Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Request semi protection

I'm requesting semi protection to help stop anonymous user from pushing POV reverts over and over. How is this requested? Swatjester 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Shortening Length

I suggest a section of the page be identified to be moved to its own page. This is because the page's length has exceded suggested guidelines. I suggest that the section about News Reporting be considered for being created as its own seperate page linked to the main page. This section can be viewed as its own topic, and consists of substantial length. Comp8956 01:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August

2003 Invasion of IraqLiberation of Iraq - PoLaR 23:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I belive "2003 War in Iraq" is the best because you cannot dispute that it was a war
  • Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 15:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Liberation of Iraq" might exist as redirect, but making this the official name for the article is totally inappropriate (incidently, a redirect by that name, toward another page (Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005), already exists). Rama 15:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Liberation of Iraq" is a POV description. (Not to mention the grand majority of the world does Not identify with that POV.) 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article's subject is the conventional campaign of Feb-May 2003. Invasion of Iraq is the proper and neutral name for it. more below. Septentrionalis 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Liberation of Iraq," that title would be blatantly POV. If anything, I'd call it Invasion of Iraq 2003 so as to place it in time and not confuse it with the so called "Gulf War" of 1990. Also since an article exists with the name Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 the name Invasion of Iraq 2003 seems the most natural. I would suggest helpful redirects from Operation Iraqi Freedom and its first name, Operation Iraqi Liberation. Calicocat 09:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to POV title. "Invasion" is quite neutral.--Pharos 09:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Title move would be POV. Jebba 09:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree that this war is a liberation and probably the most just and noble war of modern times (not a very high standard), I think readers won't come to wikipedia looking for "Liberation of Iraq", "invasion" will be easier for them to find. Now if we can make sure the NPOV justness of the enterprise is represented in the article, they may leave wikipedia thinking "liberation".--Silverback 10:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Naming the article "Liberation of Iraq" is pure POV. --Howrealisreal 13:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blatant POV. Was the proposer trying to make a sick joke? Geo Swan 17:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I doubt those enjoying the benefits of an occupying force are thinking, "Thank heavens we've been liberated." or any other Bushist buzz-word. The U.S. invaded, plain and simple. --Legomancer 23:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Invasion is neutral. Liam Bryan 14:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. After the death toll of Halabja and other massacres, decades of human rights abuses, fake elections, and brutal suppression of opponents of the ruling minority, Liberation is most definitely a suitable term. After Hitler's genocide, Germany was liberated. How is Hussein's genocide any different? H 4:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 10 years from now, we might call it a liberation. But liberation or not, it is still technically an invasion. Liberation is a point of view. Perhaps just redirect from liberation though. Banes 17:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Definitely an invasion. Find an Iraqi poll that states the majority feels "liberated" by the US. Then maybe i'll be convinced SeanMcG 20:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Speaking as one of the invaders, no one in my unit had any notions that the Iraq invasion was anything but that: an invasion. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was an invasion, not liberation. Liberation is US govt POV. – AxSkov () 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jesus. Do we really have to vote on this kind of crap? Even for war supporters, "liberation" is ridiculously POV.
  • Support. Jesus. Do we really have to vote on this kind of crap? Even for Saddam supporters, "invasion" is ridiculously POV.
  Then again: try asking anyone who had a relative tortured by Us Troops...
  If you don't think that Iraq was liberated by toppling Saddam, try asking anyone who had a relative tortured to death by the Ba'athists.  FYI, that category includes a majority of the people of Iraq.  
  • Oppose. "Invasion" is a military term (neutral), and this article should focus on the military aspects. Robotbeat 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 10:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I am not in favor of this move, but would strongly support changing the title. The common English definition of "invasion" is for the purposes of "conquest or plunder", and certainly the US has done neither. As mentioned earlier, "Liberation" is as POV as "Invasion", and neither should be used. I would rather see something like "2003 War in Iraq" or "2003 Iraq Occupation"
I disagree with the move, as 'liberation' is as POV as 'invasion' is in the opposite direction. People that talk about polls supporting something strongly in one way gives away that they are arguing for a title that reflects a specific POV. I think a much better question would be invasion of Iraq vs. battle of Iraq or Iraq War of 2003. --

See Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1#Moronic page move request

Someone put this page on requested-page-moves to rename it as "liberation of iraq". I see nothing on the talk page justifying such a move or indicating a vote is in progress. Obviously that title is flamingly POV and would lose any vote, and it's telling that the person who put up the notice didn't bother to defend it or start a voting page here. Can we just delete the tag from here and from WP:Requested moves? Or do we now have to go through a vote on this now? Also I would note that Liberation of Iraq currently redirects to a different page, so such a move should be announced and discussed on that page too.--csloat 03:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Just drop a note on the "Requested moves" page. Rama 07:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree with the move. I guess time will tell if there is "liberation", but I can't find a definition of the word "invasion" that disagrees with events. "2003 invasion of Iraq" seems appropriate. Squashed sultana 08:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
While I don't think Liberation is neutral, I don't think "invasion" is neutral either. Invasion implies an unwelcome encroachment for conquest. But then again, I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the majority of the users applying edits to this article were against the war. Am I right? 14:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The majority of the World is against the war, so "the majority of the users applying edits to this article" would most likely be against the war too: However, that does not mean the "majority of users" are incapable of NPOV edits. And many other articles refer to such things as invasions, such as the Allied invasion of Italy. I see no problem with the word "invasion" in the title of this article. 18:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, the majority of the world would have been against the invasion even if the Left's hero Hans Blix said that he found gobs of WMD's. For some reason the (non-Islamic) world has become pacifist at any cost.

Not true. Did you read the polls from my link? One of the possible answers to "Are you in favor of military action against Iraq?" is "2, Only if Sanctioned by the United Nations". That option got a lot more Yes's than "3, Unilaterally by America and it's allies." which got less than 10% in every country except for the US (which got 33%) and some smaller countries like Kenya which gave 15%. I would also like to note that Pakistan was included in that polling, and it is most certainly not "pacifist", and only 3% selected option 3. I really wish people would actually read things before chiming in with some rabidly partisan comment. 01:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The poll is obviously biased, how can the US and its allies be "unilateral". They show their bias. A fairly framed poll would reflect the true situation, and used the term "multilateral" and noted how corrupt any decision making by the UN was.--Silverback 02:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Gallup is one of, if not The, most respected names in polling, right up there with ICM and MORI. So it doesn't make partisan statements like how "corrupt" the UN is. Nor did Gallup mislead poll-takers, because it said "America and it's allies", there is no doubt as to what the poll was conveying. If you disagree with the results, you are welcome to find a better poll and post it here. For example Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with this poll and states: "Although some European leaders voiced their conditional support for the war and none regretted the end of the violent Ba'thist regime, public opinion in Europe and the Middle East was overwhelmingly against the war." But just shouting "Bias!" with no sources whatsoever I think is clearly partisan mud-slinging. 02:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The Encylopedia Britannica has signed articles, so why don't you name the one person who probably signed off on that conclusion. How does Gallup rigorously distinguish between partisan statements like how "corrupt" the UN is, and a partisan statement that the allied action in Iraq was "unilateral"?--Silverback 02:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
So now you aren't just slurring Gallup, you are slurring Encyclopedia Britannica too. Is there Any polling source you would be comfortable with? I assure you they all present nearly the same figures. Or is it that you only slur sources that disagree with your rabid POV? 02:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Gallup's world wide reputation, but it is not particularly well regarded in the US. In any case, polls and polling data are not particularly important or notable. Britannica's reputation is not what it once was, its quality today is probably mixed, but it should not be dismissed out of hand, but should be evaluated based on each author. It is particularly suspect in the area of current events, since there is not much scolarship published yet, and the advantage of perspective that comes with time is not available.--Silverback 03:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
What is your source that neither Gallup Nor Encyclopedia Britannica is "well regarded"? Gallup is often listed first by sites that compile polls such as: And is almost always consulted by any major news organization when polls are being presented. Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the oldest encyclopedia's in existence and the most widely published. I say again, if you have a better source, poll or encyclopedia, then post it. Anything else is just mud-slinging. 03:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
In the United States, nearly every major broadcast corp or news organization now commisions their own polls, often collaborating, so while Gallup is in the milleau, it is no longer dominent. My advice which polls is to not look just at the results, but at the questions themselves and judge the quality and bias. As you have learned here, this particular Gallup poll could not even withstand a rank amateurs scrutiny. As to Britannica, in this internet age, none of the enclyclopedias have the reputations or resources they once did. Even among those who still hold Brittanica in some regard, it is admitted that the great versions were in the past. Learn to think for yourself, anything else is just appeal to authority.--Silverback 03:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Bla bla bla.. here in America the Gallup polls get a lot of press, Gallup is certainly among the top ten - orders of magnitude (at least 5 orders, it would be) beyond "part of the milleau", but to suggest that there's a milleau, in the first place, is quite an exaggeration. But I find Zogby to be more accurate. For instance, their polls of the 2004 presidential election were more accurate than the ones used by T.V. News stations on election day. As I think silverback was suggesting, the Gallup polls are generally a bit skewed to favor republicans/conservatives. If you compare them with other polls, you'll see for instance that their measure of bush's approval rating is consistently a few percentage points above the mean. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
And here you go rambling on about bias and how You are to be believed over institutions that have been around longer than you've been alive. I repeat if you do not have a better source, poll or encyclopedia, then your claim of "bias" is unfounded. Post a source that supports your claim's instead of smearing anything that disagrees with your rabid POV. 03:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is the talk page, not the article, so provide sources does not apply. Try thinking. Use the Gallup poll question itself as a source. Note the "uni-" in unilateral, and then count the number of allies. Consider how short the poll questions are, and thus simplifying of a complex situation, and then consider what the poll itself is, who it is polling, how well informed they are, etc. That will help you give proper weight to the poll. I never said the encyclopedia Brittanica was biased (it may be, especially on current events), only that you should cite the author rather than the pedia, and judge the authority on that basis, considering that this is also a current event.--Silverback 03:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
If I could jump in here for a sec,, please allow me to address you by your last octet - Mr. 6 - Your argument above seems to simplify to two points A)Gallup has been around for a while B) Gallup must be good because nobody is citing anything better. I'm no logician, but if I'm summarizing your stance correctly, it seems pretty weak. Silverback's argument seems to simplify to A)Bias can exist even in well-meaning institutions B)Deceptively-worded questions or short polling lengths can effect results C) Randomness of the polling sample can effect results. If other polling institutions take their cues from Gallup, all it would do is perpetuate the quality of Gallups results (good or bad). For example, if one of the questions is "Do you think George Bush has stopped beating his wife?" [note - this is an example 'bad' question, not a quote] it's going to skew the results of this poll, and any that use it as a template. Just because there's nothing better doesn't make it good.--Legomancer 23:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't make a straw man and then call it "simplifying". Posting original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. So as far as I'm concerned any personal ruminations about whether or not a source is "biased" should play no part in determining whether or not a source should be included in an article. Which is why that link is staying in the article. Unless of course someone has a better source that contradicts it. Speaking of, Kevin brought up Zogby. Does anyone have a link to a poll by them on the international community's opinions of the Iraq War during 2003? 05:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A comment from the WP:RM page:

Absolutely no consensus about this, that's an unilateral move by PoLaR. Rama 09:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1#vote on new title This earlier WP:RM vote was only concluded at the end of April and IMHO it is too soon for another vote -- Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why can it just be referred to in the neutral term 2003 Iraq War or Iraq War of 2003??

Because the war is not yet over, and this article only discusses the beginning of it. This contrasts with the discussion at Talk:Battle of Normandy, on the proposal to move to Normandy invasion. This has not been done, because the article extends to the break-out from Normandy. I do note that no-one was silly enough to object to Normandy invasion as PoV, but I suppose that will come. Septentrionalis 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The War of 1812 took place from 1812–1815. I think 2003 Iraq War is a good title signifying the date of the invasion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, 2003 Iraq war is a good article title (although Iraq war would be better, with an {otheruses} tag.). This is not that article; this is one of the main articles to which it should, when written, refer. Be bold, and go write it. Septentrionalis 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that "2003 Iraq War" is a good article title. This article was long ago split into the "invasion" and "occupation". "2003 Iraq War" refers to Both, but this article only refers to the invasion. But if this was not the case, then "Second Persian Gulf War" would be a more appropriate title than "2003 Iraq War" which is what Encyclopedia Britannica has done: 00:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
anon one, I oppose any association of this war with the legal but morally reprehensible 1st Gulf war, that was fought in the name of a "new world order", that targeted civilian Iraqi infrastructure, rolled over 100,000 innocent Iraqi conscripts and thought the distinction between Saddam oppressing Kuwaitis vs oppressing Iraqis was defensible. It sounds too much like the UN's idea of morality where nations rather than individuals have "sovereign" rights.--Silverback 23:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, you're attribution of this characterization of "sovereignty" to the U.N. is misguided. You are referring to the characterization that is generally accepted throughout the world. "Sovereign" does not refer to a de jure ideal, but to a de facto military/political reality. To say that a country is "sovereign" is to say that the geographic region acts, by whatever force or means, as a politically independent entity. This implies, furthermore, that the region is capable of sustaining it's political independance, whether through diplomacy, military force, or other means.
As an added subtlty, to "recognize" a country as "sovereign" is not the same as a country being "sovereign". recognition or non-recognition are inherently political - and de jure - acts: the recognizers or not-recognizer or stating whether or not they choose to act as if the geographic region acts as a politically independant entity and is capable of sustaining itself as such, for whatever reason (be it ideaological, strategic, diplomatic, or what-have-you). Non-recognition of a de facto sovereign nation is usually somewhat of a tacit threat. In any case, to say that Iraq was sovereign in this, the traditional and generally accepted sense, is to say that it existed as a de facto politically independant entity, and the simple fact is, it did. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your description, but think it is incomplete. Sovereignty is also used as if it carries some moral weight, such as "The US invaded a sovereign nation!", and of course your dejure definition carries no moral weight at all, how accusatory does "The US invaded a nation that might defend itself!" sound? Obviously, far better than invading one that was defenseless. "Violating sovereignty" is very low on the scale of moral offenses, probably someplace below stealing a bicycle. If sovereignty is to be respected at all, it is probably only to the extent that the presumptive government protects rather than violates the freedom of "its" citizens.--Silverback 06:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This page should be left as 2003 invasion of Iraq, not the liberation of Iraq. This is an obvious way to make the war seem justified. It could be worse. It could be "the occupation of Iraq" or the "illegal actions of the US in Iraq". The current title is accurate, since the US did invade Iraq, whereas Iraq these days doesn't seem very liberated.

