when people participate they can still be ignorant to the truth. This topic is controversial, which makes it an unfortunate case in point of support of the policy Wikipedia has adopted. Arguments are weighed on their value, logicality, and and overall worth rather than the number of people who say it. I beleive that this is exactly why you have put up the War on Terror template for a "speedy deletion" and created this poll. You, and others, have lost in the attempt to put up a convincing argument, and now you have resorted to redefining the issue as one where we see how many people go to each side of a line. Its tiresome, and counterproductive. Rangeley 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you post innuendo does not mean you win an argument. I agree it is tiresome and counterproductive. Accusing all others to put their preferences above neutrality and repeatedly attacking others shows how little understanding you have for wikipedia. De mortuis... 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Of all the POV in the article, this is probably the most insignificant and least controversial to be arguing so much about. KevinPuj 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

An attempt to compromise was made earlier on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, but it was rejected.[3] So there is little choice other than to enforce the consensus. - Mr. Tibbs 05:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to havea misunderstanding on how polls here work. Please read Wikipedia:Straw polls if you need more information.

"If the majority of opinion is in one direction, but a significant minority of people oppose it, work to find a solution that can be accepted by as many people as possible."

More then 30% oppose your view. Please refrain from spreading rumors that votes here are binding, its against Wiki policy. Thank you --Zer0faults 15:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes would be an a good solution, because it conveys that someone has said something(in this case, the Bush administration saying that it is part of the War on Terror). KevinPuj 20:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling the 'war on terror' 'propaganda' is leftist propaganda. The fact is it is a policy initiative of the bush administration. Just because chomsky says something is propaganda doesnt mean that chomsky isnt a propagandist.Mrdthree 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Bias

The images used in this article are mostly anti-war/pro-pacifist or allude to current anti-war/pro-pacifist rhetoric. Some are indeed neutral, but I count 2 that show progress in Iraq and 4 that suggest otherwise. If this isn't already obvious to you, then you're part of he problem. Haizum 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. You don't censor an article so it reflects "both sides" in a political debate at the expense of its accuracy.--Jsn4 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think war pages should have images of the dead and the wounded. Añoranza 07:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jsn4, then we agree; add more pictures of the progress in Iraq, otherwise this article is being overwhelmed by negative imagery 'at the expense of its accuracy.' Haizum 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

With progress you mean the tens of thousands of people killed or those who were converted to terrorism by the war? Añoranza 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

By 'tens of thousands of people killed' you must mean that many times over before the war even started. And by 'progress' I mean positive steps in the face of many negative setbacks and instances. I can see the good, the bad, and the ugly; so why can you only see the bad and ugly? I love how this is being spun so that I become the one who wants to suppress information. Haizum 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't even believe we're having this discussion. Even in the US the belief that the War is going well is becoming a fringe opinion. The vast majority of information coming out of Iraq is negative- to not reflect that in the article is propaganda.--Jsn4 20:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Haizum, I agree more images are portraying negativity, however I do not think this is a problem necessarilly. I mean look at the Hiroshima bombing page. Not much positivity there. However, few will deny the positive outcome it eventually brought, such as a speedy end to the war, and millions of lives saved as there was no need for a costly mainland invasion. You cant show this in pictures that well, and I wouldnt expect them to. I dont think that the image selection is too terribly bad, perhaps it is a bit harsh selection, but how do you get images that show progress? The content of the article is more important, I for one have pushed for the inclusion of "Part of the War on Terror" on the top of the page. Its no surprise to me that they would claim you to be censoring things after seeing their faulty arguments in my debate, however I think that if you are looking to make an impact, you would be better off helping in the "part of" debate, which can be found here Rangeley 16:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Tens of thousands were killed in this war, and there are new victims about every day. I find it kind of absurd to write in a discussion about a war article "we should have some nice pictures here." As a sidenote to the ignorant user above, there is a long list of arguments edited by many users about why the Hiroshima bombing was a war crime. Añoranza 16:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

