Talk:Iraq War

If Iraq War is a redirect to Iraq War (disambiguation) why does Iraq War (disambiguation) exist? Why isn't the disambiguation page here? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Move

Excellent idea to make the move, whoever it was. -St|eve 08:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraq war discussion

This conversation was on originally found on the Reference Desk and moved here. --HappyCamper 11:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. AlMac|^(talk) 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello does anyone know when it will end? --Newsreporter 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I'am being serious.

Don't hold your breath; as long as there are US troops there, there will be armed resistance, and as long as there is armed resistance the troops will stay - because 'withdrawal from Iraq would lead to civil war' etc. David Sneek 19:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't the Iraqi people try and get along? Shities, Sunni's and Kurds all fighting over what? --Newsreporter 19:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes they could. Under Saddam Hussein's rule, apparently. However bad, Saddam kept a major part of Iraq under control. His abrupt removal created a power vacuum inside Iraq which becomes ever incrasingly deadly. So far I see no light at the end of the tunnel.

You may overthrow a bad leader, but you have to make sure you can install a better replacement in that country. Without such a replacement, there will be chaos. This holds true even in the Western world. See how the U.S. ended its own civil war. The North did not send its own people to rule the South. -- Toytoy 01:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Power vacuum is great way of describing the problem. It is similar to the end of communism in Central Europe, Europe's colonies in the 3rd world. collapse of Roman Empire, South American revolutions. When prior leadership had been cruel dictatorship with zero education for the people in any kind of self-government, removal of that prior leadership means chaos results.

There's also element of conflict between the different interest groups competing for the new leadership. In the Middle East especially, and we see this with the Palestinians, there is low concept of religious tolerance for those of other belief systems, and there are players opposed to any peace process ... if there is any progress, they will do extra bad attacks to derail it.

There's also border states with great interest in trying to influence the outcome, so the new government is similar to theirs and buddy buddy to them. AlMac|^(talk) 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This war could go on indefinitely.

This is a poor place to have this kind of discussion, we can get in an edit war by accident.

Wars between states have historically ended when one side is defeated, capitulates, surrenders, or when both sides agree to, and abide by, a cease fire (eg. the Korean War has not officially ended, but thanks to the cease fire has ended in reality, but could start up again at any time.)

But this is not a war with only two sides, and is not a war between states.

It has similarities to a revolution in which the rebels are not yet a recognized government, but vast numbers of foreign fighters are involved.

It has elements of a religious war, which we know from our study of history, have often lasted for centuries. If you have read bin Laden's open letters to the west, you can see that his side thinks this war started at the time of the Crusades, like a millenia ago, and they won't quit until 100% of the world has either converted to their religious beliefs, or are dead, which will be a cold day in hell. AlMac|^(talk) 20:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam is it really going to be like that? --Newsreporter 20:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I guess Vietnam was bad. Plus there is a lot of protesters around anyway like that woman that was staying near Crawford Texas. --Newsreporter 20:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam was SIMPLE compared to what is going on in Iraq. AlMac|^(talk) 20:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it that the Shities don't want the Sunni's and the Kurd's or what is the main reason for the invasion? --Newsreporter 20:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Saddam Hussein was classified as a dictator but the americans have him why don't they leave?

These questions are very difficult to answer thoroughly, and I suspect are somewhat beyond the capabilities of the reference desk here. Have you considered contacting a historian or a librarian who specializes in Middle Eastern studies? These people will be familiar with this topic, and will help guide you towards finding the resources which will fit with your interests and help answer your questions. --HappyCamper 23:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Or start with our Iraq war article, follow the links to further articles, and you could look at the BBC special report or the Guardian's Iraq hub which will give you a politically leftist slant. --bodnotbod 00:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Almac... the war in Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Vietnam. From 1965 to 1972, over FOUR MILLION Vietnamese CIVILIANS died. The death toll of Americans was over 250,000, and the North Vietnamese suffered military deaths in excess a million. Iraq is NOWHERE near Vietnam. Really, if we're being technical, the war is over. What's happening now is no more warlike than the race riots in America during the 60's, except it's prolonged. Prolonged volatile behavior is clearly different than a war.

