Talk:Opposition to the Iraq War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Opposition to the Iraq War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Anti-war Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Iraq

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The NEW Iraq constitution

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

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

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

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

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

Merge

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

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

Support for the Iraq insergency

This article could do with some discusion about the debate that has gone on in the anti-war movment about what they consider the correct carecterisation of the Iraqi insurgency and about whether the anti-war movement should support it. For example [1].--JK the unwise 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly. I have a fair number of sources bookmarked; I'll add a section later today. Kalkin 16:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's a little long, maybe. What do you think? Kalkin 19:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the approach taken in this article. The headline seems to assert that the anti-war movement supports the Iraqi insurgency by default. It is reasonable to have a section about the place of the insurgency in anti-war lexicon and the anti-war movement as a whole, but I believe the semantics of this section are, problematic to say the least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.52.69 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WMD's

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

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

Link to unbalanced site

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

Cindy Sheehan

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

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

Criticism of the Iraq war by US officials

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

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

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

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

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

Resistance/insurgency

I have changed the title of the Iraqi "resistance" to "resistance and insurgency" to reflect a more NPOV. Also, the section says:

"The most virulent divide has been about whether to support the insurgency. None of the major Western antiwar organizations, such as United for Peace and Justice, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, and the Stop the War Coalition, have officially taken a stance on this subject."

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

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

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

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

Article should be retitled

This article should be retitled to reflect the fact that these people primarily oppose U.S. Involvement and not Saddam, the militias, or the car-bombers (or if they do, not as much as U.S. involvement). 65.185.190.240 01:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Speaking as someone active in the opposition to the Iraq War, and also someone who was opposed to Saddam clear back when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking his hand, I'm duly appalled by the violence by the militias and the car-bombers but (as far as I know) they are not using my tax dollars or recruiting in nearby high schools. - Jmabel | Talk 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be one view, I urge you to take another. Do you think mothers and father and children would rather have a leader who kills his own people and people who drive cars into buildings and blow it up then The United States step in with good men atleast trying to abolish the frightening atmosphere that is there. I laughed when i read that first edit. Sure some bad people don't want us there. But if i was living there not knowing if a car would ram into my living room loaded with exploses id be very happy of a third party stepping in and trying to end that. However i do respect the fact that some do oppose US Involvement. And JMABEL, i cannot believe how ignorant that is. Because they are not using your tax dollars?!!?! How selfish and ignorant can you be? Like I've said there are little children there scared out of their minds and swimming in poverty. And Your sitting over here in the United States saying "Not my problem". well It is Cause and Effect Look it up. We study events around the world for the same reasons study history so we know how to prepare when it happens again, and we know how to fight it. Its our world, there problem is our problem, we are of one race, mankind and we are to oppose those who oppose it. And believe it or not, maybe in small ways but big problems like that do affect us here, maybe not in daily life but definately does. I am appauled at that comment JMABEL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.202.106 (talk • contribs) 27 December 2006.

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

Prior to U.S. involvement, no one in Iran had to deal with "people who drive cars into buildings and blow it up", "not knowing if a car would ram into [their] living room loaded with explos[iv]es." Thanks to the U.S., now they do. As for "a leader who kills his own people", we seem now to have arranged to give them several.

Apparently, either my remark about "tax dollars" was too subtle for you, or you are willfully choosing not to understand. One is placed in the position of either financially supporting the government of one's own country or risking prison for refusing to do so. That gives each of us a certain responsibility for the government of our own country that we do not have for another one. I think it is far more a citizen's obligation to be concerned with the policies of his or her own country than others. Frankly, I don't have much use for people who think that they can go out and solve the world's problems while ignoring those at home.

Of course it is our problem. Which we have made inestimably worse. - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag used in Italy to Protest the Iraq War

I was travelling around Italy about the time the U.S. invasion of Iraq occurred ( March 2003). This "PEACE" flag was displayed outside many people's homes and businesses etc. JohnI 18:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find info about this falg at Peace symbol#The Peace Rainbow Flag--JK the unwise 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no criticism page, just opposition?

What about those who criticize the war? Why is there only a page for Opposition, and Criticism is a redirect?--Urthogie 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official Condemnation of War

Why isn't Canada in the list? When Jean Chretien was still in power, in 2003, he didn't support the War on Iraq! 69.158.57.201 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Canada should be added to this list. Pendragon39 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Actually, Paul Martin also criticized and opposed the Iraq war.