hhamdy283 08-05-2005

POV Check Discussion

I was the original one over the past few days that argued that this article should have a POV warning. And I still believe it should. I have made some changes that I think help to bring a more neutral POV to the article, but I still see a lot of POV. And not just Leftist POV, the whole "media coverage" section seems like a tit for tat game of sniping comments. It's really pretty embarassing to read. Obviously this event has been a polarizing one in history. I don't think we will ever achieve total neutrality as long as the public can continue to edit it. 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you suggest, a only policy ? Rama 06:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking over his History the Only change has implemented on this article was to add a NPOV tag. And his One other comment in this entire discussion page [1] strikes me as extreme to say the least. Reading over the Media Coverage section I see no blaring advocacy to warrant a NPOV tag. In fact compared to other encyclopedia entries on this subject [2] [3] Wikipedia's entry pretty much follows suit and is fairly neutral. So I'm taking down the NPOV tag. 06:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I may edit from a variety of different IP addresses depending on when I find time to check this article. I put back the POV tag. 17:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If only one anonymous user wants it there with no one else supporting I don't see the reason to add it. I am removing. - Tεxτurε 17:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I support the NPOV tag being kept. If not the NPOV tag, there should be a tag stating that this is a controversial topic and is prone to POV. --EatAlbertaBeef 23:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
What Exactly is POV about the article enough to warrant a tag? And I really don't think that this topic is as controversial as it was 2 years ago or even a year ago. For instance, members of the Bush administration admit in interviews that they were wrong about the WMDs in Iraq. [4][5][6] 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag does not mean "Touchy subject", it sort of means "constructive and polite edit war going on". I see absolutely no constructive suggestion from this anonymous IP; on the other hand, I have seen numerous attempts to cheaply discredit the totality of an article by people who for some reason are uneasy with the content, be the article actually in a problematic state or not.
I do not deny that this article could do with some work, and it it very possible that it has actual problems of national, cultural or opinion particularisms. However, a single, rude and anonymous editor stuffed with opinions like "this was a liberation, the USA can do whatever they want because they are militarily more powerful than the UN, the French are all cowards", or "The USA are the greatest war criminal ever, Bush = Hitler, let's celebrate when a US soldier dies in Iraq" is not a good reason to stick a NPOV tag. Rama 06:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Surely you are not characterizing me like that? I think you should assess your own personal ideology and beliefs and ask yourself if you are qualified to judge POV on this article. I'm a political moderate who is more interested in objectivity than pushing an agenda. This article will most likely never be POV-free as the subject is too controversial. Wikipedia will never be a useful tool, except as a tool of propaganda, if we try to pretend that articles such as this present a objective point of view. 18:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article is POV. Why don't you people that what the pov-Tag give quotes and examples on WHAT PARTS are POV ? -- 17:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Modernisation of weapons

I have checked the individual matériel mentionned in the article [7] as proof that Iraq had substential weaponry, only to find that they are either small weapons, like shoulder-launcher anti-air missiles, elderly systems ("the task of knocking out the Iraqi T-55 tanks and armored vehicles appeared to be extremely difficult!" (sic)), or systems which were said to be present in Iraq but turned out not to be (Kolchuga Radar). The date of the article, 5 April 2003, makes me wonder whether it can possibly have the distance needed to accurately portray the situation. Rama 06:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a thorough post war assessment. At least the cites were more recent than the "poorly equipped" cite. I've seen other sources that the night vision equipment numbered in the thousands. Shoulder launched anti-air missles may be small, but they are poor equipment. Russian arms manufacturers had high hopes that the market for their weapons would be improved if they were credited with extending the length of the war or increased US casualties. So, the equipment was good enough, that Russian experts though it might make a difference. Any nation is probably poorly equipped compared to the US, but that is not the standard we should apply here. Also, don't underestimate the extent to which the US advantage is due to training, discipline and command and control, and not just equipment.--Silverback 07:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Every single description I've seen of the Iraq Army after the First Persian Gulf War, refers to it as "poorly-equipped". Even your own sources do not refer to the Iraqi army as having "mixed levels of equipment and readiness". The best summary I've been able to find so far is from "Overall, Iraq's army is seen as poorly equipped after the battering it took in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and the 1991 Gulf War - and after the country was subjected to more than a decade of trade sanctions imposed because of its 1990 invasion of Kuwait." [8]. Here's a more detailed analysis by CDI thats states that Iraq had "half of all Army equipment lacking spare parts" [9]. There was even an incident where Iraqi troops tried to surrender, Before the war even started, and they were described by the British soldiers who encountered them as: "a motley bunch and you could barely describe them as soldiers - they were poorly equipped and didn't even have proper boots. Their physical condition was dreadful and they had obviously not had a square meal for ages." [10]. I don't care what your sources say about "illegally obtained weapons", because it's pretty clear that the Iraqi military of 2003 had trouble feeding and clothing it's soldiers, much less properly equipping them for war. And so I'm changing back the article. 05:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The sources you cite refer to its state after the GWI battering, and I agree the state of the regular army was still probably pretty poor. But the state before GWII is more relevant, and the thousands of night vision equipment, the spare parts, missles, etc. undoubtedly had the republican guard in pretty good shape. It was all for naught, of course, with the US air superiority. Saddam probably did not WANT to feed, cloth and arm his mostly Shiite conscripts, and they probably did not want to fight for the Bathist regime. You can not conclude from the quick and easy victory was due to the poor equipment of the army, many units perfectly capable to delaying US progress for awhile, stood down, others were fighting only at the point of a gun to their relatives heads. The US was negotiating surrenders with leading generals even before the invasion, sometimes the units agreed to put up only token fights before surrendering, to avoid reprisals against their families. The pschological effect of the US rolling through these units much quicker than the republican guard expected, probably contributed to their disintegration. --Silverback 06:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
My sources certainly do not refer only to "its state after the GWI battering". This one [11] was written on March 26, 2003, six days after the war officially started. This one [12] was done in late 2002. And I'm not concluding anything from anything, the articles flat out state that the military was poorly-equipped, and original research is forbidden from being posted in Wikipedia articles. 06:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Most industrialised nations field equipments at least as good as the US one, so I don't think that saying that "Any nation is probably poorly equipped compared to the US" is accurate or even realistic.
As for "training, discipline and command and control", it does not seem to prevent a disturbingly high number of accidents to occure, does it ?
Iraqi forces had absolutely no air support whatsoever, for instance, not did they have modern tanks to oppose to the Abrams or the Challenger. The large anti-air missiles were regaularly bombed by the USA and UK long before the invasion, and it is trivial that shoulder-launched anti-air missile can make no strategic difference, they are only intended to drive away low-flying aircrafts, and are only really effective against helicopters. This matériel is certainly usefull and dangerous for a guerilla, but for conventional war, it is about useless -- as the matter-of-weeks invasion demonstrated. Rama 07:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The analyses I have heard, is not that the accidently rate is disturbingly high, but that improvements since GW1, have resulted in a significant reduction in friendly fire incidents. News outlets tend to overemphasize the casualties, some weeks in Vietnam involved more casualties in the whole operation to date. Of even 9/11 was overemphasized. Approximately 2 million people died in the US that year. The attacks were a mere blip in the number deaths, although admittedly spectacular television.--Silverback 08:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
"Most industrialised nations field equipments at least as good as the US one" no they do not according to Robert E. Osgood a professor at Johns Hopkins "the American military has gotten to be so good, so technologically advanced and so tactically adept that only a handful of militaries can operate alongside ours and hope to keep up"[13] -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Do they ? If I add up the countries which have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, the main difficulty for them to "operate alongside" seems to be US foreign policy. Rama 06:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course, their foreign policy has nothing to do with it. So the null hypothesis of military parity hasn't been tested, and we must rely upon "expert" opinion.--Silverback 06:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I cited the US foreign policy in particular because it was a choice of the USA to limitate to the minimum the involvement of NATO in Afghanistan, not to speak of their course of action before the Council of Security regarding Iraq. Of course, bilateral relations also have their role.
As for military parity, I reckon that the things like the Minimi, the Leopard II, the Rafale or Eurofighter, the La Fayette type frigates, the Oto Breda 76 mm gun, the Aster missile, not to spaek of strategic nuclear capabilities, tend to indicate that some nations stand the comparison rather well -- especially since the USA import a number of foreign matériel. Other countries just don't spend as huge amounts of money on this, and do not dimensionate their armies to fight a war against the whole world, but the USA the Zerg tactic does not make any other nation "poorly equipped compared to the US". Rama 06:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
From the same paragraph in the same article [14] "Britain is the only considerable state that can send substantial forces in the field to operate alongside ours. Others -- the Australians or the Norwegians, to take two very different examples -- have superb niche capabilities, but only the British have the size and sophistication to take on large military tasks." --Philip Baird Shearer 08:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
This does not say that other countries are under-equiped. What this says is true of Russia, for instance -- it will probably have difficulties to field units to operate alongside US forces; however, saying that Russia is militarily underequiped would be grotesque. It is more a matter of international collaboration than of pure military might. Also, "Britain is the only considerable state that can send substantial forces in the field to operate alongside ours" happens to be simply wrong: France, for instance, contributed a very significant part of her navy to the invasion against Afganistan, without any particular problem.
Also, the original problem here is whether the Iraqi forces could be said to have been reasonably equiped against US forces, not to discuss the military capabilities of the whole world. Rama 08:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
PS: also the article talks about Iraq; obviously, a country like France will not, for political reasons, send forces to Iraq to collaborate with the USA. It does not mean that it is not capable of doing so if the political will is there. For the record, France sent a division to the Gulf in 1991. This "only" says much more about political isolation than about military capabilities. Rama 08:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Rama - you might be surprised at how low most European countries' military capabilities really are. This book [15] has a rather interesting table of relative capabilities. I'll just give you a hint: none of the top 5 countries is in Western Europe; all are considered staunch US allies, and all helped in Iraq (with one exception, the reasons for which should be blindingly obvious). ObsidianOrder 13:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not denying that in terms of volume, the USA are the only one in their category; it is also obvious that China, Russia, and India, for instance, have enormous weight. If it was the "zerg factor" which counted, I would not argue, but retaining the UK as an important military power while dismissing all other nations is ridiculous. And "any nation is probably poorly equipped compared to the US" remains a very bizarre statement whatever criteria I can apply to it.
As for the might of European countries, it all depends on which criteria you retain for "military power"; France is the forth world military power, for instance, in terms of nuclear capabilities, the UK probably are probably close to this for naval capability, etc. What does this book of yours actually say, by the way ? Rama 14:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
PS: and again, the question here is not to play tin soldiers of USA against Europe/Russia/China/Planet Mars, but to assess whether the Iraqi army can be said to have been a serious opponent against the forces it was facing in 2003. I have trouble to understand how one can say both that all countries in the world are negligeable, and that qualifying the Iraqi army of "under-equiped" is not acceptable. Rama 14:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I was merely responding to your "says much more about political isolation than about military capabilities" comment. Actually it says a lot about capabilities as well. There are a number of countries that are considered world powers which in reality could not deploy a force equivalent to a US brigade, never mind a division. Oh, there is no doubt they could do it, if given considerable time to ramp up, but they'll be developing the capability from essentially zero. They have forces on paper (and on parade) with some decent equipment, but they are largely not combat effective, and certainly not deployable. This is why nobody is doing anything about Darfur now, and also why the US had to get involved in Yugoslavia back then. Re the list, I don't have it handy so I can't tell you exactly but I remember UK, Israel, South Korea are in the top 5.
Regarding the "underequipped" comment - it's a bit of a mixed bag, really. They had something like 14,000 medium and large-caliber AAA pieces, along with tens of thousands of portable IR-guided missiles, including modern ones (which is why even now flying below 14,000ft but above treetop level is a recipe for getting shot down); their tanks were obsolete but they had some of the latest Russian antitank weapons which could (and did) take out the Abrams, plus a plentiful supply of older ones highly effective against the Bradley. "serious opponent" - just in terms of equipment, and in a defensive role, yes, absolutely, they should have been. They certainly had enough to make this a very costly war, perhaps enough to make us give up. But that is assuming they were well trained and motivated, which they were not. The war was an anomalously easy victory from a purely military point of view. ObsidianOrder 15:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
"anomalously easy victory" ? With this sort of air superiority, intelligence and communications ? Aren't you easily surprised ? Rama 17:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
No;) The defender has a large advantage, especially in difficult terrain. All of the things you mention have effective low-tech counters. My point was merely that the war was won largely by means of the other side giving up or being unwilling to fight - as I said, viewed purely in terms of equipment, anomalously easy. ObsidianOrder 09:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The US is not better equiped than other world powers. Russia has the most nukes and tanks. France has a very modernized military. Germany has the superior LeopardII. China(PRC) has the largest air force. The US needed The UK's help in modern wars. South and North Korea have the 2 largest militaries(no. of troops) any nation with nukes is a match for the US Russia could be making their military look smaller and out dated,just a theory. Dudtz 8/25/05 5:05 PM EST

???! Size doesn't matter, so they say. It's how you use it... but my response doesn't belong on this page. Daniel Collins 00:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Nukes are over-rated, while they might be a reason to take on N. Korea, they are NOT the reason we don't. N. Korea doesn't have the delivery system to threaten the US yet, the really problem is convention, N. Korea is essentially hold Seoul hostage with the largest concentration of conventional artillery in the world, which is why the US is right to refuse one on one talks until N. Korea takes the gun away from Seoul's head. Any idea that it is really two party talks would be a fiction until then. The US would be happy and entirely justified because of N. Korea's lack of legitimate sovereignty, to take N. Korea out, if it was really one on one.--Silverback 03:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression taht bi-partite talks had recently occured between North Korea and the USA, though... Rama 08:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not that the weapons are of poor quality,It is because of poor Iraqi tatics. Soviet/Russian weapons are meant for Soviet/Russian Tatics. Soviet/Russian tatics for tanks is to build a mid priced tank(excluding T-90) and build allot of them. The US military isn't too good at their tank tatics for fighting another superpower. US soldiers think that a T-55 is going to stay still out in the open so they can hit it with an Anti tank gun or rocket. Dudtz 9/25/05 7:57 PM EST

move most of Rationale, Opinion and Legality and Media Coverage to their own articles

RonCram suggested on another page that this article be split as follows:

"Perhaps the 2003 invasion of Iraq article would only deal with the dates, military tactics and subsequent capture of Saddam (all clear cut facts without dispute) and leave all the controversial subjects to the controversy article?"