The death toll is a different topic than explaining what the people are fighting over. WW II was simpler to explain, but the death toll much higher. Plus War in Vietnam started (with France) long before the American involvement which started only after France lost, and there was an international effort to manage the aftermath, which America did not get involved with. Before that, during WW II, the various 3rd world countries, that had been European colonies, were promised their independence after WW II if they helped the allies side in WW II, and it was the violation of that promise that really started the Vietnam war. AlMac|^(talk) 15:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

On the matter of Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. Kurds... the Kurds want their own country, or a very seperate state, in the North of Iraq. They've wanted that for decades, actually. The Shiites want to be in charge of the country, more or less (a reasonable desire, given that they're easily the most populous group). The Sunni's also want to be in charge, and have subsequently boycotted the elections. The Americans don't want to leave until the Iraqi Army is built up enough to prevent some rogue dictator from pulling a Saddam and taking over the country. Unfortunately, the Islam militants don't realize that.

well there's some interesting parallels to World War 2. Saddam was a fascist who gassed and relocated his own people in addition to attacking his neighbors. But he never directly attacked us and arguably never could have, though he declared Jihad and occasionally took potshots at our planes. And we entered a war with him as part of a war with someone else who did actually attack US soil. Oh plus his military had WW2 era weapons... keith 15:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Saddam never declard Jihad. The Baath Party is largely secular and large opponents of islamists. --Howrealisreal 15:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

...I'm pretty sure he declared Jihad in at least his last three wars. Against, at various times, the US, Israel, all westerners, and Kuwait. Whether he is/was sincere in his religion is not the point. keith 19:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Please re-check your facts and if you do find that it is correct, please post it here cause I'd be very curious to see that. He might've called for his followers to war against the US, but that is very different from Jihad. --Howrealisreal 00:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My facts come from my memory off the news, dating back to pre-internet days (not this crap people cite off fringe internet sites nowadays), but here's a few results from a bbc search of 'saddam + jihad' [1] [2] [3] keith 02:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Good researching and I'm sorry for doubting you. It seemed very strange at first but I guess nothing is strange these days. --Howrealisreal 03:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Do remember how close Bush came to declaring a Crusade. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Trying to answer another question from Newsreporter ... Conflicts between Shites Sunnis Kurds, and other big groups in Iraq, such as organized crime which flourished under Saddam, all this is independent of the stated reasons for America invasion of Iraq. However, prior to the invasion, various Iraqi interest groups who wanted Saddam out, but did not have what it takes to get rid of him themselves, they allegedly conspired to feed phony intelligence to America, and to other nations, such as about WMD, in hopes of America invasion to oust Saddam, or some other equivalent results. So indirectly, conflicts between different groups in Iraq, could be said to have contributed to why the invasion occurred.

America cannot be policeman to the world, orchestrating regime change any place desired, such as North Korea. There has to be something to persuade Congress and Allies and UN that intervention is justfied. Look at Cuba. Many US administrations have wanted regime change there, America has the might to orchestrate it, but lacks the justification for invasion. AlMac|^(talk) 07:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