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

Userbox available

Code

Result

|{{User:UBX/Iraq War Lancet}}

This user knows that there are
654,965 reasons why the
2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong.^†

Usage

|{{User:UBX/Iraq War Refugees}}

This user knows that there are
2,000,000 reasons why the
2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong.^†

Usage

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

George W. Bush quote deletion

Per the George W. Bush quote,
If you wish to delete this quote, please elaborate why it should be removed,
given that;

It is a quote
It is relevant to the article

Byzerodivide (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes opposing the intended invasion of Iraq
Quotes opposing the actual invasion of Iraq
Quotes opposing the occupation of Iraq before a government was established
Quotes opposing the occupation of Iraq after a government was established
Quotes criticizing the intended invasion of Iraq
Quotes criticizing the actual invasion of Iraq
Quotes criticizing the occupation of Iraq before a government was established
Quotes criticizing the occupation of Iraq after a government was established
Quotes cited by people opposing the current war in Iraq, in support of their arguments opposing the current war in Iraq

Byzerodivide (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying; I've been pretty busy.

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

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

The Bush quote can be categorized under the topic, “Quotes cited by people opposing the current war in Iraq, in support of their arguments opposing the current war in Iraq”, as this quote was repeatedly cited by Cindy Sheehan, for one example please see;

Commas for Profit

In general the correct venue for the quotes should be wikiquotes, however the Bush quote did reveal George W. Bush's obscene indifference to human suffering which resulted in notable press activity about the quote and thus the article should have a section reflecting said activity. Byzerodivide (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please see;

'Just a Comma' Becomes Part of Iraq Debate

``opponents of the war have seized on the formulation, seeing it as evidence that Bush is indifferent to suffering. To them, it sounds as if the president is dismissing more than 2,700 U.S. troop deaths as "just a comma."``

--Byzerodivide (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

George W. Bush quote fidelity

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

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

The second reason is because we have to rely as much as possible on secondary sources, not primary ones. Writing down a transcript from the audio of the interview is using a primary source. All the secondary sources I could find (see for example [2], [3], [4] and [5], used in the article) omitted the slips, as is standard practice when reporting the text of speeches. If it were standard journalistic practice to include references to people's body language or facial expression as they spoke then Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, ought to reproduce them - but it's not so we don't. Similarly with "um"s etc.

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

Orwell quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Opposition

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

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

^talk 14:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American bias yet again?

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

Raised fist intro picture

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

Egregious POV pushing 1

Here are several examples of extreme POV pushing by user Trackerwiki:

Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency...

Low casualty rates? Patently absurd. And considered a model of modern counterinsurgency by whom exactly? No source is provided. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this first came up some time ago I also thought it ridiculous in light of the fashionable media consensus. But ever since I was trounced on the numbers in a recent debate I've been unable to easily dismiss this analysis. The media apparently have not conveyed to us the full picture. Dunnigan's site is one of the more accessible. (url=http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090531.aspx) Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I]nternational organizations like the U.N. have hailed the Coalition for liberating the Iraqi people from a totalitarian regime which "preyed on the Iraqi people and committed shocking, systematic and criminal violations of human rights".

The UN did not hail "the coalition" for liberating Iraq. The source does not support this statement. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3776765.stm)(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/un.iraq/index.html) As the UNSC enthusiastically welcomed the removal of Saddam government and its abuses as well as approved the resolution reestablishing existing Coalition arrangements under the new MNF mandate, and as the holdout Permanents were expressing solidarity and standing with the Coalition leaders - as the favorable outcomes being lauded were contingent on the Coalition's actions then it seemed reasonable to assume that this entity was also being lauded for effecting these. No more and no less. I'm amenable to a change in wording, perhaps "welcomed" or "supported"?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source quotes the office of the UN Human Rights commissioner welcoming the removal of Saddam's government, but also says that the coalition forces have committed human rights violations. Mentioning just one half gives a different impression. The CNN article is solely about the UN deciding what should be done in Iraq a year after the invasion - it doesn't contain any judgement either way of the initial invasion, as far as I can see. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Supported" then?--Trackerwiki (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whether we use the word 'hail', 'welcome' or 'support' it would give a distinctly one-sided view of what the source is saying about human rights violations. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will add that this particular Coalition aim by extension is welcome and even commendable on its meritable outcome, but explicitly only on this merit, and that the other aims are subject to different conclusions (particularly if the outcomes are not fully achieved or different from that desired.)--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement within the anti-war movement as to whether the cause of armed insurgents within Iraq is worth supporting did lessen considerably as the anti-Western values and brutal and criminal methods of the insurgents became too pronounced over time to ignore.