(the subsequent discussion is copied here)

RonCram: yes, excellent idea, I think the 2003 invasion of Iraq should deal entirely with hard info, the vast amount of junk about justifications, counter-justifications, accusations, etc etc should be in a separate article. Post it on that article's talk page, I will support such a split. Basically the "Rationale" and "Opinion and Legality" sections should be split off. Also the most of the "Media Coverage" section needs to be moved to the article which is already dedicated to that. ObsidianOrder 07:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder: don't you think the article is a bit too small to justify a split? Kevin Baastalk: new 14:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
The article is actually pretty long: 95k. At the same time the article is certainly "small" in terms of real info about military operations. As it is, 3/4 is dedicated to what various people have to say about the event, and only 1/4 to the event itself. This is bad on several levels: first, it's not strictly what the article is about; second, this is not what other war articles are like (e.g. World War I and World War II); third, the opinion, speculation, etc in those sections are less definitive and more controversial; and finally, those topics already have articles dedicated to them which duplicate much of the same material. ObsidianOrder 13:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we take the example of Polish September Campaign ? The subjects have much in common: a swift military campain, controversial prelude, strong political implications (I mean compared to a single battle withing a larger war like, say, Monte Cassino). Rama 14:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad model, actually. It has a heck of a lot more military facts and less "opinion" than what we have here right now. Also most of the opinion stuff is in sub-articles. ObsidianOrder 15:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Why not just fix the "opinion" stuff then? It looks to me like this article has already been split up enough: 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005, Iraq disarmament crisis, Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. I do not think the justifications for the war are "junk" either as other encyclopedias talk in depth about them [16]. I think this article is serving it's purpose quite well by giving short summaries of all the issues pertaining to the war, and linking to articles that go into much greater depth. I certainly wouldn't be against another sub-article that goes into depth on the military details though. 18:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
"I think this article is serving it's purpose quite well by giving short summaries of all the issues pertaining to the war, and linking to articles that go into much greater depth." - exactly what I was suggesting. "It looks to me like this article has already been split up enough" - I am not proposing any new sub-articles, merely moving some of this page into existing sub-articles (which often duplicate content as it is). "I do not think the justifications for the war are "junk"" - neither do I, but this article is not about them as its primary topic. ObsidianOrder 09:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
You suggested to "Move most of Rationale, Opinion, and Legality and Media Coverage to their own articles". As the title of this section made by you clearly states. This article needs those short summaries, as they are a part of the war. Omitting them would give the reader the impression that those articles aren't as important as the military aspects, And that they didn't play a Huge role in this controversial and unpopular war. And RonCram stated: "vast amount of junk about justifications" and you copied him, so I think you Do think they are "junk". The primary topic of this article is Not "Military Aspects of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq", it's primary topic is the "2003 Invasion of Iraq" and they are an important part of this article, just as important if not more so than the military details. 19:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I say just nuke most of the media coverage section and leave the other articles. Seriously, how peripherally does the epic tale of the Belgian guy and his book actually relate to anything? or the speech of David Blunkett, or Peter Arnett's latest firing, or what the Chicago Tribune said about what a Damascus woman said about what the arab media said, or for that matter any of the hot air that never actually affected history in the slightest. keith 03:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC) - "This article needs those short summaries" - yes it does, but they are currently 2/3 to 3/4 of the total. It needs short summaries. The rest should go in subarticles. "I think you Do think they are "junk"" - no, I think they are important topics, I also think that the current text/articles about them are not great, but perhaps it cannot be improved until we have considerably more hindsight - say five to ten years from now. "The primary topic of this article is Not "Military Aspects ..." - indeed. However, I think it is important to talk about what really happened, and a lot of that is military aspects. I'd call it "facts on the ground", as distinguished from "speculation and opinion from afar". ObsidianOrder 04:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that Rationale, Opinion, and Legality are more important than how many tanks are airplanes were used by what side. I think they are the most important information in any war. Who, Why, What, When, How? Why?:opinion and rationale, legality:opinion (historically) and rationale (insofar as logic requires "fixed principles" such as law, for instance, "imminent threat" (in regards why)) and how - legaly or illegally? through the "hoops" or around them? Any case, if i want to read about a war, i want to know what started it, who started, it, why they started it, what people were thinking, etc. That's the first thing i'm looking for, and that's what anyone really interested in war as such would be interested in, because that's what war is. It's not htat battle, it's what people are fighting for. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
The deeper stuff undoubtedly makes for a better book on the subject, but not necessarily a better encyclopedia. keith 09:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC) p.s. I personally am interested in the battles...

bad math in the introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph is experiencing a tug of war of edits over the number of the number of members of the coalition of the willing, and the magnitude of defections. As I write this the article currently says that the USA and the UK invaded Iraq, and that 48 other nations joined the coalition. The last edit cut a sentence about defections, with the explanation that it was POV. Personally, I'd say cutting mention of the defections was POV. Maybe we can arrive at a compromise wording here.

But the additional 48? The coalition of the willing article list 46 members, with just 24 nations having a military commitment in the theatre. The USA and the UK, plus an additional 48 is a total of 50. Can we all agree this is clearly incorrect?

The reasons for the defections can be debated. It is clearly not solely based on the realization that the premises for the war were fabrications. The Phillipines withdrew its platoon-sized commitment shortly after terrorists kidnapped and killed a Phillipino civilian. Similarly, one could make a case that Spain defected, in part at least, because of the Madrid bombing, not the realization of fabrications. Other defecting nations have attributed their defections to the lack of progress in the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure, and the ineffectiveness of attempts to restore civil order. No doubt the embarrassment of being duped played a role -- along with these other factors.

Surely, failing to mention that a third of those listed in the coalition have provided only verbal support, no boots on the ground, is deceptive? -- Geo Swan 02:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I reworded the phrase to hopefully be more neutral, but I know the math is still off slightly. Is the reworded phrase acceptable to all? 06:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Spain withdrew after the previous gouvernment lost the election and a change in gouvernment took place. Withdrawal from Iraq was one of the most important topics during the campaign, and was promised by the winning party forming the new gouvernment long before the bombings. Claiming that the bombing caused Spain to withdraw is at the very least misleading (at best it is indirect, causing the election result, but there is no consensus about this).--Stephan Schulz 11:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Codenames in introductory paragraph

My remark about these codenames in introductory paragraph was mainly because stating all these lyrical codenames takes a huge amount of space in the first paragraph, especially if the successive revisions are stated, while not giving actual information. For instance, no single mention is made of the fact that the rational for the invasion were found to have been fabrication, which is quite significant a piece of information, I would say more than the military codename which have no incidence on anything. Rama 07:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the introductory paragraph, it creates the false impression that there was a large consensus to invade Iraq in 2003. This contrasts with the rest of the article where it becomes apparent that it was, as Britannica puts it: "a combined force of troops from the United States and Great Britain, with smaller contingents from several other countries." [17]. So the question is, do we chop it down and let the reader read on to find out the details? Or do we try and present an overview of the entire article in the introduction? I think it might be best to just chop out the "48 governments" and the "legality questioned" part and just let the reader go to those sections if thats what he's looking for instead of trying to summarize in the opening paragraph. 18:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
No, actually the Lead section "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Also the military codenames are very redundant indeed. NightBeAsT 14:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What expert though

This paragraph:

Every person from the Clinton and Bush Administrations believed at the time that Saddam Hussein was a threat to U.S. interests, Middle East stability, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and gave financial support to terrorists. All subsequent reports have confirmed those views

can be trivially invalidated by reading Karen Kwiatkowski, for instance. Rama 12:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The administration usually refers to the political appointees, Kwaitkowski's concerns about intelligence philosophy isn't relevant.--Silverback 16:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The above paragraph in question is completely speculative. --Howrealisreal 13:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea whey either of you are talking about. This is not even controvercial, it is the common understanding of what he did. Something can't be "invalidated" or is "completely speculative" if that is what he did and it was not disputed. Only the WMD issue was disputed. --Noitall 15:36, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, you seem to be conflating what people believe with what they, and the PR department, say. Christiaan 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
You need to take your POV blindfold off. This is not even controvercial to anyone except the Michael Moore gang. --Noitall 15:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Quite obviously, Colonel Kwiatkowski, for instance, did not think that Saddam Hussein "was a threat to U.S. interests". Also, saying that "All subsequent reports have confirmed those views" is rather bold.
To be precise, your statement should be reformulated to something like "Proeminent officials of the Bush administration affected to think so", which is quite obvious and redundant with other informations stated in the article. Also, it should be balanced to something like "Intelligence from other countries were far more nuanced, or contradicted these views". I would deem it safe to say that this is not interesting.
Also, please mind WP:POINT and refrain from removing information gratuitously. Thank you. Rama 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
There are more than 1 million people in the federal government. And you find one little Lt. Col. who, after the invasion, retires in 2003, wants a job in the [[John Kerry] Administration, and made no such assertion?? The statements I included are extremely general common knowledge (to anyone without blinders on) and even your favorite little Lt. Col. likely agreed, but it does not matter. As to what is removed, it is unsourced speculation that is mostly inaccurate. If accurate, find a source. --Noitall 16:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
You can claim they're "common knowledge" as many times as you think people are in the federal goverment, it still doesn't verify any claim. If you cannot find a reliable source saying " this time all the persons from the Clinton and Bush Administrations (with no absentees) were plugged to lie detectors and all said in a chorus "I swear on the Bible, the Constitution and my life that I believe this: right now I believe that that Saddam Hussein was a threat to U.S. interests, Middle East stability, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and gave financial support to terrorists." The lie detectors confirmed the truth of their words without a doubt., don't even try to continue insisting on the sentence. Believe it or not it would only reduce your credibility. NightBeAsT 16:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I am not the one who came with such a wording as "Every person from the Clinton and Bush Administrations"; bit you own finger for that, will you ? If you want to reformulate your statement, do carry on, but with the wording you have, it is blatantly wrong.
Secondly, I happen to find the choice of a lieutenant colonel working precisely in the intelligence branch of the Army, one the precise topic, rather relevant.
Also, what particular items of the part that you are deleteing are you challenging, exactly ? Rama 16:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
As to the first, I am responding on 2 different pages, so part of what I responded to was not on this page, such as my agreement that "every person" is not the right words.
Your Lt. Col., even using the words I agreed to remove, is irrelevant. You are confused with the WMD issue. The rest is common knowledge and extremely general summary instead of supplying with a laundry list of charges (payments to suicide bombers, all statements said, designs on Kuwait, Saudis, oil, meetings with North Korea, meeting with other terrorist groups and leaders, and both Presidents said he continued to threaten interests -- Clinton bombed him on several occasions, etc., etc.). The problem was, and is, this did not totally make the case for all people for the invasion, since it had been this way since the end of the last Gulf War, so it was not emphasized as much.
Finally, I assume you have no problem with deletion of unsourced speculation that I assert is mostly inaccurate. --Noitall 16:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I am glad that you are agreed to rewording your passage. As it is, I find it very difficult to tell things you say about Saddam Hussein (that he supported terrorism) from things you say about people in the US administration (that they though he did) and from what you say from subsequent reports.
I do have problems with deletion of unsourced information, if not justified with precise criticism. I also find it quite disturbing that your deletion should have occurred precisely during a similar discussion about your own edit, and I advise you that you removal could be taken for a violation of the WP:POINT policy if you do not explain it further. I therefore strongly suggest to you either to state precisely what you are contesting if the lenghtly part you are removing, or to restore it. Rama 16:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
On the first edit, it is not unsourced, especially if commonly understood and especially if it is summarizing a detailed post. We don't provide the sources in the intro and in topical paragraphs specifically because it summarizes the later information. On the second deletion, don't give me some Wiki point, take it somewhere else. I am making a total edit of this entirely POV anti-War article. It is unsourced detailed information with conclusions drawn by anti-War people. If you have a source, then provide it, but I know you don't because it is entirely wrong. --Noitall 18:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Entirely wrong ? Aren't you drifting into abusive generalisation again ? As for your edit, why don't you explicitly write this "commonly understood" that you mean us to grasp ? Rama 20:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone dispute anything yet except for "every person" which I agreed to change. The only other apparent dispute is that it does not fit the anti-War POV of some of the editors. I cited the incidents above of which there is no dispute. If you want to dispute them, please tell me which ones you dispute and why. (i.e, people disputed the word "every person" and it was rightfully changed) For instance, do you dispute that the payments were made to people the U.S. called terrorists? Do you dispute that Clinton Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 stated that Sadaam was a threat to U.S. interests? Do you dispute that Sadaam met with what the U.S. called terrorist groups? Do you dispute, etc., etc., etc. --Noitall 05:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I do dispute wordings likes "threat to US interrests" and "All subsequent reports have confirmed those views", because they are very imprecise; the extend of the threat is not mentioned, and the rest of the part leaves the impression that you sort of can fill in a table with "Terrorism: USA -- no; Saddam Hussein -- yes"; obviously things are much not nuanced than this. Rama 07:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, you've just violated the three revert rule again to push your POV in this article.NightBeAsT 15:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I beefed up the "Rationales" section with an explanation given by U.S. official General Jay Garner.