...all of which are fallacious because the United States did not initiate the global conflict of WWII, nor did it set the standard for Total War during. Haizum 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree, but there are many and not only stupid people who say that it was an unnecessary attack on civilians and met the standards of a crime against humanity. Añoranza 00:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Using an atomic weapon on civilians to start a war or during a war is different than using an atomic weapon on civilians to end a war. That should be obvious...unless of course you have an agenda. Haizum 00:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When people disagree with you it must be that they have an agenda, that is obvious. And if Saddam had nuked the US, UK, Australia, Poland and the other members of the coalition like Micronesia, it would not have been a crime against humanity because it would have been only to end a war of aggression. Sure, I see. Añoranza 07:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, if we had purposefully attacked civilian targets for the purpose of demoralization and halting wartime production, then they could have justifiably used nukes on US civilian targets. Of course there is no point in explaining to you how it works logically because you've already managed to equate WWII and the war in Iraq. Good job. Haizum 21:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not equate WWII and the war in Iraq, I used the comparison someone else had brought up. In fact, most law experts agree that both the Iraq war and WWII started with acts of aggression. Fact is also that many law experts see nuking civilians as a crime. A crime stays a crime no matter how evil the one is it is directed to. People who support a government that endorses torture, abductions and the death penalty on minors and mentally disabled may be unable to see this though. Añoranza 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A nuke is no different from a bullet. They are simply tools of destruction on a different scale. You can use nukes to attack civilian targets as you can napalm, cluster bombs, bullets, and rocks. In order to believe that a 'war crime' has been committed, one must also believe that crimes can be committed during war. I simply don't agree with that premise, and I don't believe that is a particularly radical position to take. That doen't mean I'd like to see nukes or poison gas used willy nilly, rather, the weapon should fit the conflict; and throughout history that has generally been the case. During civil war, the rifle is the weapon of choice and the civil opposition is the target of choice; likewise, during a tooth and nail total war the most destructive weapons and tactics are used. If any crime could be committed, it would be that of escalating the degree of conflict to a state of Total War. Haizum 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A nuke is different from a bullet in that it cannot be used on a military target exclusively, it has effects on such a wide area that unnecessary harm is done. There are laws of war, and even if the US government ignores them in practice, they are still binding, and they were used in trials supported by the US, e.g. Nuremberg, Milosevic... By your logic the holocaust or Srebrenica were no crimes as they happened during wars. War itself is a crime in cases like Iraq: the crime of aggression. The ICJ decided about the use of nukes. The ICJ is the World Court the US decided to ignore when found guilty of supporting terrorism in Nicaragua. Añoranza 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a simple concept and yet you still manage to botch it. 1. Wrong: A nuke can be used in a specific area so long as that area is the same size or larger than that of the effects of a nuclear detonation. If the conflict calls for localized (city) destruction with area denial (suburbs), then a nuke would be the weapon of choice. The analogous full metal jacket bullet can have similar collateral effects; it can overpenetrate its target and strike an unintended (or intended secondary) target, and the lead content can poison the soil (which may or may not be desirable). Regardless, your whole premise falls apart as soon as civilians become a viable military target, which has happened time and time again. 2. Fallacy: Simply because there are laws on the books about war doesn't mean they are appropriate. There are laws against gay marriage, but that doesn't mean they are justifiable simply because they are 'law'. 3. Botched Logic: The Holocaust etc were not strategic or tactical acts of war, and according to Wikipedia, "unconnected in any way to military activity". If anything, they weakened Nazi Germany's war effort. They were not "war crimes," rather, mass murder ("Crime Against Humanity"); and murder is widely accepted as a crime. Obvious. Haizum 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq in the time frame in which it occurred, and I did not agree with the invasion for some of the reasons given. There should have been an overhaul of the Iraqi government after the First Gulf War and Saddam's war of aggression against Kuwait and his own people. Unfortunately for you, you can't blame the United States for that blunder. Haizum 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter here who agreed with the invasion, and I have no time for all this. Civilians never are a legitimate target, and I already know that many people from countries that reelect war criminals do not care about legality of things. Your reasoning about the holocaust is entirely off topic, and for the umptienth time the only reason the analogy was brought up was to disprove that those who do something have the right to name it. Of course your ignore that again. Let's just agree to differ on who of us is stupid. Añoranza 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Civilians never are a legitimate target If you put that into a historical context (which is the most relevant), you couldn't be more wrong. Let me say that again, you couldn't be more wrong. Also, if you try to apply a standard to warfare such as, "we ought not target civilians, even when they present themselves to be a target" you are attempting idealize something which, in its pure form, is already ideal. You would be adding a rule to a game of no rules. So you are wrong there as well. I'm afraid you're going to find it difficult to argue against empiricism with emotive rhetoric. Regardless, you've already discredited yourself by resorting to multiple personal attacks. Haizum 17:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if someone says he is beyond the law, by saying civilians can be a legitimate target and even more explicitly, at the same time evading several points where he was clearly disproven, how do you call that if not stupid? Añoranza 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Using "it's the law" as the basis for your argument is pathetic. You should be able to explain why civilians ought/shouldn't/aren't military targets even when they have been since the first sieges in history. I refuse to honor fallacious premises by responding to them. But I do have a treat for you anyways: The majority of kamikaze pilots in WWII were comprised of hastily trained university students; that is, civilians. I suppose you believe shooting attacking kamikaze pilots out of the sky was a war crime (attacking civilians right?), but if you don't, then you are surrending to my argument: civilians are not a military target until they become a military target (no more than a tree is not a military target until it becomes a military target). When civilians are not a military target, it is NOT because some law says otherwise or because feelings will be hurt, rather, they are not targets when there is no strategic or tactical gain to be had (just like a tree). However, if an enemy military needs trees (say rubber trees) and therefore needs the civilian sector to harvest the trees for military purposes, the trees and the civilians become a target of opportunity. Feel free to disagree, I'll gladly leave it up to every military strategist and historian to call you an idiot for me. Haizum 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh how evil am I, I used the law as a basis for an argument, indeed pathetic. Really strange that there is no law prohibiting people without a brain to waste the time of others in wikipedia discussions. I am sorry but if you do not even know what a civilian is, why do you think others should read what you write in a discussion about a war? Añoranza 13:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If a civilian is a "noncombatant," then individuals who contribute to a war effort by any means are not civilians and not noncombatants; regardless of whatever milk toast law you want to cite. Haizum 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I think answering someone who claims that kamikaze pilots were civilians because they were only "hastily trained university students" is like feeding trolls. Añoranza 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Until you prove otherwise, or provide a cogent rebuttal to the main argument, you lose. Haizum 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Debates with trolls can only have losers. Añoranza 09:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Debates with trolls can only have losers. = Giant white flag. Haizum 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Even proud to have posted such incredibly idiotic stuff that others refuse to go on discussing with you? Añoranza 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to point out a faulty premise and actually cogently explain why it is faulty, or point out a factual error and actually give the correct information. As it stands, you have failed to do that. If you can't show where I'm being chronically "foolish and stupid", according to Dictionary.com, then I really don't see how you can logically conclude that I'm an idiot. What's ironic is only an idiot would draw a conclusion without a premise; that's the opposite of cogent logic. Haizum 03:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop your kamikaze actions, "civilian". Añoranza 15:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Crime Against Logic Haizum 01:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, this is a debate worthy of talking about at a political forum. I belong to one, and would love to debate you at it. However, Wikipedia is not this political forum, nor is it one at all. I brought up the atomic bombing as an example of an event for which only negative pictures arose from, and explained it as a case where something with an ultimately positive outcome cannot be represented in pictures. You may disagree that it ultimately saved lives, Añoranza, however I think atleast in principle we are in agreeance. It is not POV to show the outcome of the bombing and not the people it saved on mainland Japan, and it is not POV to show the destruction caused by war and not show all the people that would have died otherwise, or would not have had any shot at a future. Rangeley 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In my mind an ideal picture to be replaced is the Colin Powell one, not on the grounds that is biased, rather that much more relevant pictures could be found.KevinPuj

Relevant to that section (prelude to the war)? A member of the administration making the case for WMD to the U.N. I don't think you'd find a more relevant picture for that section. I'm open to suggestions, of course. --Mmx1 20:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that a warning should be placed on this article if images of torture are presented. They should not be in open view of children and those who are easily offended. Maybe they should be linked with a warning of innapropriate content instead of being in view.

What some soldiers are saying

Let me start off by saying I'm not an anti-war/pro-pacifist, meaning that I recognize war as being a necessary evil, but I will not blindly support any war that puts US soldiers at risk without just cause. I don't normally contribute to wiki, but I recently read a thread in a firearms forum that may be of interest. One of the posters, claims to be in military intelligence (many of the members actually are in the military so it's not too unlikely) and provided some information on what's going on over there. I don't know how reliable this is, since it's posted on the an Internet forum, but it sounds very rational and plausible. Look for posts from the user "Rayman1" http://ak47.net/forums/topic.html?b=4&f=64&t=85587&page=2

I personally trust these people more than the mainstream media, so I hope this shines some light on what's going on. If we can somehow verify this, I don't know what you do to prove it's reliable, it should provides some answers for us folks that aren't over there.

Um, did you read Cincinnatus's posts (a Marine O-4, FYI)? He basically debunked those posts. The situation in Iraq is far more complicated than "one guy is pulling all the strings, we should fear him"

And no, it's not verifiable enough for wiki. I personally trust Cinci, but since I can't cite his posts as from a Major X, its no-go. We don't even know who the hell Rayman1 is. --Mmx1 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did it say "one guy is pulling all the strings, we should fear him", from what I read it's basically civilwar going on, and we're not helping the situation.

Sorry, got him confused with the other guy pulling unnamed sources (glockguy). Rayman's the one espousing the "Iranians pull all the strings" view. --Mmx1 07:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless you know the source or someone you trust vouches for it, Internet heresay's worse than no news. It only reconfirms your existing beliefs because you'll "find it reasonable". Of course you'll find reasonable items that are in line with yours. I trust Cinci because his status has been verified through a chain of Marines, even though I don't even know his real name. Random guy on the internet? I don't think so. --Mmx1 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the soldiers who were there, like me, on wikipedia, have been run out of this entry. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

UFO Sightings

Iran-Iraq UFO Sightings has recently been added in and hidden under a "minor" edit. I think it should be removed because it has very little relevance to the article and because most of the UFOs are probably US or British aircraft. Thoughts? KevinPuj 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on the good side?

My good friends are soldiers themselves and they always say that Iraq is nothing like what the media depicts it. Apart from isolated incidents once or twice a week, most events are progressive. Children and families hail them and show their support. People can vote, have free speech, and live free from the grip of a dictator.