"Anti-Western values" is a lazy generalisation; also unsupported. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the most accurate description would be "consanguinous tribal culture of values". Might fall afoul of the PC police, though, and even if anthropologically acceptable it's too long a term. Perhaps "anti-modern" values?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should aim to use phrases which reliable sources use. The sentence in question is in the lede and uncited (which is fine) - the bit it seems to be summarising is the last paragraph of the "Support for Iraqi resistance and insurgency" section. This in turn is cited to this BBC article. That article doesn't say anything about disagreement within the anti-war movement, or explicitly refer to anti-Western, anti-modern or tribal values. It just says that Amnesty condemned the insurgents, which gives us no information about the anti-war movement in general. Let me know if I've missed another section of the article, though. Olaf Davis

(talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the breakdown of support for the insurgency's aims and methods began once the consensus media story became one of the UN trying to modernize Iraq against the efforts of the insurgents to resist this unprecedented revolution in pan-Arabic affairs. Should have posted these links alongside as a record of the observed shaping of public responses against terrorist outrages, highlighting atrocities in contrast against political or security milestones.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3528905.stm, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/feb/02/20050202-123527-1015r/?page=2), (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16686)--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But none of these sources is really about the insurgents' methods putting an end to the debate about supporting them in the anti-war movement. The BBC one is about the Middle-Eastern press, and the other two are mainly about the elections. I don't see that any of them really support the quoted passage from the lede, or the bit which it's summarising in the main article. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The problem is that outside of opinion pieces and general surveys it is hard to locate articles which showcase a fall-off in oppositionist sympathy for the insurgency on the basis of its criminal behaviors and anti-modern aims. What we see instead is a historical fall-off in relevant article counts, a general lack of attention and deepening silence on this issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/business/media/15apee.html?ei=5090&en=4a4f32424faa6ab5&ex=1281758400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print), (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/23/opinion/oe-boot23) - (Like McAllister-Linn, Boot's expertise is on small wars like the Phil-American war, its history is extremely enlightening for it exhibits many parallels in rationales, contingency, strategy, methods, public opposition, and outcomes). Domestic focus aside, the fall-off in coverage is likely due to lack of audience (in particular oppositionist audiences) and thus media interest in the nature of the fight in terms of identifying for against one side or the other. The default partisan takeaway was that given the legitimacy conferred by the U.N. mandate and Iraq's democratic electoral politics, and given how unpalatable the insurgency's aims and methods turned out to be in comparison to those of the Coalition forces, the opposition lost interest in finding ways to lend ideological cover to Iraq's insurgency as a means of politically countering the Coalition message in general, U.S. aims in particular, and specifically the credibility of the administration.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closest on the transformative shifts in attitudes on the ground are found in articles which directly illustrate, on the ground, how so many insurgents have managed to alienate the majority of Iraqis with their indiscrimnate and predatory behavior to civilians (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_59/ai_n27386002/pg_2/?tag=content;col1).--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From there it's possible to extrapolate that anyone who subscribes to Western norms of human rights and civility would have sympathy with the plight of Iraqis suffering in the hands of the more brutal insurgents. My POV is this should be the case, since to offer otherwise would slippery lead to the usual inaccurate partisan suspicion, that many in opposition are far too motivated by reflexive ideology to reserve some sympathy for the plight of preyed-on Iraqi civilians, to the point of ignoring instead of sharing their abhorrence for the insurgency's criminal behaviors. Such suspicions serve no purpose and will likely be unfair in most cases.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found some attribution on the souring of naysayer sentiments towards the isurgents' methods and aims although it's nowhere near in-depth.(http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010592) "...Here in the United States, the vast moral chasm that so clearly separates the combatants in Iraq is too rarely discussed. Disillusion with the entire effort has obscured and in some cases mutated the truth that small numbers of evil men tilt entire populations..." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3812411.stm)Evolving tactics of Islamic militants. Sites like Dunnigan have more in-depth analyses on the phenomenon from surveys drawn by independent media and the military.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the dearth of stories on a souring of the professional anti-US/anti-war orgs on the methods and aims of Iraqi insurgents, I've come to conclusion that this argument should point to the world publics' general rejection of the Iraq insurgency instead. The existing articles on disagreements in the hardcore regarding unacceptable recidivism in the Iraq insurgency stand on their own for now.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious POV pushing 2

Iraq's government and its Palestinian allies were the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion, as there was little chance the Sunni-minority regime would be able to withstand the military might of the US and its coalitional allies.