The article states that one of Rumsfeld's "stated goals" was to "secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources". If Rumsfeld is truly on record saying the United States invaded in order to seize Iraqi oil, that ought to be cited with a source. I am well aware that popular opinion holds that the US invaded for oil, but I would be surprised if the US government said that in so many words. I suggest removing this particular "stated goal" unless we can find out where it is stated.Bdell555 14:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

See Christiaan 15:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed there. But the reference should be on the main article. Additionally, to be as precise as possible, how about producing the quote: "to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime". While grammatically it does not say why this was a goal, the implication is there (in the usual couched fashion). Without this clarification one might readily think a stated goal of the invasion was to secure the oil for the US, which clearly was not a stated goal. Daniel Collins 16:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Oil is what made a man of Saddam's character more dangerous than a Sudanese war lord. The preservation of the oil production capability was important for the Iraqi people. Notice that the constitutional battle is over how to divide the oil, not how to divide the treasures that have been recovered for the looted museum.--Silverback 16:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
yeah just give more of the quote if you feel it's taken out of context. keith 08:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe how coniving some of you can be with your conspiracy tales. Rumsfeld was listing seven reasons for the mission in Iraq, the seventh being defending the wealth of the oil fields for the Iraqi people. There was no mention of going in there to secure this for the US. This is a blatant distortion. -Anon

WMD in intro and rationales

I would like to know

  • who disagrees that the Iraqi WMD were the main officially stated reason for the invasion, and why
    • I disagree, it was the failure of Iraq to account for WMD and to fully cooperate with the UN inspection that was the stated reason, and that fact has not been altered by post war findings.--Silverback 08:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Who disagrees that none of the WMD were found (not 15-year-old empty shells I mean, but these famous ready-to-fire-within-45-minutes systems)
    • I disagree, while WMD stockpiles have not yet been found, the intent to restart the WMD programs when sanctions were lifted has been found. That means that sanctions and inspections were never going to really deny Saddam WMD.--Silverback 08:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • whether everybody has understood that the list of rationals is not a list about factual rationals, but rationals claimed by opponants ? That is, if a significant proportion of the opposition to the war claimed that the Earth is flat, the argument would have to be included here, however wrong it'd be.
    • There are articles about the war where popular opinion is discussed, this article is for the history and the evidence.--Silverback 08:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the matter with this is that is strange that one should demand to "account for WMD" which did not exist; as for the UN inspections, obviously Hans Blix had far less reserves of Iraq cooperation that the USA did; parhap we could state as a reason that the USA stated that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN, while the UN itself was reporting encouraging progress ?
The reason you demand that the weapons be accounted for, is that Saddam was a notorious liar, so you don't take his word for anything. Saddam's poor character was probably the main reason for the war, he could not be trusted with the resources and wealth that enabled him to finance WMD weapons programs and to fund terrorism.--Silverback 09:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I've noted it before, but it bears repeating, that Saddam's cooperation was late and at the point of a gun. He still put conditions on the inspections that were in violation of the UN resolutions, although the UN inspectors still thought they were able to do a fair job anyway, but this all made it take to long. Saddam was still trying to delay his way out of the sanctions, and that maintaining the gun at his head was very expensive for the United States. None of the European powers that were in Saddam's pay, were willing to compensate the US for the delays further inspections would cost in maintaining the buildup.--Silverback 10:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I have failed so far to come across convincing proofs that "intent to restart the WMD programs when sanctions were lifted has been found"; I know that several US officials have been talking about limited discoveries in Iraq, but the absance of one single photograph, while we had been fed so much multimedia data before the invasion, disturbs me.
I'm not sure what you would find a photograph of? The information about the intent to restart the programs is from interviews with scientists, and the last thing they want is their photograph taken with Bathist military officers still terrorizing the country.--Silverback 09:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
As for putting the summerising the popular opinion and pointing to the relevant article, I think it is a fairly good idea. Rama 09:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I would very much like these points discussed on the talk page rather than by constant reversals. Thank you very much. Rama 16:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember that a key argument was the fear of mushroom clouds in the not so distant future. No need for ready-to-fire systems, just a working nuclear weapons program in Iraq. I don't think they found that either, though. Rl 19:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Rl is right. The discussion of WMD's was almost always couched in terms of possibilities - possibilities that Iraq had them now, or that they could develop them in the future. And potential presence of WMD's or WMD programs was only one of the reasons offered - feel free to read this very article to learn about the rest. The only reason I can see for inclusion of this specific rationale (Rama, the word has an 'e' at the end) in the intro is to make a large, bold-faced, anti-Iraq-war statement right at the beginning of the article. Korny O'Near 05:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the spelling tip.
I distinctively remember mister Blair speaking in an inambiguous manner of operational WMD systems; the "possibilities" mainly refered to nuclear systems, but the existance of chemical and biological weapon systems was hardly spoken of in terms of possibilities (see the talk by Powel, for instance).
The point of this into is not "to make a large, bold-faced, anti-Iraq-war statement right at the beginning of the article", it is to briefly describe the reason for the war; this is to address concerns of some people who expressed reserves that the article gave the impression that Iraq was invaded for no reason. Rama 06:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm no great fan of either of the current Schrodinger cat-like intros, partly because of style, but I think the style is poor because edits have not been made in harmony. What should the intro include? I think a summary of what you will read below - the major points (ie. those worth putting into sections of their own). In addition, if the page describes an event as this does: What happened? When? Where? Who/what did it? Why did it happen? How did it happen? What was the result? So if I were to follow this scheme: Invasion. March 2003. Iraq. US, UK, etc. Eliminate threat of Hussein and WMD. Ground troops and bombardment. Hussein captured, WMD found not be a threat.
All this is complicted by huge overlap with other entries, though, like Iraq War and Iraq disarmament crisis. In fact, I'd probably favor moving much of this article's content elsewhere - the invasion itself was pretty short-lived, and is not the entire war. If this line stands, then the why form above would contain: Iraq Disarmament Crisis; and result would contain: Led to the Iraq War.
Is this sufficiently sensible and diplomatic? Daniel Collins 05:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds very reasonable indeed. Rama 06:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the intro should include anything about rationales. There were enough different rationales offered for the war, and different wording by different world leaders (again, see the article itself for evidence of that) that to include only one or some of them would be misleading and would necessarily introduce bias; to include all of them would be too long a list and not suitable for the introduction. The intro was fine before; I don't see why rationale has to be included there now. Korny O'Near 19:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
But in this case, one rationale was far more important than the others, more prominent than all the others put together. It is quite reasonable to put WMD in an introduction, just as it would be reasonable to immediately mention the attack on Pearl Harbor in an article on the US war in the Pacific with Japan. --John Z 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
But even "WMD's" is not one rationale. Among the political leaders arguing for the war, some said Saddam possessed them, others said he had the capability to create them eventually, others said he had the will to create and use them, others said we just don't know and the uncertainty was enough of a reason to depose him. Saying "the main officially stated reason was that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction", as the intro currently has it, is simply not true. I'd like to see a source for this highly misleading claim. Korny O'Near 06:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes and no. Concern for the use of Iraqi-developed WMD was the overarching rationale. This mentions WMD but does not say whether they possessed them, had a program, or merely the intent. Those aspects are better suited in, you guessed it, Iraq disarmament crisis. Daniel Collins 12:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry to come back to the same example all the time, but Blair did mention an operational system deployable on the field within 45 minutes. There are also the declarations by Bush, Rumsfeld (North, South, west and East...), and the reactions of Blix ("I find it peculiar that you can have a 100% certainty about the existance of WMD bu none as to their location"). This was nothing to do with "capability to create them eventually" or "will to create and use them". Or at least, this is not what we have been fed. Rama 13:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but at least one chemical weapon was found in Iraq, i believe it was in a roadside bomb used to sabotage an American convoy. Doesnt this make statements such as "No WMD were found" untrue? --Henrybaker 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No it does not: first, I'd like to acertain the story (nothing against you personnaly, but...). Second, even one particular functionnal instance of a chemical weapon had survived the 10 years during which they were not produced, which I am skeptical of but which is not impossible, that would have nothing to do with the vaste chemical, biological and nuclear programmes which were supposed to be found, and the 45-minute readzable mobile chemical missile launchers. Rama 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the story which covered exactly when and where WMD found, but it is mentioned in this wikipedia article: --Henrybaker 21:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Rama, if we can assume that one shell with chemical residue was found, then it would make it inaccurate to say that "no WMD were found in Iraq." However, it would still be accurate to say that "vaste chemical, biological and nuclear programmes... and the 45-minute readzable mobile chemical missile launchers..." were not found. --Henrybaker 21:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

then you'd you to say something like "traces of chemical weapons residues were found", to be absolutely correct; but in this context, saying that WMD were found would be more incorrect than saying some were.
That Iraq had chemical weapons in the 80s is not a mystery for anyone, but the point was that they were forbiden to have operational weapons in 2003, which it seems they did not have. You could not accuse Iraq of having had WMD in 2003 any more than you could accuse France of possessing chemical weapons because of traces of green gas from the First Wolrd War. Rama 21:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the article where it is documented that a shell containing Sarin,2933,120268,00.html was found in Iraq. I submit that it is inaccurate to say that "no WMD were found in Iraq." I agree that it would be dis ingenuous to simply assert that "WMD were found in Iraq." The Opening paragraph, rather than saying "No WMD were found in Iraq." Should say something like "Insignificant amounts of WMD were found in Iraq" --Henrybaker 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This being an article on the invasion, are the details of the presence of WMD that were sought for post-invasion relevant? If it requires we wonder whether a canister with chem residue constitutes WMD, which actually isn't a trivial question (eg. are the quantities sufficient? was there a delivery mechanism for the chemicals? were the chemicals to be used for their own right or merely the canister? etc), I think we're off base. That important discussion should go to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Iraq war. Daniel Collins 21:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the reference to WMD in the intro, noting that chemical residues were found, without stating that WMD were found, and avoiding stating that WMD were not found. In response to what Daniel Collins said, I don't know if it is relevant, but the intro flatly said that "No WMD were found" and i just don't think that statement is accurate without some kind of explanation. --Henrybaker 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, the US administration itself aknowledges that no waepons of mass destructions were found:
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said though the search for WMD yielded no results, the United States, based on "extensive intelligence," believed before it invaded Iraq that Saddam was intent on acquiring them.
"I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong," Blair said [18], [19]
I understand why one would want to take the word of the US administration with some caution, given the context, but this seems better than one single isolated article by Fox News. Rama 22:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This incident is also detailed in several Wikipedia articles, including here:

It is not an "isolated article by fox news." You said you wanted me to ascertain the story, but apperantly, you meant you wanted me to ascertain the story without citing fox news. Are you now doubting the veracity of the article? --Henrybaker 22:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, the more i read the story, and the first paragraph of the article especially, the more i agree with daniel collins. The line about WMD does not belong in the opening paragraph. It is just floating there, with no apperant connection either to the preceding or succeeding sentence(s). --Henrybaker 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to say that all reference to WMD be removed, per se. I think it is crucial in that the event that led to the invasion was the WMD disarmament crisis. What ever rationale is not appropriate to Iraq disarmament crisis should be contained here, but it's good editorial practice to remind readers of this point. But I stress that the invasion was over well before conslusions regarding the (non-)existence of WMD were announced - that occurred in Iraq war. What I'd like to encourage is this article sticks to the title. Daniel Collins 04:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This is quite a good point; I have had the feeling that this article is mistaken for Iraq War too. Rama 07:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
What I mean by my comment about Foxnews is that I find is strange that no other media seem to have spred the news; especially, I have not seen any statement about this from the White House, which could seem to be logically wanting to use any sort of things to confirm the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions. For example, there are instances of Rumsfeld jumping on a story about buried fighter aircrafts to hammer down that weapons of mass destructions are obviously difficult to find; in this context, I find it peculiar that US officials shoud apparently not have commented on this, and therefore, I would be more at ease if antother source than Foxnews could be find on the matter to confirm it. Rama 23:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Curious indeed, though I haven't looked myself. Still, it's a valid reference as far as my vision of Wikipedia is concerned, but I would couple with some comment to the effect that the claim is not officially coroborated or whatever. The rationale? To present the information and attach appropriate error bars to it - we report, they decide. Daniel Collins 04:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It appears that chemical tests were conducted and they coroberated it. There was a lot of news coverage at the time. Apparently if would be difficult to use these binary weapons in IEDs, they actually relied upon spinning after they had been fired to open valves and then properly mix the chemicals. --Silverback 10:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I removed the speculative POV that Iraq had intentions to restart WMD programs after US sanctions are lifted. This is not very well-known or documented so will definitely need a reliable source to be re-added. In addition, Iraq largely received WMD from Western countries to use during the Iran-Iraq War, so to state that all of a sudden they were going to produce them on their own, in a post-war terrain, seems like propaganda to support the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. See Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction#Use of chemical weapons during the war with Iran. --Howrealisreal 13:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Iraq was intending for their UN strategy to work to keep the coalition from attacking and to eventually lift sanctions, so they would not have been producing them in a "post-war terrain".--Silverback 18:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
According to Kay’s report, Iraq had intended to restart its dormant WMD program as soon as sanctions were over. Although Iraq received production related equipment for its WMD program, largely from Europe, its WMD program was home grown. TDC 18:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well then cite Kay's report as the source of the speculation. Right now this is totally unsourced psychological guesswork and does not belong in an encyclopedia.--csloat 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Site David Kay's testimony to the Senate Commission and also site the Deufler Report as well. The ISG unit after the Iraq invasion testified to this and also the inspection teams by the UN after the invasion have also said that Saddam was going to reconstitute his programs as soon as sanctions were lifted and his manipulation of the oil for food scandal was another evidence of this. -Anon

Face it, the WMD scenerio that the anti-war crowd tries to use against the Administrations case is useless. The whole onus was squarley on Iraq to comply to UN Resolutions in order to plead its case. It failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441 and inspectors David Kay, Hans Blix (Dissarming Iraq pg. 90) and Charles Deufler agree to this.

Media Coverage section

If there is another article dedicated exclusively to media coverage of the invasion, why is its treatment so lengthy here? I would think a synopsis of the main article be produced instead, with any additional info contained here inserted in the other article as appropriate. This would help make the article a little less of a quagmire. Daniel Collins 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

WMD section

As with the media section, the one on WMD is perhaps overly long and amorphous. I suggest what content need to be moved over to Iraq disarmament crisis be moved, and then a synopsis of that main article be reproduced here. Thoughts? Daniel Collins 21:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think that article is much more in-depth and doesn't have the problems (like mind-reading) that this one does.--csloat 20:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

intent to revive

"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended---and sanctions were eroding." Testimony of Charles Duelfer Special Advisor to the DCI for Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction[20]

"Imad Husayn al Ani, Iraq’s former program director for VX, stated in an interview in 2003 that plans to produce thiourea and DCC, both of which he was unaware, indicated unequivocally that the Regime intended to reconstitute the V-series nerve agent program"[21]--Silverback 20:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

When we include speculation it is best to include its source, like this. Though it's unclear to me how al-Ani could be unaware of the programs and yet be certain that they prove a certain intent. In any case I think we should be more specific -- intent to create VX is a very different WMD threat than intent to build nuclear weapons or even anthrax. I'm not comfortable with TDCs edit, though it is better than what we had there before. --csloat 20:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Obeidi is the source for nuclear information, and about how Iraq was still not complying with the UN inspectors.[22]. There are lots of news stories featuring him on the web as well. --Silverback 04:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC).