However, there are insurgents which kill and terrorize the people, especially those who wish to participate in this new concept of "freedom". Why? Because they want to keep control over the people while they still can. There is barely any outspoken protest among Iraqi civilians over the coalition, when's the last time you've seen this?

Those caught red-handed working with the terrorist and insurgent groups are sent to detainment camps and recently only half a dozen out of thousands have been reported to be abused. Besides, what's wrong about humiliating an insurgent caught red-handed?

People focus too much on the bad, and should lighten up. The soldier's opinion is never heard, nor is the average civilian. If you look at it, most of the media spends its time listening to journalists and major politicians and critics. And then it repeatedly shows a single incident where a child was accidentally killed or where a prisoner was tortured, stretching it out to cover multiple broadcasts over the week. What is this again? Indoctrination through propaganda my friends. The government obviously doesn't do that, only the media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Nice brainwashed friends you have. How about watching some real pictures like Laura Poitras' My Country, My Country and get a picture from outside the military? Please do not humiliate yourself by claiming not to know what is wrong about humiliating someone. What is wrong with abducting people and torturing them, keeping prisoners indefinitely without trial in camps you claim not to have jurisdiction at? And, what was wrong with 9/11? Añoranza 00:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I think we need to come up with a new opening paragraph. If you read the following below:

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the willing"[4] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world.[5] After the invasion no weapons of mass destruction were found and the Bush administration has since admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.[6][7] There is disagreement over the extent to which this inaccuracy was a matter of deceit or of intelligence failure. [8][9] This failure to find WMDs has given credence to the view of the majority of the world's nations, who took active roles in dissenting against the United States actions and agreed with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statement that, "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the U.N. Charter". [10]

You would probably assume by reading this that WMD's were the only reason supplied by the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq. It states "United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world." however that is not stating the full points of HJ Res 114 and only stating the one reason that has been proven false. Does anyone have any opinions they would like to offer on how we can expand this paragraph to make it factually correct? I was considering adding all the reasons stated, however I believe there was 6 or more and that may make the paragraph much to bloated. I will attempt to write something to put up for comment later, until then I will place a POV warning back on this article. Sorry I asked for it to be removed, there is much to go over here. --Zer0faults 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing something out further, the 3rd paragraph also alludes that WMD's were the only reason given however, the links supplied to affirm that go against it, listing the following as reasons:

"Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms"

So again I guess its probably more of the entire opening section that needs a look at, I will type something up later, feel free to post something here we can all look at if I have not posted anything myself. --Zer0faults 13:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I am back, I have merged much of the non POV stuff into one paragraph, keeping the first paragraph intact. Opinions? Feedback? Please see above for why some of the information is being removed.

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the Willing"[4] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government. United States president George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003[4]. On December 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein was arrested in Iraq and is currently standing trial for war crimes[5][6]. The Iraq war continued however in its second phase of conflict which centers around the US efforts to establish a democracy state capable of defending itself. Since the fall of the former regime a growing armed resistance has emerged of Iraqi insurgents, and knows terrorists such as Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Former interim president, Iyad Allawi, has warned that Iraq may be facing a civil war if more is not done to stop it[7].

So questions comments feedback welcome. Other views etc. I just hope we can remove the assertations that WMD's were in fact the sole reason for the US invasion, considering that HJ Res 114 covers many many reasons. --Zer0faults 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So basically what you want to do is remove all mention of the cassus belli of the Iraq War and try to create the false impression that this military action was as inevitable as the sunrise. No. Just because things didn't turn out the way the Bush administration wanted doesn't give you license to rewrite history.

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. - March 19, 2003 D-Day of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq [8]

What these articles have had to endure is ludicrous. Back in 2003-2005 we had people trying to edit in that WMDs actually were found in Iraq. And now that thats been proven false we have people trying to say WMD weren't the reason for the invasion. No, just No. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Start using the proper format or it's over for your comments. If you're going to troll, do us all a favor and stick to the guidelines. Haizum 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this comment directed at me? --Zer0faults 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be signing your comments, so no; Mr. Tibbs Haizum 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstaning me, I am not saying WMD's were a reason, the point of changing the top is because they weren't the reason. See just because the president told you XYZ doesnt mean its the actual justification, a resolution was passed in the House and Senate that laid out the reasons for going to war with Iraq [9], you can read it and see that there is over 10 reasons for why the US did in fact invade Iraq. If you would prefer I can edit the article to reflect all the reasons, however stating one reason, then stating its wrong, is pretty POV. I welcome your feedback on which you would prefer, adding all the reasons or removing all of them and covering them later in the article. I am sure we can all come to a compromise that suits everyone. For those contending that WMD's were the only reason, or the main reason, well please see here its the actual resolution authorizing war. Your feedback and others is appreciated. --Zer0faults 22:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WMDs were found in Iraq. Note that I'm not specifying how old they were or how much there was...but neither did you. Haizum 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the article is an antiwar propaganda tool. That is why there is a NPOV tag on it. Had france and Germany stuck to their signinings on UN resolutions up to the "invasion" there wouldn't be this "international outcry"...sure Saddam was going to step down, him being such a nice guy and the current indictment of him regarding crimes against humanity must be unwarranted...surely.--MONGO21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"But Saddam's Bad!!!" So what? That wasn't the cassus belli and trying to give that impression After the Fact is Untrue. Hell, the reason it wasn't the cassus belli is because there are dictators in Africa that make Saddam look like a pussycat. And that's why the US never invaded say Ethiopia to depose Meles Zenawi. And he's actually nicer than the guy he ousted: Mengistu Haile Mariam. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see HJ Res 114(PDF) for stated reasons for going to war. This is the actual resoltuion authorizing force in Iraq and states all the reasons for the US invasion. This document was made before the start of the invasion and can also be found on the Senate's official webpage, just in case any doubt is placed in its authenticity. I hope to hear back from you soon so we can possibly work to make this article NPOV. --Zer0faults 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why the hostility is taking over but I would ask people remain civil and try not to place personal attacks on me, and I will try to do the same in return. The problem is that HJ Res 114 states numerous reasons why the US is attacking Iraq, the other option would be to include every reason. Does this satisfy everyone more? I can maybe make bullets stating all the reasons listed in HJ Res 114. See the problem with the term you love to use "casus belli", is that it doesnt signify all the reasons. The actual definition of casus belli = "A circumstance or situation that causes a war." However you want to ignore all the reasons and simply state one. I will type up a new opening paragraph stating all the reasons in HJ Res 114 and we can then look over that. PS if you have something you would like to add to my stated paragraphs perhaps that would be more efficient since its very POV to ignore all the reasons going to war. --Zer0faults 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to come to a center point I have type up another paragraph to follow the one above. This paragraph lists the reasons given by the US for going to war with Iraq in the order in which they appear in HJ Res 114. This way the reasons are not ommited, yet none of they are emphasized in the beginning paragraphs any more then the others. This keeps the opening paragraph on the top very NPOV and allows for further discussion to take place in the article where it is more appropriate.

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the Willing"[4] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government. United States president George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003[10]. On December 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein was arrested in Iraq and is currently standing trial for war crimes[11][12]. The Iraq war continued however in its second phase of conflict which centers around the US efforts to establish a democracy state capable of defending itself. Since the fall of the former regime a growing armed resistance has emerged of Iraqi insurgents, and known terrorists such as Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Former interim president, Iyad Allawi, has warned that Iraq may be facing a civil war if more is not done to stop it[13].