France, Germany, Russia (etc.) opposed the invasion. Palestinians too. Who says the latter were "the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion"? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were the most vocal early on, which is why it was moved under "Early opposition". Once the intent and the capacity of the Coalition became clearer, more movements joined in for many reasons, to lend their voices in opposition. Interestingly, the tone gradually changed to one of a dilute "anti-US/anti-Globalization" agenda from the earlier focused "contra-Western/contra-UNSC" agenda pursued by the main body of opposition vested in Iraq and its allies.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? From my memory I'd say opponents in Western countries were far more vocal, but of course we can't cite my memory! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my POV, pre-war opposition from Saddam's Iraq is most usefully viewed in the deep context of a historical continuum starting from the 1998 airstrikes supporting UNSCOM inspections through 9/11, which Presidents Clinton and Bush acknowledge changed all geopolitical paradigms. In contrast, most anti-US campaigns focused mainly on the theme of U.N. sanctions killing Iraqi innocents (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/17/gulf.war/), until the President's landmark 2001 speech before the U.N. emboldened the professional anti-US movements and associated foreign sponsors on the prospect of countering the coming wave of U.S. actions. Thus (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/17/arraf.debrief/index.html), (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/16/iraq.aziz/) --Trackerwiki (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the war, the major intelligence agencies all failed to realize that Iraq's forces did not have operational WMDs

What is the source for this statement? The leaders of France, Russia and Germany all said they had no proof of WMD. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The post-war [ISG] survey outcome discredited the pre-war WMD threat consensus of all major intelligence agencies

There was no consensus. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution - (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3442313.stm) "...Britain's intelligence service, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), still maintain that most of the information that went into the Iraq dossier of September 2002 was correct at the time, including the claim that Saddam had actual WMD... ...It should be noted that this was a view shared by many countries at the time, including some of those that opposed the war such as France and Germany, a fact that was pointed out this week by David Kay himself... ...But "we probably all got it wrong," he said..."--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a transcript from the BBC's premiere current affairs program Panorama, "A Failure of Intelligence", which first quotes Vladimir Putin ("Russia has no trustworthy data to support claims that Iraq possesses either nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction") and Tony Blair's reply (Well there may be different perspectives on how sure we can be about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction but there's one certain way to find out") [6] A second BBC program also documents how both France and Germany disagreed with the Intelligence assessment of Britain and the United States. [7] Given these primary and secondary sources, it is simply wrong to claim there was a consensus. Dynablaster (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about Russia SVD not being in the pre-war consensus. Kay and the others were referring to a consensus among involved allied spy agencies and my post should have been clearer on this. The Germans were quite worried about blowback, especially given their historical baggage (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/03/25/020325fa_FACT1?currentPage=all)...“It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years,” he said.... --Trackerwiki (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for U.K. PM Blair [...] this was only discovered after post-war investigation confirmed the massive intelligence failure.

This is POV pushing. Pure and simple. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, it's not my 'egregious POV pushing': (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3778987.stm) "Weapons of mass destruction do not exist in Iraq and it is "delusional" to think they will be found, says former chief US weapons inspector David Kay. Mr Kay told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that British and American leaders should simply apologise and admit that they were wrong..."--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's unfair in particular to former U.K. PM Blair, whose briefings were from U.K. spy agencies, which like their international peers all strive to maintain intelligence sources independent of the Americans. AFAIK the MI6 still asserts that they have independent verification of the Niger materials case which stands on its own merits, apart from the flawed reporting from Italy and the misguided attempts of Wilson. US President Bush OTOH had little more than Wilson at that point publicly, to his misfortune. The British apparently had the deeper Iraqi sources, even though these sources were misled by Saddam's opaque behavior. Thus the causative incredible intelligence failure and the resultant unfortunate political illusions.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But for geopolitical reasons Saddam could not allow his hostile neighbors, in particular Iraq's long-time enemy Iran, to discover how weak his army was in this respect.