Well done Silverback. - Anon

"team assembled by CIA and Pentagon"

I don't know why TDC wants to hide that info -- if anything, it refutes the theory that the organization was "controlled" by them, since CIA and Pentagon came to different conclusions about all of this. --csloat 02:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

TDC, you say you're "not trying to hide anything" but then why do you keep removing my edits? I don't understand why you are so opposed to explaining that the ISG was assembled by the CIA and The Pentagon. I know that you don't dispute this information, but you would just rather omit it so that your "source" seems more valid. Truth be told, your logic is absolutely disgraceful for an encyclopedia; This article is ways off from being NPOV when editors like TDC are trying to bamboozle the readers. --Howrealisreal 14:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
That information exists elsewhere in the article as well as in the ISG's page. There is no need to fill the intro paragraph up with extra information not relevant to the topic at hand. TDC 14:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
The introduction is supposed to be an overview of the article. I don't see the harm of adding a few extra words to put your "source" in context. Your claims that Iraq had plans to restart its weapons program after sanctions is very controversial and we owe it to the wikipedia community to tell the facts straight up, right in the beginning. Please consider compromising. --Howrealisreal 14:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Date: 02:30 UTC March 20, 2003–April 15, 2003

Since that's the timespan during which the invasion took place, this article should only point to other articles, if necessary, that describe events outside these dates. Detailed treatment of pre-war knowledge of WMD or of the Kay report, for example, are out of place. I seek a coalition of the willing to assist in moving such details to their rightful home, and any voiced dissent so that this objective does not over-reach. Daniel Collins 14:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that one of the most desirable features of 2003 invasion of Iraq would be a short but vigourous notice "for the main article, see Iraq War". That said, good luck for the move. Rama 14:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think the whole introduction is somewhat clumsy and the result of too many compromises. What about a shorter version, e.g.:

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003, with support from some other governments, making up what was described as the "coalition of the willing". After approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces and the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party came to an end. For subsequent events, see Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. The legitimacy of the invasion is disputed. The officially stated reason was that Iraq had failed to account for its Weapons of Mass Destruction or to fully cooperate with the inspections. However, the UN inspection teams were ready to continue the inspection, and even careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction. and discuss all the rest later in the article. --Stephan Schulz 14:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

A very good one; what about (very slight modifications):
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the first military act of the Iraq War, and was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003, with support from some other governments, making up what was described as the "coalition of the willing". After approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces, ending the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party. The legitimacy of the invasion is disputed: the officially stated reason was that Iraq had failed to account for its Weapons of Mass Destruction and to fully cooperate with the UN inspections; however, the UN inspection teams were willing to continue the inspection, and even careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction. For subsequent events, see Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005
diff: mention "Iraq War", ponctuate (I am a big fan of semi-columns), put the reference of the following episode at the end rather than in the middle. Rama 15:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I like your version. --Stephan Schulz 15:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

So is this revised version of the introduction going to be used? --Howrealisreal 00:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour. I was waiting for some more reactions (or lack of same) before copying it over - given that I only participated in the discussion for a few hours. --Stephan Schulz 01:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's my take: The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the start of the Iraq War, launched primarily by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003, supported by N other nations, collectively termed the "coalition of the willing". The invasion stemmed from the Iraq disarmament crisis, during which Iraq failed to convince the U.S. and U.K., in particular, that it posed no threat from weapons of mass destruction, despite the on-going work of United Nations inspectors; Resolution 1441 was cited as legal justification for the war. Other nations as well as the UN disagreed with the invasion, its rationale and its legality. After approximately three weeks of combat, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces led by the U.S., ending the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party. The period that followed is detailed in Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005.

I like the version by me and Rama better. Your suggestion has the problem of finding N. Moreover, Iraq may or may not have failed to convince the gouvernments of the US and the UK (convincing countries is strictly impossible, as they have no consciousness), but we cannot know that - we only know what they said. Merging in the UN resolution might be good. But otherwise, you are less specific than the previous draft.--Stephan Schulz 02:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I did mean it to be less specific. And I equate "nation" with "government" in this context (cf. United Nations). N should be identifiable; I don't like "some". But I won't insist on any of this. I do recommend putting the motive for the invasion before the statement of dissent. Daniel Collins 03:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"war" vs. "invasion"

A "war" is a battle between 2 sides. An invasion is the specifica act of intruding military forces into a country. It's part of a military campaign by one side in the larger war.

When you say you are anti-war, you mean any of three thing:

  1. You are against all wars (see "pacifism")
  2. You wish this war would end (somehow)
  3. You want one side to stop fighting (surrender, withdraw, etc.)

Most "anti-war" activists when speaking about the Iraq War never said that they wanted Iraq's forces to stop fighting back against the Americans and British. Rather, they wanted the Allies to stop waging war against Saddam. (Or as some put it, "against the people of Iraq").

These distinctions are important, whichever "side" you are on. I hope that nothing but my 5 years of US military service shows in this discussion, and not advocacy on my part in favor or against Bush's decision. Uncle Ed 19:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you are exactly right in drawing that distinction. Thank you for your clarity. I imagine most anti-war activists really only support #3, regardless of what they claim. ObsidianOrder 22:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Ed, and OO, your apparent anti-anti-war activist activism, or pro-war activism, is out of place here, just like any anti-war activism, or anti-pro-war activist activism, is. Citizens generally petition their own government to change what is under their governments' control. It is therefore appropriate for US citizens, should they be opposed to any US activity, to lobby for that activity to be stopped. They have no influence over Iraqi policy, and so cannot call for Iraq to change its ways as much as that of their own nation. Also, it is/was implicit to assume that any withdrawl by an invader would lead to them not being attacked by those they invaded. Were the anti-war activists ever asked if they would like their nation's military to continue being under attack? I dare say when they were, the majority (I personally know an exception) would not have liked that either. But why would they explicitly state this if (i) it is an implicit outcome of the other objective, and (ii) demanding their military not be attacked was out of their control?
Lumping all anti-war activists as those seeing the war as one "against the people of Iraq" is unfair and inaccurate, and not surprisingly not part of any Wikipedia entry I know, just discussion.
There's another bullet point to add:
4. Those advocating Just War theory
Indeed an invasion is not a war, nor do all wars require an invasion. But in this case the two were synonymous. The UN condoned neither the invasion nor the war (how could it condone one and not ther other?); anti-war activists likewise (where are the anti-invasion activists?). Also, on a minor technicality, war's needn't involve just two sides (nb: I see you are not equating side with nation); it seems quite reasonable that multiple sides may fight over something, it's just not all that common. All in all, I don't buy your edit (though the article is rife with many more important issues). Please elaborate.
Daniel Collins 23:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there are plenty of examples of people protesting the actions of another government. There have been several protests against the war that have taken place in cities such as {{London]] and Madrid. If those people, they could just as easily demonstrate against the policies of the insurgency, rather than against the policies of the coalition. The fact that they choose not to do this could quite sensibly be interpreted as favoring one side in the conflict. Johntex\talk 03:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
People demonstrating against a war most usually do so in protest against the violence, so it does not mean they favour the other side. Furthermore, terrorists have no official embassies in other countries, and few countries' governments openly think about supporting them. Plus, there have been plenty of demonstrations against terrorism, too, most notably after 9/11. As demonstrations are a means to show what the public thinks, they are usually directed to democratic governments. Get-back-world-respect 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Take any "anti-war" protest in any continental European city. Count how many signs there are anti-American or anti-Bush, or anti-Blair vs how many are anti-Heussein, or anti-OBL, or anti-terrorism. There will be many more signs arguing against the coalition side of the conflict. You can even rule out any protest that happens right in front of the US Embassy and only include ones in parks, etc. The fact is that anti-war protestors are protesting against one side of the war. Any anti-war protestor in France or Germany or Spain could, if they wanted, hold up signs saying they decry the tactics of the insurgents, but as a rule they don't do that, do they? They decry only the actions of the coalition. Therefore, by definition, they are taking sides in the conflict. Johntex\talk 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have the impression you did not carefully read what I wrote. Please also note that many anti-war protesters are pacifists. Get-back-world-respect 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Johntex, I protested against the invasion more than once, before it started. I did so because (a) I strongly believed it would distract us from the priority of counter-terrorism, which it has. (b) It would actually create a whole generation of terrorists, which it surely has. (c) I strongly believed that Bush was vastly over-exaggerating the WMD case, which he was. .... So, I protested, along with 30,000 other folks in San Francisco, and along with maybe a 50,000 in Amsterdam. I most certainly was not taking Saddam's side. He's a monster, and I'd gladly put a bullet through his brain myself. When you say protesters are taking sides with the enemy, it merely reveals that you don't understand the mentality of protest.
Now, why do I not walk around with an anti-terrorist sign? Because I really don't think OBL is going to give a rat's ass that I don't like what he's doing. Ditto for the Iraqi insurgents. However, I did think that there was a slim chance that enough public dissent might dissuade Bush from launching what I correctly believed would be a disaster. (And despite conventional revisionist wisdom today, _lots_ of people in national security and intelligence establishments were saying the same thing, e.g. Brent Scowcroft). Here's the thing: essentially everybody in Western democracies abhors terrorism. Why have a demonstration about something everyone agrees on? The point of a demonstration is to say "hey, over here, not everyone agrees with this; think again". Americans or Europeans protesting Osama or the insurgents would be like protesting ebola, pointless, because nobody likes ebola anyway.
So, that's a long-winded way of saying that I believe you are mistaken. Btw, I _do_ have a brother-in-law in the infantry (1st Cav) in Baghdad (his 2nd tour), and he completely agrees with my actions. Derex 04:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Derex, how can you "put a bullet through his brain" if he's still in power? Also - here and here are links which shows the kind of crowd you'll find in a San Francisco "anti-war" rally. Derex, are these people your peers? 07:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Two responses ... First, I would have no qualms about executing him. That doesn't mean I think this war was a good idea. I'd certainly like to see all the people of the world freed from tyranny. But, I don't think we should run off and invade China, Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, etc, etc, etc. At some point, it's your own responsibility as a nation. America is not, nor should it be, the world's policeman. Second ... I haven't looked at your link, but I do know what kind of fringe elements try to hijack any demonstration. You'll have communists, and free mumia's, and pro-plo's, and the rest of the loony-tunes. Most everyone hates them, because that's not what the event is about, and they're trying to hijack it, and of course it gives people like you the cheap shot of "nuts by association". It is a total cheap-shot. Neo-nazi's and klansmen tend to run as republicans e.g. David Duke ... if you're a Republican, do you consider David Duke your peer? We can play that game forever, no matter what your personal views are. How about getting serious and losing the cheap rhetoric? It's sufficiently puerile, ignorant, and insincere that I'm not even sure why I bother responding. Derex 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Not true at all. The "UN" condoned and supported many aspects of the War, just not the invasion part. And the UN does not exclusively determine whether "just" or not. Many people believe that the UN is not "just", dominated by dictators and the corrupt. In fact, an enourmous number of countries, especially the free ones, supported the war, even the invasion. Almost everyone (except Syria and the French, who were bribed) wanted to get rid of Sadaam as a threat to world peace and humanity, but some preferred a different method. --Noitall 01:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The UN was created amongst other reasons in order to create an organization that decides about international disputes. All member countries have signed treaties that they follow UN law, most countries, such as the US, have it as part of their national law. Even though some countries in the past have refused to follow UN jurisdiction, such as the UN when found guilty of terrorism in Nicaragua, courts like the International Court of Justice have universal jurisdiction and are used by members of this wars coalition in order to try their opponents in other conflicts, too, e.g. Slobodan Milosevic.
Furthermore, as you may see at the related articles Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq, The UN Security Council and the Iraq war, an enormous number of countries, including a majority of the free ones, opposed this war, as did an overwhelming part of the world population. Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, Protests against the 2003 Iraq war. Get-back-world-respect 03:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me be clear. I also have no problem with anyone who protested against the prospect of sending troops into Iraq if they felt there was a better course of action. I have no problem if they want to protest today against the troops still being there. I have no problem at all with people protesting about whatever they want. However, if they choose to speak only to one side by saying "coalition forces withdraw from Iraq" or "coalition forces are killing people", and they don't choose to make those similar statements about the other side like "insurgents lay down your arms" or "insurgents stop blowing up people who are trying to vote in a democratic election", then they have chosen sides in the conflict. If what they want is for one-side (in this case the coalition forces) to unilaterally stop what they are doing, then they are protesting for what they want and that is their right. Johntex\talk 22:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

November 2005?

While reading the article I found an inconsistency in the "weapons of mass distruction" section:

[...]and in November 2005 David Kay, the head of the Iraq Suvery Group charged with finding Saddam Hussein's WMDs stated that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion[...]

This edit, from user Kulinda seems pretty old: 04:36, 14 May 2005. Somebody, with a funny sense of humour, had recently added (considered by some to be a month that hasn't yet occurred) right after "november 2005" [23]. Now the question is: how do we fix this? I suggest removing the whole edit by Kulinda, as it does not seem reliable anymore, unless it turns our he is a time traveler or - more likely - he just did a mistake confusing months or years. --Nova77 17:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was amused by the anonymous edit. I did a quick search for the relevant reference to correct the statement, but came up short. There is far too much here that is not cited. I support the deletion (besides, Kay said a lot more than [maybe] just this), and I encourage all to bring references to the table. Daniel Collins 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim all the nations in the "coalition of the willing" participated in the Invasion

An anonymous contributor made a change to the first paragraph that seemed very POV to me. The wording they replaced said "some governments" had supported the USA and the UK in the invasion. They replaced this with a list of 29 of the nations who were now, or who at one time, were members of the "[[coalition of the willing]". Maybe it wasn't their intnetion, but this has a highly deceptive effect. This- article is about the invasion of Iraq, there is another article Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005, which puts the beginning of the post-invasion period at May 1, 2003. I'd say that when President Bush announced the "end of major combat operations" under the huge "Mission Accomplished" poster the invasion period was over.

How could this list include Turkey? Turkey may have joined the coaltion -- following the invasion -- but Turkey was a huge disappointment in the lead-up to the invasion. The USA wanted Turkey's co-operation to launch a second front, from Turkey. Turkey would not allow US forces to launch an attack from Turkish territory. It is highly deceptive to list Turkey as one of the nations that was supporting the invasion.

The list in the first paragraph could have included Australia and Poland. Australia and Poland also contributed actual ground troops to the invasion. Maybe there are other nations that could be listed. No nation should be listed as supporting the invasion because they were once members of the coalition of the willing if they only signed on after the invasion was over. I looked at the articles for all those nations. None of those article stated when those nations started supporting the coalition. Most of those articles don't even mention those nations membership in the "coalition of the willing".

I'm fairly certain that the only other countries that actually invaded Iraq were Australia and Poland, who both supplied special forces units. IIRC, there were 2000 Aussies and 200 Poles.Nudge 21:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if we had an authoritative list of those nations that had supported the invasion, while it was still in progress, I would question the value of listing those nations in the first paragraph.