On October 10th, 2002, the 107th Congress passed the H.J Resolution 114 titled "Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces in Iraq." The resolution pass with a vote of 77-23 in the Senate and, 296-133 in the House. The following is a summary of the reasons stated in the order in which they appear in the resolution:

• Iraq failed to "eliminate its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism."
• The US was informed by international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors of large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program and Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon then intelligence reports previously indicated.
• Iraq's violation of the cease fire by thwarting efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraqs weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities.
• Congress concluded on October 14, 1998 that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened internation peace and security.
• Iraq persists in violating United Nations Security Council resolutions by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including American servicemen.
• Iraqs willingness to and capabilities to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people.
• The presence of al-Qaida members in Iraq.
• Iraq continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations.
• The threat of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction to launch a surprise attack against United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists.

Feel free to give feedback or even offer alterations or entirely different paragraphs. Please also, I do not like being accused of attempting to hide anything, I simply want the article to have its POV tag removed by presenting things evenly and factually. I am more then flexible on the issue, we are here to improve Wikipedia with great articles. --Zer0faults 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You two really screwed up the talkpage format. The intro was NPOVed earlier: [14] The reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was WMD. No one was arguing back and forth over not wanting the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"[15] for the fun of it. You know it, I know it, just stop trying to rewrite history because there turned out to not be any WMD. Intro stays as is. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your link points to section in which the first sentence states "Agree with Publicus and Justforasecond that the article needs a lot of work but I think the major problem isn't POV." I am not sure how you consider this section as NPOV'ing the article when the person presenting the issue is stating its not a NPOV issue. --Zer0faults 00:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure what the proper procedure is with Wikipedia when someone is totally refusing to move from their opinion. May I ask why you say WMD was the only reason and negate the fact that the Resolution states otherwise? Do you not weigh the congressional resolution heavily, or is there some other reason? I noticed you linked to CNN, are you saying you favor talking points by the administration more heavily then the voting of and resolution passed by congress? Hope to hear a reply soon. --Zer0faults 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tibbs, you of all people should know that there was no one reason given before, or since. Rangeley 00:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Duh, there were secondary reasons other than WMD. And the current Intro notes that. But the fact is Bush didn't refuse to allow the inspectors to finish their job[16] because "Saddam is just too bad". He went in without giving them the time they needed because ""We're at the point where we think time is not on our side,"[17]. Colin Powell didn't wave around some photos of toasted Kurds; he waved around a fake vial of anthrax. US soldiers didn't spend 2 years scouring Iraq looking for secret prisons; They were looking for WMD. [18] Cassus belli is WMD this is an indisputable fact so I don't see any reason for me to continue argueing about it. -- Mr. Tibbs 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Where in the current intro does it state there was other reasons? "...which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world" this states the reason for invasion was WMD's, nothing else is mentioned and this is in fact wrong. I will present to you quotes that counter your arguement of WMD's soley being the reason, which you seem to leave out any link of those WMD's and terrorists but that is another story:

• "Was the attack then an imminent threat two, three, or six months before? When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat, when was it sufficiently dangerous? Now transport yourself forward ... if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, or use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and some of the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States or on U.S. forces overseas with weapons of mass destruction, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" - Donald Rumsfeld [19]
• "That our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is still developing, that there is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives, they have occurred over a span of some eight or 10 years to our knowledge, that there are currently al Qaeda in Iraq," - Donald Rumsfeld
• "Absent a dictator, absent the Saddam Hussein regime, our goal would be first to have a single country, not have a country broken up into pieces, it would be to see that it would be a country without weapons of mass destruction, a country that did not try to impose its will upon its neighbors and it was a country that was respectful of the rights of minorities and the ethnic groups that exist in the country,"-Donald Rumsfeld
• "With each missile launched at our air crews, Iraq expresses its contempt for the U.N. resolutions, a fact that must be kept in mind as their latest inspection offers are evaluated," - Donald Rumsfeld
• "We certainly have evidence of senior al Qaeda who have been in Baghdad in recent periods," - Donald Rumsfeld

I can go on but I am tired. Its not who can quote more, its a matter of what the facts are. The HJ Res 114 states the reasons for gonig to war and they are more factual then what CNN chooses to print in an article. --Zer0faults 00:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

(Quoted from Mr.Tibbs) The reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was WMD.

Doesn't that imply that the only reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was WMD? But...

(Quoted from Mr.Tibbs)Duh, there were secondary reasons other than WMD.

Doesn't that imply that there was more than one reason? Selfcontridictions are bad. Also, you're methods of debating are poor; "Duh" is generally not a positive word. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 14:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up, you keep linking to casus belli somehow insisting that there is a distinction between primary and secondary reasons for gonig to war. That however defies the definition on the wikipage you insist on linking to, it states on casus belli:

"Officially, the term refers to the grievances section of a formal Declaration of War. In this section, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort ("Ultima Ratio") and that it in fact possessed "Just Cause" for doing so."

There is no more official document for declaration of war then HJ Res 114. I do not see where you get primary and secondary as the document does not weigh the items nor specify an order of importance. I hope you are not attempting to use the term, then state that CNN is a better source then the "formal Declaration of War" is regarding reasons for going to war. --Zer0faults 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the discussion on the opening paragraph. I would like to change the following:

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the willing"[20] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world

to:

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the willing"[21] led by the United States and the United Kingdom. The reason that was most publicized for the invasion was the that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and was willing to share those weapons with terrorist organizations, use them on his own civilian population or against the United States directly.

I am trying to find a compromise still as it seems Mr. Tibbs wants WMD's to receive a majority of the spot light because he feels it was given the most attention in the news. I am trying to find a middle ground by at least expanding the reason why. The HJ Res 114 does in fact state WMD's as a reason and I have never denied that. However it goes on to state what those weapons would be used for, and I believe that is important to be included. It clarify's why Iraq would be a threat to the world. Just to state, I am not stating anything in the HJ Res 114 happened, did not happen, was truth, or not truth. I am simply stating that we cannot include what (WMD's), without explaining why(his using them on XYZ). Comments, suggestions? I would like to greatly here from you Mr. Tibbs as I am trying to reach a concensus with you, however all are welcomed to change anything give feedback etc as is Wiki policy. Thank you --Zer0faults 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its not because it got the most attention in the news. Its because WMD is the Main Reason the US invaded Iraq. Again Colin Powell didn't go to the UN and wave Osama's picture around he waved around a fake vial of Anthrax. Now I have to go back and fix the intro again. And about "Casus Belli" it's a latin phrase meaning "Occasion of War" IE the answer to the question: "Why did the US invade Iraq is WMD". -- Mr. Tibbs 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but you fail to understand what casus belli means. Please see definition above. Your CNN does not show what the reasons in the "formal declaration of war" state. Please see HJ Res 114 for the formal declaration of war. Thank you --Zer0faults 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being purposely obtuse. We are not using "Casus Belli" as a technical term, it is a latin phrase that means "Occasion of War" other latin phrases used in english would be et cetera and the like. And HJ Res is Not a declaration of War. No declaration of War was ever made for the Iraq War. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post the same thing everywhere, I will adress further concerns below in WMD section only to stop this page that is already in desperate need of archiving not explode. --Zer0faults 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if, as an outsider to this debate I can put my word in here. I considered mediating this discussion however I'd prefer just to comment and leave it at that :). I agree mostly with what Zer0faults is saying. I do not think that WM's are the ONLY reason that the US and UK went to war with Iraq, however agree it was the most publicized (in my opinion deliberately so by the governments) but that is not the same as the MAIN reason. It is also of note that HJ Res 114 is also mentiuoned urther down and the other factors of going to war hinted at. I think that focusing on WMD as the primary reason for the war is wrong. I suggest that the initial paragraph be cut down alot (as much of the information is included in the article). Specifically replacing:

"They invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction that he may distribute to terrorists, use on his own population, or against US forces, and so was a threat to the world."