Presumably the point being made is that Saddam tricked the unfortunate Mr Blair into invading Iraq. That is but one (contested) point of view. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other contested view is that the Iranians, subtle players they are, "managed" Chalabi's INC into manipulating the US into doing the dirty work of getting rid of their bane while shaping Iraq into an arena favoring influence from Tehran. But for that view in the shadows there are even less sources available publicly.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Duelfer conclusions support interrogator reports that Saddam Hussein did not want the Iranians to know his army lacked WMD defenses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelfer_Report#Duelfer_Report)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran was Iraq's pre-eminent motivator.
The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judged that events (involving Iran) in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD.

Hussein always rejected accusations that the Iraqi government played a part in the 9/11 attack [...] although the presence in Iraq of terrorist groups and the contrary assertions of prominent foreign leaders like Russia's Putin show otherwise.

Saddam was behind 9/11. What rot! Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But agreed, are we not? This was obvious well before the invasion. Which is likely why the Coalition pitched it as a move to disarm an imminent threat rather than as a war of retribution against past aggression. The Coalition was aiming to preempt a future threat, not respond to a past attack. Ironically, U.S. investigators believe that Saddam had likely "played it straight" towards the end with regards to Iraqi involvement in 911 and capacities for WMD, for whatever good it did him. OTOH, there still remains unresolved evidence that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein contemplated an association with al-Qaeda in the future: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to what your position here is, Trackerwiki. You say 'agreed, are we not?' to the idea that he wasn't behind the attacks but the sentence quoted from the article says he was. Which are you arguing for inclusion of? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there is little if any proof that Saddam's regime was involved in the past in 9/11 attack, and the BBC article cites none. What the article does show, is that people in his regime did have meetings with al Qaeda and planned more of the same. Even if Saddam's regime at that point was not colluding with Al Qaeda planners on the latter's 9/11 operation, there was a budding association which in the future could have flowered into the dangerous kind of cooperation between rogue state and terror organization which Dr. Kay gave warning about.--Trackerwiki (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could have, yes, though we have no evidence that it did. Do you want to suggest another wording for the passage, since (I think) we're agreed that the one quoted above is not supported? Olaf Davis (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will separate the finding of non-linkage between Saddam and 911 from claims that his regime was harboring terrorists and independently planning to launch attacks on American assets and people worldwide. Known historical event vs. clear future danger. --Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam's key people believed they could rebuild the Army and re-arm with WMD once sanctions were lifted. ... [T]hus they sought the help of Iraq's former Russian mentors and other foreign leaders who could influence via the UN Oil-for-Food scheme. [...] To this end saddam's agents (sic) and those of friendly states such as Russia sought the services and cooperation of disaffected Westerners to support the professional anti-war opposition.

Are you now trying to smear the anti-war movement? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, if you would put good faith in my intentions. I believe the various anti-war groups can each serve a purpose, some useful, some not. But for whom and what, it's not easy to determine in every case. For example, there exists a popular global consensus for a worldwide ban of the use of mines stemming from informed opposition to the tragic historical record of these weapons, yet both South Korea and its U.S. guarantor have understandable reasons for disagreement. So did certain frontline NATO members in the 1950s-1980s, when Europe faced the threat of overwhelming Soviet Bloc invasion.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all antiwar bodies of opposition are so clearly viewed with so little dispute on the terms. Iraq is a minefield of misunderstandings. It's a bag of conflicted and disputed frameworks of justification. It would be relatively easy for you grab something out of that bag and ascribe by association a "smear all" to anything I might post on any one particular group which expounds on links it may have with some perjorative of a regime.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British MP George Galloway in particular [...] was covertly rewarded for his spirited use of legal warfare in opposition against both the U.K. and U.S. over the Iraq War and other issues.

This is disputed. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By Galloway mostly - but naturally. The broader, deeper context provided shows there is reason to believe his loyalty does not lie mainly with the U.K. and its interests. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1862579.stm)"Bin Laden connected to London dissident"--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't make that inference ourselves, though. Neither this source nor the one you quoted in the article specifically say that he was 'covertly rewarded' so we can't say that either. That's true in general but especially where WP:BLP applies. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"illicit payment" is the preferred wording of the bbc in describing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4382820.stm) how beneficiaries indirectly benefited. "conceal payments" is the preferred wording of the The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1069509.ece). "complicit in the concealment" is the wording in the UK parliamentary investigation's record of Conclusions: (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/909/90904.htm#note127). Will re-word according to the conclusions reached separately by the U.N., the U.S. Senate, and the U.K. parliament. --Trackerwiki (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This type of opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just before the Iraq invasion starting on March 20, 2003.