A government is legitimate only to the extent that it protects individual rights rather than violates them. Accordingly the US needed no further justification to overthrow either Saddam or Castro. It is racist to suggest that Saddam and Castro have a right to oppress "their" people and the US doesn't. The concept that nations have sovereignty rights that prevent anyone from coming to the aid of any individual whose rights are being violated, is a fascist lie promulgated by the United Nations. Nations do not own individuals.--Silverback 09:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the Iraqi people would have had the revolutionary right (though, sadly, not the means) to overthrow the Saddam regime; of course, a lot of them feel they have that same right (and more effective means) to overthrow the one the U.S. and Coalition have installed, hence the present insurgency. However, there is no principle under international law by which a power from half way around the world has the right unilaterally to topple a regime because the latter is, in the former's judgement, unjust. And to declare such a principle would be an invitation for any country to invade any other country at any time, using this as a pretext. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I have no respect for international law that recognizes the sovereignty of dictators, in the first Gulf War that was UN sanctioned, Bush's "New World Order" appeared to mean that Saddam had a right to oppress Iraqis, but not Kuwaitis. That is a moral abomination. The only "right" a government has to oppress is the right of "might". Intrinsic to fascism and nationalism is the view that the state is an organic entity with "rights" rather than as an institution to protect individual rights. Why can't you come out say that Saddam was unjust, instead of qualifying it as the "former's judgement", are you a moral relativist? The ethos of recognizing national sovereignties is miss guided, we would do better to recognized individual rights and freedom from oppression. If this ethos were wide spread, then your fear of one nation invading another would be much less, and when it happened would have much less impact. The individuals in the nation with the dictator would recognize that they have no moral right to resist liberation. And an agressor nation would be recognized early because with individuals that know their rights, they would have to conscript which would bring them to the attention of the freedom loving world much sooner.--Silverback 06:13, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

My own opinion of Saddam, and the war, and all that? Seems off topic, but since you ask…

First and foremost, I don't believe in "go[ing] abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

Saddam was well beyond "unjust". I can honestly say that I attended at least one public protest against him clear back when the U.S. was treating him more or less as an ally, and was emphatic during the period leading up to the Gulf War about the importance of those of us who were protesting U.S. a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq to be equally clear about protesting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But the U.S. has also taken the same view of Castro (who I'm not exactly a fan of, but certainly think is a better option for Cuba than a U.S. invasion) and lately Hugo Chavez (an elected leader who clearly has the support of the majority of voters in his country). And Iran has taken the same view of the U.S.: would they be justified in trying to topple our government? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but numbers don't create the right to oppress, a majority has no more right to oppress than a single dictator. I was an opponent of the first gulf war also, the United Nations targeted innocent Iraqi conscripts killing over 100,000, and targeted civilian infrastructure, but the purity of US intent and means in the latest Gulf War means it can probably only be opposed by a true pacifist without hypocrisy. And yes, the drug war leaves the US government without moral legitimacy against an invader who would grant chemical freedom. And if the Palestinians would end conscription and do a better job protecting Israeli citizens, they would have every right to invade Israel, and Israel would have no right to resist. Unfortunately, none of this is likely or practical. Hopefully, you don't think of dictators and oppresive states or cultures as things we need to preserve as if they were endangered species.--Silverback 08:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Preserve? Not at all. But to put this in terms from our (U.S.) Declaration of Independence, it is a long way from "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it" to "it is the right of a powerful army from halfway around the world to alter or abolish it." -- Jmabel | Talk 23:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, a "right" isn't needed to liberate Iraq. Saddam did not need a right to oppress Iraq, I don't see why the standard for liberation should be higher. In fact, I believe a good case can be made that the standard for liberation should be lower.--Silverback 05:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

well I'm not a lawyer, but I do know international law can not supercede states' internal laws, which undoubtedly will prohibit the exercise of the "revolutionary right". so your alternate remedy is also illegal for that matter. keith 19:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Move back to Iraq War from 2003 Iraq conflict

I moved this article back to Iraq War, because the conflict which the article covers is ongoing and did not take place exclusively in 2003. The initial invasion, which did take place only in 2003, has its own article at 2003 invasion of Iraq. This article is meant to cover both that initial invasion and the subsequent fighting. Canoeguy81 18:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Undercover Soldier" seems POV

Concerning the UK detainees recently held by Iraqi police, if they weren't in uniform or carrying their weapons openly, then they aren't protected as soldiers under the Geneva Conventions. These are the same standards used by the US and UK to classify their enemies as "unlawful combattants." For the sake of conformity, at least, the same language used to describe the insurgency should be used to describe these two ("British fighters," "British agents," etc.). Maybe "members of the British military." David Iwancio 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam war wasn't as simple

I don't think you can compare Vietnam war to Iraqi war. Also remember that in Veitnam the US had thier ass kicked. We must not forget that the Vietnam war was mainly battling against communism and Iraqi is mainly gaining petrol.