With:

"They invaded Iraq for several reasons (many of which are laid out in a resolution passed by the U.S senate in 2002 - HJ Res 114) the most publicised reason beign Iraq's alleged possesion of Weapons of Mass Distruction. It was feared that such aramaments could be distributed to Terrrorist Organizations or to be used by the Iraqi Leadership to adversely dominate the middle east."

I think that would indicate that WMD's were not the only reason for going to war but that they were the most prominent.

However I think the whole of the first paragraph needs a rewrite as parts of it are a little confusing (esp. the section about HJ Res 114) and in places POV. I will have a go at doing it tomorrow and post my ideas here for your perusal. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that. It's not about publicity or press coverage. It's about the fact that the Iraq disarmament crisis set off the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. It wasn't the "Iraq Terrorism Crisis" or the "Iraq Humanitarian Crisis" it was the "Iraq Disarmament Crisis". And theres a huge problem with rewriting the intro as if the Iraq disarmament crisis never happened. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I see where you stand but you canot deny that whilst the Iraq disarmament crisis was a major reason for going to war OFICIALLY all of the reasons in HJ Res 114 are the reason. To suggest in the opening paragraph that the ONLY reason for the war was WMD's is wrong - because it simply isn't. However I agree that the emphasis needs to be on the armaments crisis because it was the reason sold to the public and the major one used to justify the invasion but it needs to acknowledge that there was at least 12 reasons for the war as well. To not do that would be biased to both parties (Iraq and the US/UK - mostly the coalition) simply because later on it is mentioned that Iraq dodint't have abnd probablty never did have substantial WMD's as per claimed making the reader feel that the Iraq war was unjustified. As a compromise pehaps the first paragraph should talk about the Development of WMD's rather than the Posession of WMD's.

And theres a huge problem with rewriting the intro as if the Iraq disarmament crisis never happened.

As to thatI think if you read my idea for revision you would see that it doesn't pretend that never hapened just acknowledge's that there are other reasons (albeit less high profile ones). Oh and also you cannot say in te paragraph that Iraq DID possess WMD's only that it was alleged he possessed them (by the US and UN) because there is no conclusive proof for or against that fact -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What if you use differentiate between reasons and public justification? I can see both points of view on this argument. One the one hand you are misrepresenting the reasons given by the adminsitration if you say WMD was the reason, but, it is true that the Bush administration very publicly made it clear that WMD was *the* issue and justification for the war, it wasn't just the media twisting what the were saying. Just a suggestio to perhaps get past the impasse. aussietiger 09:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

POV Reversions

If there are any concerns over POV please place them here so they can be discussed. Wikipedia is an amazing community and we are all here to better it. I am sure adding that "U.S. General Jay Garner" is retired is not POV pushing. I also do not see how adding your own sources back is considered POV pushing. Grammar fixing and adding other sources are also not POV pushing. I even went to the extent to keep WMD's listed, but simply adding the resolution link and that there were other causes hoping that would be a reasonable middle ground, information which is indeed factual. I ask you Mr. Tibbs that you do not continue to revery my additions, oddly enough some which were your own sources, by simply labeling a days work as POV and proceding on your way. Please come to the talk page so the issue can be discussed with the community and hopefully a middle ground or common view can be worked out. --Zer0faults 01:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's important to talk, not just revert. Who's doing the most reverting of new edits? Wombdpsw 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You can view the history for yourself. I added over 8 edits of work, some as pointed out above just simply stating a person is retired and it gets reverted as blanket POV. All I ask is that someone comes to the talk page and explains there rationale if they are going to blanket revert and call it POV. --Zer0faults 09:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You can also see that I add back the work done after my version when I revert back to mine. Such as the case with Mr. Tibbs sources and casualty figure in the infobox. --Zer0faults 10:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if, as an outsider to this debate I can put my word in here. I considered mediating this discussion however I'd prefer just to comment and leave it at that :). I agree mostly with what Zer0faults is saying. I do not think that WM's are the ONLY reason that the US and UK went to war with Iraq, however agree it was the most publicized (in my opinion deliberately so by the governments) but that is not the same as the MAIN reason. It is also of note that HJ Res 114 is also mentiuoned urther down and the other factors of going to war hinted at. I think that focusing on WMD as the primary reason for the war is wrong. I suggest that the initial paragraph be cut down alot (as much of the information is included in the article). Specifically replacing:

"They invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction that he may distribute to terrorists, use on his own population, or against US forces, and so was a threat to the world."

With:

"They invaded Iraq for several reasons (many of which are laid out in a resolution passed by the U.S senate in 2002 - HJ Res 114) the most publicised reason beign Iraq's alleged possesion of Weapons of Mass Distruction. It was feared that such aramaments could be distributed to Terrrorist Organizations or to be used by the Iraqi Leadership to adversely dominate the middle east."

I think that would indicate that WMD's were not the only reason for going to war but that they were the most prominent.

However I think the whole of the first paragraph needs a rewrite as parts of it are a little confusing (esp. the section about HJ Res 114) and in places POV. I will have a go at doing it tomorrow and post my ideas here for your perusal. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WMD's

While it is true that very little in the manner of WMD material was captured from the Iraq 2003 invasion, we cannot argue that this "proves" no WMD existed in the run up to the invasion. There is considerable information on the web that seems to indicate that the WMDs were evacuated during the run up to the war. Now, whether or not the USA knew this, is open to debate. But we must take into account this perspective too. Here's what I found:

• See key findings of Saddam's "Regime Strategic Intent", on the CIA's official web site, here.

• "[Saddam's] lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

• "Saddam recognized that the reconstitution of Iraqi WMD enhanced both his security and image. Consequently, Saddam needed to end UN-imposed sanctions to fulfill his goals."

• "Senior Iraqis—several of them from the Regime’s inner circle—told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended."

The "key findings" are part of the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, 30 September 2004, all of which can be found here.

• Also, read this:

• "David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria."

• And this:

• "It has been confirmed that the Iraqi weapons which were smuggled into Syria through the intermediary of Colonel Zu Alhima Shalish are now located in three different places..."

• And this:

• "The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there."

• And this:

• "A former Iraqi general alleges that in June 2002 Saddam Hussein transported weapons of mass destruction out of the country to Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims."

• And this:

• "An Iraqi scientist also led Coalition forces to hidden stockpiles of precursor chemicals that could be used to make chemical and biological weapons. The scientist said some facilities and weapons were destroyed, and the rest were sent to Syria. Syrian defectors are also claiming that Syria is where the weapons are..."

• And this:

• "David Kay, who recently resigned as leader of a U.S. weapons search team in Iraq, said part of captive president Saddam Hussein's weapons program was hidden in Syria, a report in Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper said today. Kay was reported to have said he had uncovered evidence unspecified materials were moved to Syria shortly before last year's U.S. invasion of Iraq."