"This type of opposition"? Good grief. The anti-war movement was in the pay of Saddam Hussein! Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all obviously, and Saddam Hussein's agents were not the only ones doing so, but a percentage of such movements are invariably funded and/or directed in the service of foreign interests alien to those of the U.S. and its Coalition allies. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7315752.stm)"US charges man 'on Saddam's pay'" It's in the nature of modern state-state "conflicts other than war", just look at the partisan history of the peaceful Olympics, for example. Not that such denatured movements would constitute the majority of voices, for there was much genuine international opposition to the Coalition's aims and methods. Historically, every major conflict entered into by the U.S. from the civil war onwards was accompanied by broad and diverse domestic and foreign opposition.--Trackerwiki (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-war movements should look out more for themselves. Most movements and even NGOs are too easily co-opted by non-charter interests to serve fully or partly as others' duped proxies. Even the oldest, most famous NGOs are not immune to this corruption, and I speak from personal experience (sorry, no cites for now while the issue's ongoing.). The prominent historical example was when some movements were identified as manipulated into supporting Soviet aims during the 1980s Euro missile controversy, under the influence and even direction of agents maintained by various communist bloc agencies, as revealed by various communist agents Sergei Tretyakov, Stanislav Lunev, and in other sources like the Mitrokhin trove. Active measures--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[R]egimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war because it sets a precedent for the dominant Western powers to target such "pariah" regimes with little recourse to the Westphalian checks of the U.N. (sic)

Do I really need to explain the problem with this sentence? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe this should be reworded for more accuracy. If you meant it should say (maybe) "Western UNSC Permanents" in place of "Western powers'?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the source given for this. It does talk about those countries being worried about dominant Western powers - well, the US - but crucially it says nothing at all about Iraq! We can talk about rewording it once we have a source, but currently we don't seem to have a relevant one. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This banding together of the usual suspects is manifestly due to current Western and particularly U.S. policies and behaviors treating them as pariahs(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5205770.stm). Both Syria and Libya retreated from the arena and the later redeemed itself with the West. It's old news for North Korea, Cuba, and Iran and emergently in the case of Venezuela.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1975588.stm)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But still, neither of those sources supports the statement "[R]egimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war because it sets a precedent...". No amount of demonstration that they're 'pariahs', or that they're banded together either by the U.S. or their own actions, will imply that without a source that specifically states it. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More "Egregious POV pushing"

Western marxist-progressives thinkers feared that the successful embrace of liberal-democratic modernization in yet another country would further weaken the millenarian movement in the modern global order.

Progressives fear liberal-democratic modernization? Here is a tip: when attempting to smear people, it would help if you understood your target audience. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a very diverse audience. If the stuff I posted appears as unfair or groundless commentary to any particular POV I'll review it accordingly.--Trackerwiki (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their overarching need for a viable mythos to challenge the overwhelming narrative of the U.S.-dominated New World Order has led them to oppose most American policy and military actions, even if it means opposing U.S. actions which result in security or economic benefits for their own countries. The U.S. War on Terror, launched as a global initiative to tamp down the capacities of Islamist movements and to eventually demoralize their Caliphatist hardcore, is the current example.

The main marxist (progessive)- socialist strategy was to undermine the faith of Coalitional polities in their respective governances through aggressive use of the Cold-War informational strategies of forum-shaping of public debate and continuous legal hindrances, the idea being to sow doubt and confusion about their governments' standards of honesty, competence, and conduct as the war progresses. This course of affairs naturally suited the interests of irredentist hegemony-seeking state actors such as Russia, whose agents had a hand in initiating anti-Coalition protests worldwide.