I think the anonymous contributor should have done more research than crib the list from coalition of the willing. They did so little research that they didn't even check the links they made. This listed Georgia, a disambiguation page, rather than Georgia (country) -- a mistake they would not have made if they had checked the links they cited.

If the anonymous contributor reads the talk page, I would encourage them to sign in when they make edits. I called the effect to this edit "deceptive". I am going to "assume goodwill", and assume this was unintentional. But it has the effect of making the invasion appear to have had more international support than it actually had. -- Geo Swan 09:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed those countries not party to the invasion should not be listed, making a distinction between the invasion and the coalition. We should thus have refeneces backing up who was involved. Stating "some countries were involved" is true, and too vague. I do think the list should be enumerated where the info can be found. Daniel Collins 02:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
As long as it is clear that "party to the invasion" does not mean that one had to have combat personell cross the border, a logistical supporter is every bit a party and a legitimate military target.--Silverback 12:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there is room in this article to list all the nations that provided meaningful support to the invasion, whether that was a commitment of personnel, or the use of airports, or allowing overflight of military flights -- providing that contribution can be documented. The previous contributor's poor research in listing Turkey as one of the countries that supported the invasion really bugged me. Turkey, in fact, had stood firm in withholding the highly desired support which would have allowed the US to attack on two fronts. Turkey did become a member of the coalition of the willing -- after the invasion was over.
The USA put heavy diplomatic and economic pressure on other countries to sign on board the coalition. Most nations, I believe, signed on after the invasion was complete. Here in Canada many business types were outraged by the Bush administration statements that contract proposals for a share of Iraq's reconstruction funds would only be accepted from nations fighting terror in Iraq. Canadian business types pointed out that a large contingent of Canadian forces were stationed in Afghanistan, where they too were fighting terrorism. -- Geo Swan 16:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Term Terrorist activity

In the section Results (2003 Invasion of Iraq) the term "Terrorist activity" in Terrorist activity in Iraq by insurgents seems wrong.

According to wikipedia a terrorist is...

Terrorism, violence (especially against civilians) that is militarily insignificant but aimed at undermining morale.

Taking military action against invading armies of ones own country, is militia activity, or guerrilla warfare isn't it? -Wolfe 00:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the statement. Note that it is in the "results" section, and not about activity during the invasion. Most Zarquawi led activities, after the invasion have been against civilians and the fledgeling Iraqi democratic government and its security forces, partially in the hopes of inspiring sectarian violance. Of course the results section is arguably POV in noting this. After all the coalition is not responsible for Zarqawi's immoral behavior, perhaps a different word than "results" should be used.--Silverback 20:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note the rampant POV pushing by the anon users in keeping "unprecedented terrorism" in the results section,

without having discussed it here. Swatjester

Reason for the war, and reversion to 19:37, 9 September 2005

If you want to provide the official legal justification for the war, provide it and mark it as such. That would be UN Resolution 1441 and other applicable pieces of international law. But the reason Bush repeatedly stressed was that Iraq's arsenal of WMD posed a "mortal" and "urgent" threat to Iraq's neighbors, to the U.S., and world peace generally, so we had to take out Saddam to ensure that "the smoking gun" would not "come in the form of a mushroom cloud." That's how it was sold to the American people. It was claimed that there was a "slam-dunk" case that Iraq possessed tons of prohibited chemical weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program.

Noncooperation and poor accountancy are secondary reasons supporting the claim that Iraq possessed WMD, not the main reasons themselves. Specific legal justifications should be marked as such, not claimed to be the main stated reasons.

The phrase "continued Iraqi obstruction" isn't accurate because months before the invasion, the head UN inspector said that Iraq was cooperating "rather well." His biggest complaint about cooperation was that although they were allowing inspectors to go where they wanted, Iraq wasn't actively helping the investigation.

I also reverted to avoid the redirect from "Global protests against war on Iraq" to Protests against the invasion of Iraq. The 19:37 version also puts the date of invasion next to the time in the Opening Attack section, which isn't a bad idea. I'll restore the quote from the Duelfer Report. --Mr. Billion 23:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The coalition had all the legal justification it needed, including several resolutions and the fact that the 1st gulf war had not officially ended, so its justifications are available as well. Now if you want to focus on something other than the official legal reasons, why not go to the real reasons, instead of the rhetoric used to try to persuade the international community. The real reason is that Saddam was too evil a character to leave in control of oil resources, he was sponsoring terrorism in Israel, had already attempted to assassinate the former president Bush and could not be trusted not to try to acquire WMD again after sanctions were lifted and only cooperated with inspections when forces were massing on his borders, and the UN was too unreliable and impotent to be relied upon to do anything about it. The fact that there was a specific emphasis on the possibility/likelyhood that he current possess WMD is a minor issue. Saddam could easily have avoided war if he wanted to, so lets put the blame where it belongs.--Silverback 00:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Here is the official legal reason, stated by Colin Powell to the UN: "My colleagues, over three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach." [24] Material breach of it's disarmament obligations of course means that Iraq is in possession of WMDs. The reason the phrase "that Iraq possessed weapons of Mass Destruction" is used in the article is for the sake of simplicity and brevity (not to mention the Simple English rule). 01:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Careful, Silverback. You just admitted that you think that Bush's reasons given to persuade the international community were not the real reasons.

The fact that there was a specific emphasis on the claim that Iraq had a threatening arsenal of WMD is the issue, because the point in question is what was the main stated reason for the war. If you believe that there were ulterior motives, you're welcome to make that case elsewhere. --Mr. Billion 00:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If "nonaccountancy" and such are Secondary reasons, then why leave them in a sentence that starts: "The officially stated reason for the war is...."? I removed "and did not fully cooperate" Because according to the UN inspectors, he Did cooperate (see sources I added). Then I rewrote the following sentence to make sense considering that removal. Also I added another source [25]. And, Mr. Billion why did you readd the Duelfer Report quote about Iraq procuring illicit goods? How is Iraq procuring illicit goods relevant to the WMD section? 20:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
There were just more reasons than those that were emphasized in the rhetoric, and the international community was well aware of the other reasons as well. The reports of the UN inspectors on the level of cooperation were more equivocal that you selectively cite. Unfortuantely they were political orgs trying to please all members of the security council at once. The reports admitted the regime was still throwing up roadblocks and conditions that hindered the inspectors and the freedom of scientists to speak, yet the inspectors did think they were getting useful work done. However, those on the council favoring further delay, were not the ones paying for the show of force that gained Saddam's "cooperation".--Silverback 04:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, my interpreation of the "officially stated reason", is not the rhetoric that was used in speaches to the security council, but the legal justifications that were ultimately cited. The persuasion speaches, were just attempts to highlight features with those opposing action, could use, if they were willing to be reasonable, as cover, for supporting action.--Silverback 04:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Where is your source for these "legal justifications that were ultimately cited"? 19:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I take the fact that you're not even bothering to avoid re-inserting redirects into the article (even after they've repeatedly been pointed out) as evidence that you're less concerned with the quality of the article than you are with pushing your claim that the reason given for the war was poor cooperation and accountancy. The reason repeatedly and publicly stressed was the threat from WMD. Now that the WMD on which the war was predicated have been found not to have existed, you are focusing on other reasons, such as that Iraq did not sufficiently assure us that they did not exist. Mr. Billion 06:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not focusing on other reasons, I'm not sure what redirects are in the context in which you are using the term, perhaps you can explain. It might be more correct to state the resolutions that the poor cooperation and failure to account violated as the "reasons" for the war. What was found after the war, confirms the justifiability of the war, Saddam did intend to restart his WMD programs. Evidently the reason he decieved the inspectors, was not just to hide his intent to restart the program, but he also wanted his neighbors to think he was still powerful, especially Iran. --Silverback 06:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thats just your point of view, and you're trying to push that into the article. I haven't seen you cite Any sources backing your claim for "legal justifications that were ultimately cited". While on the other hand, there are many sources directly contradicting your theory IE Colin Powell's Presentation, Bush's pre-war speeches etc. Is there some "Pre-War legal briefing" source that most everyone is unaware of? 19:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
You should read the legal discussion in this very article. There is not even a question that the US and UK were attempting to get another resolution because they believed Saddam had failed to comply with resolution 1441 which required cooperation to be "immediate, unconditional and active". In the 1st archive of this talk page you will find discussion of France's position, that this first resolution was enough, and the Blix reports to the UN security council show that Saddam's cooperation, on this his "final" chance, did not meet the "immediate, unconditional and active" standard. An internet search on:
  resolution 1441 inspections compliance  Blix

will find the Blix reports in the first couple of pages. Here are a couple links you might want to read [26] [27]. There is no doubt that the US, UK and some others though Saddam was in breech of 1441, and that there were also other resolutions that he in breech of.--Silverback 23:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the US and UK thought that Iraq was in "material breech of it's disarmament obligations". But, as I pointed out earlier that Means possession of WMDs. None of those links point to the Bush Administration's officially stated legal reason for invading Iraq being lack of "full cooperation". And there's no doubt that thats a secondary concern, since if they have WMDs and don't disclose that, they aren't cooperating. But thats all it is. And unless you can present a source that Shows that the officially stated reason is that Iraq "had failed to account for it's WMDs" I see no reason to disbelieve the present sources. And thats not going to come from Hans Blix. Its going to have to come from someone in the Bush administration, as My sources do. 01:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
On a seperate note, regarding whether or not Saddam was cooperating at the time of the invasion. I think Hans Blix has been pretty clear. In your first source: [28] He states that "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.". Later in the article he states that he wants Iraq to be more forthcoming. In your second link [29] He says again, they cooperate on process but need to be more foward with substance. But I think it's more interesting what you leave out. In Hans Blix's last presentation to the UN before the war [30] He states that: "It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are, nevertheless, welcome. And UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues." Later in the article he concludes that he needs more time: "How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months." But he doesn't get those "months" he asked for. [31]. Which is why, as a separate concern (other than "lack of cooperation clearly not being the main reason) , I think it is inappropriate to say that "Iraq failed to account for it's WMDs and did not fully cooperate". Because according to the UN inspectors, He Did cooperate, it just took some time for him to do it. 01:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I appears that in a last month of rushing around, he couldn't make up for about a decade of intrasigence. What you have documented appears to be full support for my text.--Silverback 05:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Resolution 1441 is Bush's claimed legal grounds, even though while the resolution calls for "serious consequences" it does not mention military action, let alone war, let alone the invasion of Iraq and the complete destruction of its government. Blair did hope for another resolution to make the war legal, but was thwarted when Bush barged into war.

The U.S. and U.K. tried to push through an additional UN resolution that could have allowed the use of force, but couldn't get it passed. The UN charter only allows the use of military force for self-defense or in accordance with UN resolutions calling for military force. Again, 1441 did not even mention it.

And Silverback, you try to use a selective quote from a report by Hans Blix to justify the war, but Blix himself has said that the invasion was illegal.

What was found by U.S. weapons inspectors undercuts the case for war; it does not support it. Even if Iraq had had an actual weapons program, it would have posed a threat not to the U.S. and its allies, but to Iraq's fellow "axis of evil" member, Iran. Duelfer's report found that Iran was Iraq's chief reason for wishing to reconstitute its programs. And the fact is, Iraq didn't have a chance of rebuilding its past programs. There was no indication that sanctions and other restrictions against Iraq were going to be dropped any time soon. It has been made clear that the UN's efforts to dismantle Iraq's weapons systems were quite successful, and those efforts had not slackened. And once again, even if Iraq's programs were to be one day redeveloped, their target would be the "axis of evil."

Iraq was a weak country. Dick Cheney declared in 1991 that Iraq's military capability had been virtually eliminated, and the country's military spending just before the invasion was a fraction of that of surrounding countries. --Mr. Billion 06:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Blix should have said at most that it was "allegedly illegal", since there has been no conviction. There is an interpretation that no second resolution was needed after 1441, but that it was sought to assist in the British domestic political situation. See the discussion in the first archive. What US weapons inspectors did not find, does not alter Saddam's cooperation and compliance. There was every indication those opposing the war were going to press for the sanctions to be dropped if the inspectors concluded their work. Oil for food was already undermining them and undermining the integrity of the UN, including its security council. We should count our selves fortunate that Saddam was not more forthcoming, because otherwise the sanctions may have been dropped, his WMD programs started back up, and the UN still wallowing in ethical filth. Saddam did have enough power to continue oppressing the majority Shia, and his remaining arms stockpiles have been difficult to secure and destroy, however, his overall weakness did make this an opportune time to attack. A couple years after the lifting of sanctions, he would have been far more dangerous.--Silverback 07:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, you reverted with the text "rv to SB, if you are interested in article quality, please fix your redirect concerns BEFORE reverting, whatever those redirect concerns are."

No, I am not saying that I am inserting the redirects, I am saying that you are. It's simple. The redirect I am talking about is the one I pointed out in the first post in this section. The version you keep reverting to includes the link Global protests against war on Iraq, which now at least redirects to the correct article, Protests against the invasion of Iraq, but previously redirected to another redirect. It's generally good form to avoid redirects and especially dead-end redirects, particularly when you are claiming that one version of an article is better than another. You did not do so even after the problem was pointed out. I am saying that if you wish to use this particular introduction, you could at least try your hand at editing rather than using the buttons to revert wholesale. Look at the version to which you're reverting. There is no reason to re-insert those redirects.

As to your "ethical filth" statement: Please, try to avoid throwing around insults. --Mr. Billion 07:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Silverback, trying to fix the problem by erasing every sentence where that link occurs does not help any. The sad thing is that this is the closest you've yet come to any attempt at a compromise. --Mr. Billion 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The sad thing is that you are focused on a very minor issue, even if the suspected WMD had been found, it would have been dwarfed in importance by what was found, and that was that Saddam intended to restart the WMD programs once sanctions were dropped. Nothing more need be found, in order to justify removing a dictator with his character, resources and history. The guy was fair game and had no more right oppress Iraqis than to oppress us. The most serious question to come out of this war, is why was the UN so useless, corrupt and fascist. Yes, it is hegelian/facsist to place national sovereignty over individual rights, and despite the lip service to individual rights, in practice what the UN represents is nationalism.--Silverback 00:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, all you are doing in this talk page is re-stating your own personal POV over and over. You have been repeatedly asked to source your claims that the "officially stated reason" for the war was "failing to account for it's WMDs", but you have responded with sources from Hans Blix. As if an officially stated reason is going to come from someone who isn't an official in the Bush administration. Your version of the intro is completely unsourced and is in direct contradiction with the sources provided in the previous version. If you want your intro to be taken seriously please provide Sources. Specifically a source of a Bush administration officially stating prior to the invasion that the reason for the Iraq war is Iraq's "failure to account for it's WMDs". Because as it stands right now your version is original research and has no place in an encyclopedia. 19:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong, I am also stating the POV of all intellectually honest anon's. You refuse to acknowledge the content of the resolutions and to review all the hard work in the talk archives and the sources I provided above. Why won't you read the sources with an open mind?--Silverback 00:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"even if the suspected WMD had been found, it would have been dwarfed in importance by what was found, and that was that Saddam intended to restart the WMD programs once sanctions were dropped."