• And finally, this:

• "The great mystery of the 2003 war in Iraq - "What about the WMD?" has finally been resolved. The short answer is: Saddam Hussein's persistent record of lying meant no one believed him when he at the last moment actually removed the weapons of mass destruction."

Wombdpsw 08:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

hahaha. You can't prove the absence of WMD. Its the same problem Saddam had. You only have to find one weapoin to prove they are there, but it doesnt matter how much lack of evidence you find, you can never prove they arent. The suggestion that Saddam would send his weapons to Syria is funny too and you can't prove that never happened either. But Iraq and Syria weren't exactly friends. Do you think the USA would send its nukes to Mexico or Haiti or Cuba if they wanted to hide them?!

The debate about WMD's existence is over: "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."-[22] No WMD's were ever "evacuated". The intelligence was simply wrong. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And again Zero, there'd be no reason to even make that speech at all if the main reason for the invasion was Not WMD. Bush never made a speech taking responsibility for the unmanned aerial drones they claimed Saddam had before the war began,[23] because it was just a secondary reason. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It was never a reason actually, if you would read HJ Res 114 you would see UAV are not listed at all. Please read over casus belli and read HJ Res 114(PDF) to see the formal declaration of war and reasons listed, or casus belli.

Again HJ Res 114 is NOT a declaration of war. War was Never formally declared against Iraq just like it never was against Vietnam. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your arguement fails to prove you are correctly using the term casus belli. You are either stating there was no declaration of war, which Authorization to Use Force in Iraq is pretty close a declaration as nations do not sign documents anymore saying "I am at war with you." HJ Res 114 is also the document the masses vote on. In the United States the House and Senate members are elected to vote on laws rulings and resolutions by the people for them, the votes passed and the 107th Congress passed HJ Res 114, which is used by the president of the United States as his reasons for gonig to war. CNN does not determine the casus belli the government does. Please read casus belli. --Zer0faults 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to make an arguement to prove that "casus belli" is a latin phrase meaning "Occasion of War" it says it right on the casus belli article. And Of course there was no Declaration of War on Iraq! The US hasn't made a formal declaration of War since World War 2. Again, HJ RES 114 is Not the be all and end all. More than that the "Whereas" sections in HJ RES 114 are NOT reasons for invading Iraq, many of them simply describe the situation. Again you are being purposely obtuse so you can editwar your POV into the article. Stop it. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. I am taking the day off from the talk page to addres your concerns as you have resorted to personal attacks. I will see you tomorrow and maybe you will be more willing to come to a concensus. --Zer0faults 20:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks. However I have ceased to assume good faith and realize full well what you are doing. Which is Purposely being obtuse about "casus belli" a term that I readded to the article in the first place. And Purposely distorting what HJ Res 114 is. And it's sad that I have to cease assuming good faith, but assume good faith does not mean "bend over". -- Mr. Tibbs 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is sad that you have come to feel that way considering the whole section above this one is an attempt to come to a middle ground with you, including leaving in WMD's but stating there was other reasons, which you show down without stating why. I am going to add this page to the mediation cabal as its clear there is "tension" brewing and perhaps a 3rd party can help not only settle things down but resume your "good faith" in my attentions. However I ask you stop reffering to me as obtuse, as its an insult. Definition below, if you were not aware of its meaning however a simple apology is all I ask.

#Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

1. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
2. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.

--Zer0faults 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro with "casus belli" in it does state that there are other reasons, it just makes it clear that they are not the main reason. And I never referred to you as obtuse, I stated you are "Purposely being obtuse". If you're fishing for compliments I think that such a ruse is pretty clever actually. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wont get into the semantics of what I view as an insult and your framing of the terms. I will however state you are linking to a term that goes against its use as you are putting it. Also above in 1 of the three paragraphs I attempted to find a middle ground with you on, I stated ist the most popular reason, you never even commented on this version. You keep wanting to state casus belli, however you only want to state one reason instead of all the reasons. I find this to be POV as only one of the reasons listed in the resolution authorizing war is then wrong, but if the resolution is hidden and WMD's is highlited and stated as the reason. This makes it appear then that "all", even though its only one according to the paragraph (WMD's), of the reasons for gonig to war were false. I thought the above paragraph where I listed all the reasons as they appear in the resolution was a good paragraph, but you did not like that one either because it did not highlight WMD's. I see you search on CNN alot so please go there and search for no-fly zone then list by date and see how often Rumsfeld said the Iraqi's failed to respect the no-fly zone. Unfortunatly I can't say that was the "Occassion for War", even though the US did go in front of the UN and complain about Iraqi AA systems locking onto US planes. My point, what CNN chooses to pay most attention to does not become the sole occassion for war, as the articles on the no-fly point out. --Zer0faults 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am gonig to adress this as I see you view it. You believe that HJ Res 114 is not an adequate determination of casus belli because its not the "official declaration of war" even though its the closest official document available. You state you feel that since Powell went before the UN to state the claim and highlighted WMD's that it has then become the "occassion of war." I take this to mean you feel the arguement made in front of the United Nations is to be weighed more then the document used by the US to justify to its people the reason for going to war. If this is in fact the case as you see it, then i ask you consider the following [24] [25] They are both links from CNN as you yourself have cited sources from them I do not see it being a credibility issue. The first article is a summary of the official transcript which is the second link. This is United States President George W. Bush speaking in front of the United Nations Security Council stating his reasons for going to war. I am sure if you would weigh Powell's speach in front of the UN more heavily then the HJ Res 114, that you would then weigh President Bush's official speech declaring his reasons for war, even greater then Powell's singular arguement. Just to sumarize, this means that HJ Res 114, and President Bush himself have both cited more then WMD's as the casus belli for going to war, both to the people of the country which he represents and to the world by appearing in front of the UN. I hope you read the entire transcript if possible, and I await your reply. Thank you --Zer0faults 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever even actually read HJ Res 114? First of all HJ Res 114 is Not the closest thing to an official declaration of war. That would be the ultimatum by Bush: [26][27] Which was originally sourced as to what the casus belli was. Those offical statements make it very clear Why the US is invading Iraq: "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." Again, the "Whereas" sections are Not reasons for the invasion, they are a summary of the situation. These are the sections that are actual authorizations: - Mr. Tibbs 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council

resolutions regarding Iraq."- [28] - Mr. Tibbs 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again this makes it very clear that the issue is WMD and the UN resolutions Regarding those WMDs. - Mr. Tibbs 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I am not sure what you are replying to anymore. I linked you what Bush said in front of the UN. Can you please help me understand why you are quoting HJ Res 114 for? --Zer0faults 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you stopped reading too early, please see the below:

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--

(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers

Resolution.

Now see 8(a)(1) of War Powers Act:

SEC. 8. (a)

Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1)

from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution

It also cites section 5(b):

SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Seeing as HJ Res 114, "specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities" It is obvious this resolution fulfills the War Powers Act. Seems you stopped short of the important parts ... Also what you quoted states that Congress has stated in HJ Res 114 "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary" the reasons which are stated above are those reasons. IT seems as though you made the argument for me that in fact HJ Res 114's stated reasons are in fact that casus belli, all of them, as HJ Res 114 fulfills the role of Section 8 (a)(1) of the War Powers Act of 1973.