It's all true. User Trackerwiki adduces an opinion piece from Ion Mihai Pacepa in the National Review to prove it! The same Ion Pacepa who claims Saddam is hiding WMD in Syria, and who also knows the identity of the person who ordered the assassination of JFK. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syria has massive chemical WMD capability, and the final ISG report did not rule out the possibility that Iraqi WMDs were secreted there. Former Spy chief Pacepa was the highest-ranking communist intelligence officer to defect to the West and proved very valuable. For this reason alone he is worth listening to on comintern activities as he dealt in these things at the highest levels. Don't know what to believe about the Oliver Stone thingy, though.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But recent years have seen an erosion in [Cindy] Sheehan's popularity as icon of the antiwar, anti-American (sic) as details of her support for foreign dictators

Oh, I see. Foreign Dictators like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autocrat may be a more apt description for Chavez instead of dictator. Unlike for the ailing Castro, who as incontestable "Presidente for Life" is literally just that.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The popular President Obama has replaced Sheehan, Wright, [Michael] Moore, and other questionable figures as an apologetic symbol for the many on the left who wish for America's leading role in world affairs to be diminished

Say what?

This tidbit isn't salient, might as well remove it as anything-Obama is prone to be taken as POV anyway.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Joseph C.] Wilson's haphazard work and dishonest claims were eventually discredited, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal

The rest is the same. Egregious POV pushing. Please don't restore this stuff. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also seen Tracerwiki's additions and found many of them somewhat questionable, though I hadn't done as detailed a review as Dynablaster. Tracerwiki, I too would be interested to see your responses to the points about verifiability above. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a request that if the above discussion is going to contain in-line replies, we put signatures at the end of each such reply? Otherwise it's likely to get very confusing who said what (and when). Olaf Davis (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored material

Most of the material removed by Dynablaster has now been restored. I don't think the above discussion established a consensus for it. A few examples:

"Iraq's government and its Palestinian allies were the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion" - this still has no citation, except to articles published before the U.S. was even talking about the invasion (early 2001).

Reworded to refer to Iraqi elites and allies being the earliest opposed to further, more aggressive UNSC mandate for disarmament (which is what the invasion was initiated on). This better fits with the historical view of opposition in support of continuation of the Iraqi regime as a continuum of events and outcomes along a timeline from 1998 going forward.--112.201.128.54 (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-American regimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war in part because its successful prosecution sets the precedent for the dominant Western UNSC Permanents to easily target such "pariah" regimes with little recourse to the Westphalian checks of the U.N" - this is cited to a source which says no such thing.

Am still searching for that CFR reference which specifically outlined this claim. Please wait for this, it's the view held by most in the diplomatic community anyway.--112.201.128.54 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The presence in Iraq of terrorist groups and the announcements of prominent foreign leaders like Russia's Putin did point to a clear future threat, for Iraq was indeed harboring terrorists and likely planning independently of al-Qaeda to launch attacks on American assets and personnel worldwide" - the first half of this is cited to an article about a single terrorist being found in Iraq, hardly 'terrorist groups'. The bit about Putin has improved since it was discussed above, but I still think it's taking a very uncritical view from one comment by one of the many people who've expressed an opinion on the question and presenting it as fact.

I posted more cites on post-war findings of the terrorist threat presented by the former regime, which as secondary rationale for war was much better validated on the ground than the primary rationale that Saddam Hussein's regime presented an imminent WMD threat.--112.201.128.54 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claims about George Galloway are still not supported by the sources - no source says that he "was illicitly rewarded for his spirited legal opposition to U.S. and U.K. action in Iraq and for supporting the release of Saddam's regime from U.N. embargoes and disarmament mandates".

If you go over the references you will note that Galloway was specifically cited for deriving illicit gains via Iraqi manipulation of the Oil-for-Food program due to "his opinions". If you prefer an even more direct style of claim involving specific wording then I'll have to search for appropriate articles. To avoid current contention let's leave the cites off for now until the suitable write-ups turn up.--112.201.128.54 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that a very large proportion of the material makes statements which are simply not to be found in the sources. We can't draw inferences of the type "Cube and Venezuela are friendly and dislike the U.S. so they must have opposed the war because of precedent about 'pariah' regimes": either we have a source which says exactly that or we don't say it. The same goes for almost all of the recent additions which I've investigated the sourcing for in detail; some I haven't dug into.

I've removed the Galloway bit per WP:BLP. I'm not removing the rest at the moment, but please try to provide sources which directly support the claims in the article. Thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, remain concerned. We need to take things slowly. These changes remain controversial and so, in order to give editors a chance to evaluate neutrality, it is better to make small edits to the article, allowing for input and improvement. Dynablaster (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]