The weapons themselves would have been dwarfed in importance by the mere desire for the weapons? You're not making sense. --Mr. Billion 05:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The weapons that were not accounted for were fixed amounts. Restarting the programs would not have been a "mere desire for". The expertise was there to produce larger amounts, and as the inspectors discovered longer range delivery systems were being developed. The lesson is that you just don't leave Hitler's around with access to resources to fulfill their machinations.--Silverback 06:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Restarting the programs would not have been a "mere desire for".

You've jumped from talking about the intention to restart the programs to talking about the programs themselves. Mr. Billion 08:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

And please, these never were the reasons stated for the invasion. The reasons invoked was that Saddam Hussein had functional weapons systems, including some operational within one hour, and that Iraq had to be invaded before these weapons were put to use (put to use, not built).
These tales of "programmes" and "will for a programme" are a posteriori excuses for an already accomplished invasion. Rama 08:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
You confused the arguments used to try to convince intellectually dishonest opposition to vote for the new followup resolution, with the reasons for the war. The US would have been happy to go to war for the mere non-cooperation with the inspectors and failure to account, in fact, the targeting of planes enforcing the nofly zone was probably more than enough reason, even absent the humanitarian concerns posed by the Saddam regime. The shrill hyperbole used to try to convince the security council, when reason failed to work, is not the "reason" for the war.--Silverback 12:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

SB, even if the argument that Saddam Hussein actually had a threatening arsenal of WMD had been used "only" to convince the "intellectually dishonest" opposition, it still is the main stated reason for war. Reasons given to convince those not opposed hardly qualify as reasons. Again, if you believe that the "real" reasons were other reasons not used to convince the opposition, these "real" reasons of yours are not the main stated reasons.

Your "intellectually dishonest" attack is baffling. It is you who is trying to pretend that the reason given for the invasion was simply poor accountancy and withheld cooperation. Can you find a quote where it is stated by a Bush administration official that either of those is the core reason?

As Rama has pointed out, the claim was that Saddam had functioning weapons systems that could be put to use within one hour--the time frame given by Tony Blair was forty-five minutes. The reason given for why we had to invade before inspectors could finish their job was the allegation that Iraq possessed a threatening arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that had to be eliminated. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed on September 13, 2002, "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons....We all know that. A trained ape knows that." As it turned out, the trained ape's information was faulty.

You keep comparing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to that posed by Hitler, but Hitler was militarily very powerful, actively expansionist, and actually had military allies. In terms of ability to pose a threat, Iraq resembled Germany rather less than you think. The comparison to Germany would make more sense if Germany's primary opponent in WWII had been Italy, since Saddam's main reason for desiring WMD was to make trouble for his fellow "axis of evil" member, Iran.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in 2003 that "the truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

You have provided no sound evidence or reasoning to support your claims, only mostly restated the original claim and your red herring "'arguments for' VS 'reasons for'" quibble. If the reason for invading was simply poor accountancy and compliance, then where did the "urgent," "mortal," and "immediate" threat come from? Weak cooperation? Bad accounting? --Mr. Billion 03:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It came from WMD that was unaccounted for. It apparently is still unaccounted for. But at least now UN sanctions are not killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.--Silverback 08:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The next step is for the United States to invade itself for failing to account for the nonexistent Iraqi WMD. This could become a vicious cycle.

"It apparently is still unaccounted for." You're still somehow operating under the assumption that Saddam actually had these weapons, when the United States' own investigation found last year that Saddam didn't have these weapons, hadn't made any since 1991, and furthermore didn't have the ability to make any. Both Bush and Cheney have said that Saddam didn't have the alleged WMD.

But at least now UN sanctions are not killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

Another red herring.

Regardless, your reply only responded to the question of where this urgent threat came from. You still have not shown evidence that the primary reason Bush & Blair gave for invading Iraq was simply its "failing to account" and not cooperating fully. --Mr. Billion 08:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Both Bush and Blair worked for a UN resolution authorizing the war to that effect. --Silverback 08:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is a Powell quote discussing the non-compliance "I think it will be a resolution that summarizes the situation as it exists, shows that Iraq is not in compliance, however much inspectors may be moving around the country, and that's good; but if there is no compliance, if there is no cooperation of the kind we expected, then that's not good, and I think the resolution will point out that lack of cooperation and point to the fact that the United Nations Security Council is supposed to act in the presence of this lack of cooperation. A lot of arguments about more inspectors, keep the inspections going, but we must not lose sight of the basic issue. The basic issue is Iraqi compliance, and that's not what we're getting."[32]--Silverback 08:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
We also have innumerable instances of talks about the present weapon systems of Iraq and their immediate danger. Only mentionning "Iraqi compliance" is totally misleading, especially since Iraq was indeed complying with the UN shortly before the war, and that UN teams were willing to cintinue with their inspections. Rama 17:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
No they weren't complying to the extent required by 1441, read the Blix reports. Powell above is talking about the resolution the US and UK were trying to negotiate with the security council to justify and authorize the war. So this isn't about mere persuasive speech like your cites, this is about what the actual authorization and formal justification would be. The real thing, the serious stuff I knew you guys didn't really want a cite, because the attempt at another resolution on this basis was common knowedge, so your requests for a cite was just an excuse to keep on reverting.--Silverback 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The real thing, the serious stuff I knew you guys didn't really want a cite, because the attempt at another resolution on this basis was common knowedge

One quote from an interview does not make this the "main stated reason" for the war. It's a nice retort to the Wolfowitz quote, though, so good for you.

You've used a quote to support your statement that "Bush and Blair worked for a UN resolution authorizing the war," but left out the part where Powell says he's not sure that it will explicitly authorize the war. Regardless, the resolution didn't fly, so the point is moot. And Powell gave that interview a week before Blix's statement that Iraq was cooperating on process "rather well." The war wasn't waged because "well, Iraq was cooperating rather well, but not well enough."

Again, cooperation and accounting are issues secondary to WMD. The American public did not accept the war simply because of poor accounting. They were convinced by the "urgent threat" said to be posed by the weapons Saddam allegedly had.

A few posts ago you expressed that you think the weapons were real and are still out there somewhere unaccounted for. You said that there was a threat posed by these unaccounted-for weapons. But at the same time you've been saying that the war was needed because they weren't accounted for, not because they posed a threat. Somehow you're still trying to fit your assertion that the war was about poor accounting inside this persistent belief of yours that Saddam had this threatening arsenal of WMD. --Mr. Billion 01:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That citation was not about battling quotes, it was about the substance of the quote, and that is what was going to be the legal justification for the war in the resolution. All the other speeches were just persuasive (well apparently not) bluster, much like what takes place on the floor of congress. What matters is the language of the statutes or resolutions. 1441 was violated by Saddam, and the new resolution would have made that case and justified the war based on it.--Silverback 22:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

I have problems with the introductory paragraph. It reads as vague and poorly written. Passive voice, etc... It is also POV (Saddam Hussein was President too, yet this title is only given to Bush). Furthermore, more than half the content is about the rationale/legality concern, not the actual event. The invasion was a very isolated event in this continuing saga that is U.S. involvement in Iraq, and this article goes far beyond the scope of its title. In the interest of not ruffling too many feathers, for now im willing to leave parts of it in. My suggested rewrite is as follows:

Initiated on March 20, 2003 by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and several other nations loosely defined as the "coalition of the willing", the "2003 invasion of Iraq" marked the formal beginning of the Iraq War. Swift in execution, the invasion followed the military doctrine of Shock and Awe. Baghdad fell on April 9th, 2003 and on May 1, 2003 U.S. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations, for all intents and purposes terminating the Ba'ath Party's rule and removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from office even though he would ellude coalition forces until December, 2003. A transitional occupation began thereafter and among other topics, is covered under Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. Prior to the invasion, the U.S. tried and failed to secure a U.N. mandate to intervene in the interests of U.S. national security and international stability. Thus, the legitimacy of the invasion is a point of contention. The request to the U.N. Security Council was based on intelligence reports showing Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The legal justification involved Iraq's implied violation of several U.N. Resolutions, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 1441. [33]U.S. president George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that these weapons posed a significant and timely threat to the United States and its allies. [34][35] Much of this intelligence is now under scrutiny and of questionable veracity. In the days before the attack, the Iraqi government repeatedly denied the existence of any such facilities or capabilities and called the reports lies or fabrications.[36] U.N. inspection teams, in and out of Iraq since the Gulf War, while willing to continue the search were ordered out as war loomed. This article covers the particulars of the invasion. For more general information see Iraq War, U.S.-Led Occupation of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005.

Please comment. I'll clean it up a bit and then make the changes if acceptable. ImagoDei

This introduction will be a nice one for the article when we will be done with the work of switching the topic from the whole war in Iraq to specifically the invasion in the sense of mostly pure military implementation.
A few observations:
* It is a little bit long
* "This article covers the particulars of the invasion. For more general information see Iraq War, U.S.-Led Occupation of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005"; I would put this as a disclaimer above the introduction rather than at the end of it
* "Much of this intelligence is now under scrutiny and of questionable veracity"; hmmm, it is not "questionable"; it was bullocks. Even the White House and the British government recognise this. Diplomatic formulation is one thing, but this wording is too weak to reflect the extend of the dichotomy between the governmental declarations and reality.
Overall, this is a nice proposal, which goes in the same direction than what was discussed previously, so probably another sign that moving away from discussing the whole Iraq war would be a good idea. Rama 12:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Right now the article Iraq War covers things from the "mostly pure military implementation" perspective. No reason to make this article into a mirror image of the main article on this subject. One of the three main articles regarding this subject needs to thoroughly cover the rationale/legality concern, as it's the reason this war is so unpopular, this article seems the logical place for it. Nice intro overall though. However, "Much of this inteligence is now under scrutiny" sentence needs to go. I suggest just deleting that sentence and inserting this one after "were ordered out as war loomed.": "Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction[37][38][39].". Or something of that order. 05:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

RonCram's original research

RonCram has been trying for a long time to include original research on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page connecting Able Danger to the alleged conspiracy between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The connection between these two is speculation that Able Danger may lead to questioning the 911 Commission's credibility in this matter. So far that has not occurred, nor can he produce any mainstream press accounts that connect these issues. Thus, the connection he asserts is original research. We've been successfully fighting his addition of this research on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page; so now he has inserted it here instead. You can look at the Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda for more information about the arguments. I will revert his changes here and I encourage others to do so as well; if his conduct there is any indication of how he will behave here, it is possible that he will continue reverting and posturing in talk: without ever responding to the arguments. --csloat 18:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