You keep stating talking points in press releases and CNN interpretation and explaination of what things mean. I am giving you the transcript of the actual speech Bush had in front of the UN, something you totally ignored, and the actual HJ Res 114 and now The War Powers Act of 1973 --Zer0faults 22:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Further: Sec 3 Authorization for use of United States Armed Forces (a)Authorization (2) "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

That includes the following 661 (1990) 678 (1990) 686 (1991) 687 (1991) 688 (1991) 707 (1991) 715 (1991) 986 (1995) 1284 (1999) 1382 (2001)

All those resolutions were broken by Saddam, all of those the US can enforce. Further more Resolution 1441 states the following in Paragraph 4:

"Recalling that its resolution 678 authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660"

On top of that Resolution 1441 gave Iraq 30 days from the date of its passing, November 11, 2002 to comply fully by disclosing all of its documents, something it failed to do ... --Zer0faults 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also see Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States as to what a Declaration of War is, and how a Congressional Resolution has been used to fulfill the War Powers Act before. It gives a history of it and Congress passed the War Powers Act to fill a formal declarations of wars role. --Zer0faults 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, The "Whereas" sections are not a list of reasons to go to war with Iraq. Is this: "Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism"[29]: a reason to invade Iraq? No. "Whereas" means "inasmuch as", or "it being the fact that". It does not mean "We are invading Iraq because..."; You should know that because HJ Res 114 was made in October 2002 about 6 months before the invasion. How could HJ Res 114 be saying Why the US is invading Iraq when the invasion is 6 months away? What happened between HJ Res 114 and the invasion according to Bush: "The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament."[30] Again, it should be clear why the US is invading Iraq.

Even if it was a list of reasons to invade Iraq 10 of the total 24 "Whereas"'s are about WMD and another 6 are just "Whereas"'s stating that the President has the authority to do so-and-so. This is just like when you tried to argue "casus belli" is a specific technical term instead of just a latin phrase. I seperate out what exactly HJ Res 114 authorizes and Why: "to enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"[31] (IE this part "Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.....to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991),"). And you come back with "You just proved my point that HJ Res 114 really is a declaration of war! You should read Declaration of War!". When I just pointed out to you that the US hasn't declared war since WW2 and that the closest thing to a declaration of war is this Ultimatum: [32] and the subsequent follow-up: [33], the day of the invasion. Simply put, the preamble of an authorization to use force 6 months before an invasion is not a list of reasons to invade Iraq. And an ultimatum and follow-up is as close to an official declaration of war that the Iraq War got. [34][35] -- Mr. Tibbs 02:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to adress your points as I find them:

1)The "Whereas" sections are not a list of reasons to go to war with Iraq

Where you see the statement "Whereas" these are what are called "finding of fact." The government is stating that following statements are considered facts by itself. It is saying basically that Congress has reviewed the evidence and finds these to be true. You understand this I see because you refer to them yourself as "it being the fact that." Legal documents do not simply say "I am attacking you because XYZ." Whereas statements, findings of facts is the way in which Congress states what it has found to be factual.

2)You should know that because HJ Res 114 was made in October 2002

This is in fact correct. This is why I pasted the part pertaining to the War Powers Act of 1973. In HJ Res 114 Congress included below the part you pasted. I want you to take notice of the part pertaining to SECTION 5(b). First I will paste the part of HJ Res 114, then below the War Powers Act of 1973, so you can understand the timing issue. HJ Res 114 calls SECTION 5(b) of the War Powers Act of 1973 because that section in the War Powers Act states that Congress can extend the ruling every 60 days or the president can end the ruling if he chooses before 60 days. HJ Res 114 does not have a time limit in that it can be extended in definatly as long as Congress agrees.

HJ Res 114
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--

(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers

Resolution.

War Powers Act of 1973
SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

3)Even if it was a list of reasons to invade Iraq 10 of the total 24 "Whereas"'s are about WMD and another 6 are just "Whereas"'s stating that the President has the authority to do so-and-so

I decided to do a talley since you simply contending that most of the entries reffer to WMD's. I took entries regarding the following categories: WMD, Kuwait (persian gulf neighbors), POW's, Terrorism, Human Rights, Threat to US. Of those 2 related to Human Rights violations, 9 related to WMD's, 12 related to terrorism, 5 to Persian Gulf safety, 1 to POW's, and 2 to direct threats to the US. So terrorism and WMD's actually get about equal mention, with terrorism actually coming slightly ahead. I fear in your counting if it said WMD's and another reason, you simply counted it as WMD's. So your official count actually quite a spectrum of reasons

4)"to enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

This section is titled "SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS" and you highlight it without going further where it states in the section titled "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES" where it states

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and

appropriate in order to--(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

If you read Resolution 1441 you would see one of the first thing it states is:

"Recalling that its resolution 678 authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660"

Resolution 678 does not say the United Nations Security Council needs to be consulted. It says all "Member States" are authorized to use "all necessary means" to uphold that resolution. Furthermore unlike HJ Res 114 which directs to the War Powers Act of 1973 extending its valid time, Resolution 1441 states its only valid for 30 days and after those 30 days they will meet again, however 3 nations decided before they met again that they would not vote for more resolutions. In effect when the United States went to war they were in fact not under the guidance of Res 1441 as its time had expired. The resolution was made on Nov 8th and expired Dec 8th.

5)Simply put, the preamble of an authorization to use force 6 months before an invasion is not a list of reasons to invade Iraq. And an ultimatum and follow-up is as close to an official declaration of war that the Iraq War got.

Unfortunatly if you look at the article declaration of war you would see that they are not given verbally. Furthermore you will see that on that same article that Congress has in fact replaced "Declaration of War" documents with "Joint Resolutions." No nation has actually used a "formal declaration of war" since the close of WW2, not just the US, nations do not declare war in that fashion anymore. The real issue however is your claim keeps changing, first it was Powell in front of the UN as that is telling the world the reasons. I then give you a link here to Bush speaking in front of the UN stating his reasons for war, and you now change your standard for determining "declaration of war." However I have already covered that a press release is not a declaration of war. Just to finalize this point the section of Wikipedia for declaration of war states the following in regard to "Authorization of Force":

Frequently used as an alternative to a declaration of war, authorized use of force is often used to avoid traditional barriers to the initiation of combat. Typically a full declaration must be ratified by various legislative bodies, but 'authorized use of force' may allow an elected head of state to directly initiate forceful action without further consultation. In addition, with declarations of war being increasingly regulated by international bodies, 'authorized use of force' can often be used to avoid some of the negative consequences of a declaration. Authorized use of force is relatively common among democratic societies. The United States, for instance, has been directly involved in military activities in every decade of the latter half of the twentieth century yet has not declared war formally since World War II.

Please let me know if I missed any of your concerns or if you have further ones I can answer. --Zer0faults 03:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are now talking about the legal justification for war. Between the resolution authorising members sates to use force against iraq and the resolution 1441 that the 'Coalition of the Willing' use as legal justification of the war, there is the resolution detailing the 'ceasefire' placing obligations on iraq and arguably on member states. The nations that passed the resolutions themselves disagree on their meaning and interpretation... Goodness. Given the state of interenational law, the greatest legal minds in the world could argue this one either way for decades. Such a discussion is beyond the scope of a encyclopedia article. aussietiger 10:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

This talk page badly needs to be archived. 230 KB. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I support archiving I guess certain discussions can just be brought up again such as working to NPOV this article. --Zer0faults 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding failed security council resolution

I am having a bit of trouble understanding the change made to the second paragraph stating:

"After the failure to get a United Nations Security Council resolution supporting military action against Iraq"

Can anyone confirm a second resolution was ever voted on after Res 1141. I am seeing by a search that the next resolution voted on was "Security Council resolution 1443 (2002) [on extension of humanitarian programme for Iraq]" which had nothing to do with asking for war. You can see a listing of its resolutions relating to Iraq by going here and specifying your search criteria. Perhaps I missed something, can the user who added the changes please specify if you have a link to a resolution I may be missing. Thank you --Zer0faults 15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As the US and UK already knew from the bugs they had placed in their fellow council members' offices - and as everyone could know from the press - the resolution had no chance to pass and was thus withdrawn. Añoranza 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That means it is inaccurate to claim the resolution failed. --Tbeatty 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A resolution withdrawn due to obvious hopelessness to get it passed has failed. But even if you disagree, the text does not say the resolution failed. The text says the US failed to get a resolution, which is definitely correct. Añoranza 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Its false, you can't fail to get something you didnt ask for. If you look up the history at the UN website, no resolution was in fact ever asked for or voted on. --Zer0faults 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn resolutions carry the #, so provide it and you will convince us that a resolution was asked for. Right now you are going against the concensus here that a resolution was ever asked for and are not citing a source regarding it. --Zer0faults 01:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You have 24 hours to provide a source, the prelude section says Powell went before the UN, not that a resolution was put forward. Resolutions are documents a member nation submits and gets voted on. Its not simply asking for something. So if such a resolution exists as you claim it will have a resolution # after 1441 and before 1445. Please state it and link to the UN website. Else I am afraid you are mistaken. PS even withdrawn resolutions would carry a #. --Zer0faults 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just look at our own article if you do not know what everyone could get from the media: Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003 February 25. Why not just look it up instead of starting an edit war? Añoranza 01:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources, you cannot use wikipedia articles to justify wikipedia articles without further sources WP:Cite. Please provide a security council resolution number. Thank you --Zer0faults 01:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be bitchy, just google for it. Everyone knows they tried to get a resolution. Añoranza 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ten seconds, first one was on the previous resolution: [36] Añoranza 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong resolution. November 6th is the date there. That is resolution 1441 which was later passed on November 8th. --Zer0faults 02:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop throwing out links and read them. That article is saying Russia will veto any resolution, does not say a resolution was voted on or withdrawn. Once again please cite your sources as per WP:CITE. --Zer0faults 02:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure, Russia just said so for fun, there actually was no resolution they wanted to veto, they just wanted to point out that they had the right to veto if there was one. Why do you edit articles on topics you do not even know the most basic facts about? [37]Añoranza 02:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again your cite does not list a resolution that was voted on or withdrawn instead it cites that a resolution was once in its early form as a draft. Also France after the first resolution said they would not support further resolutions, before talk of a 2nd one existed. Russia was simply stating they would not support further action by the UN SC. Please cite the resolution number or an article stating what the UN SC vote was. --Zer0faults 02:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero, just stop the ludicrous endless argueing especially given that you know full well what Anon is talking about. If the US hadn't been attempting to get UN endorsement for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Powell never would have even bothered to attempt to persuade them. [38] -- Mr. Tibbs 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you are in fact siding with me that what Anoranza is writing is factually incorrect and also are admitting no resolution was ever asked for or voted on or withdrawn. Hence the resolution could not have failed. If Anoranza wants to contend that one was withdrawn they can point out the Resolution # which is searchable via the UN website so it can be confirmed and cited. If they want to contend it was failed, then we need a Resolution # that states the votes in opposition. Please read WP:CITE We cannot simply use other wikipedia articles that also do not cite sources. --Zer0faults 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See source: [39]. And no not every single sentence in an article needs to be sourced. Many should be common-sense or self-evident or at least should be to most people. -- Mr. Tibbs 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making a substantial claim that can be seen to be in contention, it should be sourced. Furthermore your link doesnt state that a resolution was put before the security council or was withdrawn. Please read sources before submitting them as citations. Please provide a Resolution # if you as well feel the resolution was withdrawn or voted against so we can cross reference it with all the resolutions on the UN website to confirm its legitimacy. --Zer0faults 03:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"U.S. and British officials said they believe the resolution may get the necessary votes and avoid a veto. For the resolution to pass, nine votes are needed. Only four appear guaranteed: the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Permanent Security Council members France, Russia and China could veto the proposal. With Germany and Syria siding with those opposed to the resolution, much attention is being focused on the remaining six council members: Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan. All non-permanent members, they're being called the "undecided 6" or "U-6" in U.N. circles."[40]. Pretty clear what happened, they failed to get enough votes to make a resolution. Please read sources before commenting on them. -- Mr. Tibbs 03:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read up on what a resolution is and the process in which it takes in the United Nations. Resolutions are not "made" depending on votes. They are documents put before the United Nations for votes, when that document is put before the UN for voting it is given a number a designation. If this document wa sput before the UN then it has a number, please provide the number and not a million CNN articles that also do not provide a number and instead elude that a document may exist, may be in a draft form, may be still in its working stages, still being negotiated etc. --Zer0faults 03:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You got the link to the text above, if you still don't stop the only thing you can prove is that you are ignorant and not interested in improving the article. You were already told that the resolution was not voted on because it was clear it would not get a majority. The text does not say anywhere that the resolution was voted on or officially withdrawn. Now stop it and apologize. Añoranza 08:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi military deaths?

I think an estimate of Iraqi military deaths would be appropriate on this page.

Sourcing

Some sourcing is very poor. For example, this statement:

Critics cite the press coverage of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat they posed both in Iraqi regime hands, as well as terrorist hands, as being the sole reason given to the public.[41][42]]

The two sources are White House press releases. The last time I checked, the White House is not a critic of the policy and therefore can't be used as a source for "Critics." There are others like this that put Wikipeida readers in the role of "critic" by using primary sources. If you see this please try to find the secondary source that publised the primary sources views. If a suitable source can't be found, the claims should be withdrawn.--Tbeatty 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Those hyperlinks were used to source a previous form of the intro: [43] But Zer0faults had a problem with that old version of the intro and started pushing a different intro claiming that WMD were not the main reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. And so all the sources are screwed up and I've been trying to restore the original intro ever since. Also dealing with a mediation request about this. [44] -- Mr. Tibbs 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reduced scope and scale is accurate

Scope and scale is not related to casualites but related to sorties and combat patrols. The Fallujah operation was on the order of the scope and scale of the invasion. Normal day to day combat patrols, combat air sorties and combat recon is way down. Also, it is inaccurate to say the resolutions "failed". 1441 passed and was the basis for the invasion. If you can find the resolution that was withdrawn, that would be acceptable to characterize it as withdrawn. --Tbeatty 02:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I too would accept it as withdrawn if a Resolution # can be provided so it can be cross references with the UN website and cited. --Zer0faults 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree its reduced size and scope, casualties have gone down on a day by day basis. I would think it would be obvious that comparing 3 days of war to 3 years of occupation that the total deaths would be higher during the occupation, but the number of casualties daily has gone down. I will try to find a source for this however Monday or perhaps before. --Zer0faults 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Scope and scale clearly refers focus and magnitude of military engagements, not culmulative, to-date casualties. These are well known terms and there need not be confusion on these points. Wombdpsw 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Casus belli

This maybe interesting:

If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[45]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)