By all means go to that other page and make up your own minds, rather than mindlessly accepting someone elses mischaracterization of things.--Silverback 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems we agree that that discussion belongs on that other page and not on this page. Please do not add this original research to this page.-csloat 20:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
csloat, your comments about me are in bad faith and easily disproven. Anyone can visit the Talk page on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and read our discussions. It is true that I have been busy lately and not involved in either editing or discussing the Saddam and AQ page. But I have not lost interest in seeing the page more accurately reflect the facts. Today I made a a few edits on other pages. I believe all but one of my edits was well sourced. I neglected to source one comment and for that I apologize. Adding the link is very easy to do. I hope you will forgive the oversight. The fact Able Danger has questioned the credibility of the 9/11 Commission is hardly news. If you read the wikipedia page, you can read the damage to their credibility yourself. The 9/11 Commission was given a large budget and expected to do a thorough investigation. We know they chose not to investigate Able Danger because that is in all the news reports. We do not know why the commission did not discuss the other newspaper reports or the opinion piece in the state-run Iraqi paper. Until some reasons come forth on the reason they neglected these important pieces of evidence, I will not speculate. However, it is well within an encyclopedia's role to point out that the Commission has not discussed this information. RonCram 01:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The Able Danger stuff has not questioned this aspect of the Commission's credibility. The 1998 news articles have been superceded by investigations that refuted the supposed "alliance". It is orignial research to suggest Able Danger is relevant to Saddam and AQ, and that discussion belongs on the proper page anyway. You should not just move it over here after you lose the debate on the more appropriate page. I do not think I am the one exhibiting "bad faith" here.--csloat 02:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The Commission was suppose to investigate. Able Danger has demonstrated the Commission chose not to investigate Able Danger information from credible witnesses when it did not fit their timeline. The damage is not limited to any one particular point. The damage is to the 9/11 Commission as an investigative unit. The 1998 news articles have not "been superceded" by subsequent investigations. What a strange thing to say! Why are you so insistent that readers of wikipedia do not get the facts??? After rechecking my facts, the 9/11 Commission did not discuss even the newspaper in Milan. That was discussed in the Senate Report on page 328. Saddam and AQ are relevant to this page since President Bush named the link between the two as one of the reasons for the invasion. csloat, you are committing simple vandalism here. You are damaging your reputation. RonCram 12:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
There is an article on Able Danger where you can discuss your speculation about what may come out of the investigation. There is an article on the 9/11 Commission where you can discuss your speculation about their credibility. Able Danger has not yet had any impact on the discussion of Saddam's relationship with AQ in any of the mainstream media, so it is original research to put it here. As for your other point, the 1998 news articles that you insist on quoting turned out to be dead wrong; by 2001-3 there is nobody credible who believes anymore that Saddam had any kind of "alliance" with al Qaeda. We've already been through this on the page where it is relevant; you lost the arguments there, and now you come here to try to sneak your POV in anyway. Those articles were wrong, as several investigations since have shown. Stop worrying about my reputation, Ron; I am not the one trying to sneak original research and false POV claims into articles where they are barely relevant.--csloat 14:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
You are changing the subject, csloat. I have made contributions to the Able Danger page. I, and others, have made entries on the 9/11 Commission page on the damage to their credibility. I have said nothing in my entries on this page about the relationship of Able Danger to Saddam and AQ, a speculation which originally came from a Weekly Standard article. However, as you know, I have backed off the original assertion from the Weekly Standard because of the statement by Shafer's attorney that Atta was not physically in New York. That issue is now too unclear to be mentioned in wikipedia. You continue to bring this issue up even though it is not being discussed. The issue at stake here is the damage Able Danger reports have done to the credibility of the 9/11 Commission to thoroughly investigate. This damage is already discussed on the 9/11 Commission page and should be here as well. In addition, newspaper accounts regarding Saddam and AQ were never discussed by the 9/11 Commission (and the Senate Report only discussed one of them). There are two issues here: Is the 9/11 Commission a thorough and credible investigative body? (an issue that is very much in the news, is already discussed on the 9/11 Commission page and should be discussed here as well) Were there published reports of a "pact" or "alliance" between Saddam and al-Qaeda? (an issue that is fully settled in the affirmative, is discussed on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page and is relevant to this page as well). Your deletions of this content is nothing but simple vandalism based on POV. I ask you once again to desist from deleting interesting and relevant information from these articles. -RonCram 15:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not changing the subject; Able Danger's connection to Saddam/AQ is what is at issue here; that and the silly quote you have from an Italian newspaper in 1998. My point is that Able Danger has not yet raised any questions about the 911 Commission's treatment of this issue, and nobody in the mainstream media has made such a connection either. So the connection you assert may be true but it is original research. (It is also exaggerated by you but that is a separate issue). As for the 1998 paper, the reports of a "pact" or "alliance" turned out to be completely false. Where is the pact? Where is the evidence of such a pact? This question was investigated by CIA, DIA, NSC, FBI, British intelligence, French intelligence, the 9/11 Commission, and the Senate Committee, and everyone concluded there was no cooperation, no operational relationship, and certainly no "alliance" or "pact." Finally, stop throwing around the word "vandalism" - it is a false accusation. Vandals do not discuss their changes in talk, nor do they insist on correcting inaccuracies.--csloat 15:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
There is no original research involved. When the 9/11 Commission's credibility and thoroughness are questioned, those questions cannot be limited to one aspect of their investigation. Your attempt to limit it is blatantly POV. If you were reading wikipedia articles about the conclusions reached by the 9/11 Commission, would you not want to know that the Commission was given important and credible information and chose not to investigate it? Of course you would, because it would help you assess the value and authority of those conclusions. Regarding the newspaper reports - If you believe the reports of a pact between Saddam and al Qaeda are false, you are welcome to present your evidence in the article. However, the pact was reported in newspapers around the world. This is a fact you cannot dispute. These publications could have been the basis for decisions by government officials, whether or not the report about the pact was true. Let's stick to the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. Yes, I do consider your reverts as simple vandalism. You are reverting data you have not shown to be false, irrelevant or original research. You have not given any excuse for reverting the entry on the speech by Senator Hollings on the floor of the Senate. You are a vandal. -RonCram 19:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It is original research if you are making inferences that are not made in the mainstream media or books or articles on this subject. There is no scholar or journalist writing about Able Danger that has argued that it has anything to do with the Commission's assessment of Saddam's relation to al Qaeda. It is fine to discuss the Commission's credibility on the page about the Commission, but it doesn't make sense here or on the Saddam-AQ page. This is not a page about the Commission or about its credibility, and it is not clear that this article depends on the Commission's credibility for anything. Your claim that its credibility in a general sense is attacked by Able Danger is not backed up by anything specific about Able Danger. Able Danger appears to suggest that some people put together a different timeline about the events of 9/11 -- this does not suggest that the Commission's conclusions on other issues are faulty. There is no evidence or even suspicion that Able Danger will reveal information relevant to the Saddam/AQ connection; the only people talking about whether such a connection exists are here on Wikipedia. The mainstream media has not mentioned it; the only article mentioning both in the same article is the Weekly Standard one which even you have distanced yourself from. And as we know that article is completely misleading. And of course I made these claims over and over when I discussed this with you on the talk section of the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, and you consistently ignored these arguments and kept repeating yourself.
Second, there is no evidence whatsoever of any "pacts"; you are trying to reverse the burden of proof here - it is your burden to prove that a pact exists, not mine to prove one does not. This is a typical debate trick that you used in our arguments on the other page, which you eventually gave up on, and then you came here to sneak in the same arguments that you couldn't justify in the discussion on the other page when I pressed you to. If you assert that a "pact" exists, I want to see it. A "pact" indicates a formal written agreement. Where is it? Who signed it? What evidence suggests such a pact may have existed, even verbally? Any evidence of money transfers that are consistent with such a pact? Stop pretending it is my burden to prove a negative - if you assert that a pact exists, let's see the evidence. What we do know is that the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, 9/11 Commission, Senate Committee, and the intel agencies of several foreign nations all investigated whether there was cooperation between Saddam and AQ and found that there was none. If such a pact existed, none of these agencies were able to turn up any evidence of it. The fact that an Italian newspaper writer got it wrong eight years ago is hardly notable, especially not in an article that is about a 2003 event.
As for Senator Hollings, that silliness is discussed at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, where it is sort of relevant; it is hardly relevant here. We also debated it to death on the talk page there and you lost that debate there. Are you seriously suggesting that an op-ed piece from a random Iraqi writer in a local newspaper was a primary justification for the invasion of Iraq? Or that such an article proves that Saddam Hussein (who has no known connection to the writer other than that the paper is "state-run") had a "pact" with al-Qaeda? If so, your doctor really isn't prescribing enough medication. Such trivia is interesting on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, perhaps, and perhaps on the Senator Hollings page as evidence of how far gone he is, but it hardly belongs here. The article was never cited in any administration speech asserting the Saddam-al-Qaeda connection, and it is clear that the assertion was not taken seriously by the 911 Commission or any of the other commissions that looked into this. Even Judge Baer, who cites the article approvingly, admits that the article's implications are "vague" at best. And of course I have made every one of these points when we discussed this issue on the other page.
As for your false charge of "vandalism", if you think my edits are vandalism, you are really not familiar enough with wikipedia to be editing as aggressively as you do. Please read Wikipedia's policy on vandalism before throwing false accusations around. You may also wish to familiarize yourself with this page. Thank you.-csloat 20:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

csloat, you are changing the subject. There is no original research because several media outlets have covered the remarks of Rep Curt Weldon talking about the damage to the 9/11 Commission's credibility. He has even spoken of a possible "coverup." For you to attempt to keep this information from readers of wikipedia is the worst kind of censorship. You are acting as an attorney trying to suppress evidence in the court of public opinion rather than as a wikipedia editor seeking NPOV. Second -regarding the report of a "pact," you have a funny way of saying there is no evidence while we are discussing the evidence. And you have a funny way of calling on the authority of the 9/11 Commission which ignored (or was not aware of) the published reports on the "pact." If you seek corroborating evidence, you need only see that al Qaeda did hit a US target in the region just over a year after the pact was agreed to. You have heard of the USS Cole, right? Third, regarding Senator Hollings - you claim to have won some debate about Hollings on Saddam Hussen and al-Qaeda but if you read the article, the Hollings speech is still in the article and has been for some time. I am uncertain how you consider this a victory for your side. Regarding your comment about my medication, I do not think that exhibits good wikiquette. Just to ease your mind, I can tell you that I am in fine health and take only vitamins. I am not on any medication. -RonCram 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ron please stop the personal attacks. I am not "censoring" anything - if I wanted to censor this info I would delete the entry on Able Danger. I am only deleting this information when it is not relevant to the article and when it is obviously inserted for blatant POV reasons. The "pact" is crap and you know it because we discussed it on another page and you conceded my arguments there. If there was a "pact", please show me the signatures. It's interesting that EVERY intelligence agency to look at this found NO evidence of any "pact" or other signs of formal collaboration with the regime. If you want to put in that there were "contacts", fine, but a 1998 newspaper using the word "pact" does not constitute evidence, especially when that notion has been refuted decisively by the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, 911 Commission, Senate Committee, and several foreign intel agencies. You have no evidence the 911 Commission "ignored" the published article; they probably looked at it and determined that its conclusion was inaccurate due to YEARS of investigations by intelligence agencies after 1998 that concluded there was no cooperation. As for the USS Cole - yes I have heard of it Ron. I also have NEVER seen ANY evidence, not even a whiny claim from a right wing loon in the Weekly Standard, claiming that Saddam was behind the Cole bombing. You are making stuff up and demanding that we put it in an encyclopedia, then you charge me with censorship for trying to enforce a higher standard of proof. The Hollings speech is in the article, but it is "proof" of nothing, other than that Hollings needs to check his reading comprehension skills. It is only in the article because you insisted, but you lost the arguments regarding its significance. Do you really think we should put all of the evidence from the timeline in this article too? I will be happy to do so rather than deleting the nonsense you keep adding but this will make the article much longer (and it will make your POV seem even less credible than it already does). Sorry about the comment about your meds; I am just getting frustrated with your insistence on remaining ignorant here. It's fine though, believe whatever cconspiracies you want, but please stop insisting that Wikipedia validate your delusions.--csloat 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions based on POV need to stop

Deletions without any discussion are simple vandalism. Deletions with long-winded arguments attempting to keep out information readers deserve to have based on POV is not much better. If you wish to delete portions of my contributions, I suggest you see if you can find someone who agrees with you my entry is irrelevant, unsourced or otherwise unworthy of inclusion. If it is possible to find a fair-minded person who agrees, I would love to discuss it with them. -RonCram 15:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Major edits that add significant POV problems, even when summarized as providing "better NPOV", are also problematic. The edit you just entered takes what look to me like some relatively minor POV problems in the direction of minimizing Saddam Hussein's historical links with terrorism, and goes way, way too far in the other direction. For example, you added this:
Saddam Hussein had a long history of supporting terror organizations. However, there is some controversy over whether his regime's numerous contacts with al-Qaeda equated to an operational relationship.
My interpretation of the relevant data is that Saddam Hussen had a history of supporting some anti-Israel terrorist organizations. The judgement of authorities that have investigated his contacts with other terror organizations (e.g., al-Qaeda) is that those contacts have been few and of an exploratory nature, with little evidence to suggest, and more evidence undercutting, the possibility that he had some kind of operational relationship with al-Qaeda.
Your edit has the effect of skewing the article the other way. There certainly is some valid information included in your edit, and reverting it wholesale would weaken the article in that sense. But leaving your edit in place also weakens the article, because it slants it in favor of the position that Saddam probably did have an operational relationship with al-Qaeda, which is a position that is not supported by relevant third-party sources.
So, what to do? This page as it stands is going through some major edit-warring. The POV problems are pretty glaring. Can we reach some kind of agreement to help us move forward? This isn't rocket science. Everyone needs to chill out and stop trying to "win". There's a controversy, sure. But people need to stop trying to argue it in this article. The article needs to characterize it, accurately, with suitable references to the best available sources. But as long as people (which as far as I can tell includes people on both sides of the issue at this point) are caught up in trying to "win" by getting the article to reflect their position, the article itself will lose.
I agree that wholesale deletions are not helpful at this point. But neither are largescale edits that introduce numerous POV problems, which is what I think your latest edit did. Why don't you try backing it out, and picking one small part of it that you feel would improve the article, and add that? Then we can discuss it here, and modify it if needed, and get to a place that everyone can live with. Then we can go on to some other issue, and repeat as needed. I think that might work a lot better. -- John Callender 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you John for explaining it in this way. I do not believe there is any valid information in Ron's edit, but I will try to address the disinformation he presents in a way that does not delete it entirely. I am just worried because we wind up duplicating the fine article we already have over at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I really don't see why these things need to be hashed out in different places like this, other than to appease Ron.--csloat 20:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I would tend to agree that most of the material in that section belongs in the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article. Would it be possible to get that section in this article down to just a couple of paragraphs, relying on readers to follow the link to the other article if they want more information? I realize that article itself is currently in dispute, and has seen lots of recent allegations of bias, 3RR violations, etc. But using that page as the venue to deal with the controversy seems like a better approach than having the controversy play out on multiple, less-related pages.

On the information in Ron's recent edit, I'd agree that there are problems both in the specifics (like citing avowedly partisan sources like The Weekly Standard and Fox News without noting their partisan nature) and in the general tone, which is to basically argue for a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection that most relevant authorities have concluded is unlikely. But at the same time, I think Ron deserves credit for making a good-faith effort to be sensitive to the requirements of NPOV. -- John Callender 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the section; see below for justification of changes. I agree that this section is too long and I agree the controversy should be kept on that page; it was RonCram's idea to spread this to other pages because he seems to have felt that he was unable to win the arguments on the other page. I have dealt with this sort of conduct with him for a while so forgive me if I sometimes have trouble assuming good faith -- but I am going to try again, and I am making a good faith effort to rewrite the page, even keeping in some of the things that Ron wants in but that I do not think are relevant (see below). Thanks for your input. --csloat 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda section rewrite

Below is a quick summary of my changes; I think this covers everything:

1. Kept RonCram's addition of the 1998 article in there. I don't think it is necessary but if others do, it should stay. I've changed the language and context for more POV and accuracy. This article should not leave the impression that RonCram's version conveys that this was a big piece of evidence missed by the Commission and Committee -- it was a mistaken report by an Italian reporter (I'm not sure who said "alliance" but let's say two reporters) based on the prevailing wisdom of the time (1998), which turned out to be wrong. In 1998 the NSA thought that Saddam and AQ were teaming up, and launched a "red-team" study of the issue (The NSA's position was different from CIA's, and the NSA goal was to prove the CIA wrong). Well, they failed -- they were unable to find the connections they assumed were there (more info here). So it is clear that people around the president at the time believed that Saddam was connected to AQ, but when they souught evidence for this they turned up dry. I mention this because RonCram makes a lot out of articles from this time period, when many people believed there was a connection, but there had been far less investigation into the issue than there is today. By now the prevailing wisdom of intelligence analysts and of the mainstream media around the world suggests that no evidence has emerged to support a Saddam-AQ connection. RonCram has every right to disagree with all of those experts, but he is not correct to demand that Wikipedia make his case for him.

2. Contextualize Powell quote with what he said in 2005, and add statement about the intelligence community's analysis of the "links". I could add further detail here if people want but all this info is available at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I am not sure how much duplication is necessary here; I would prefer to cut a lot of this section out completely and just refer people there.

3. Include info on al-Janabi and the INC. This stuff is also on the other page but if we are going to include this information here it should be put in context.

4. I removed the sentence "Evidence of the relationship is contradictory" because it is not backed up by the information on this page. There is nothing contradictory about it at all. There were some exploratory contacts between Saddam and AQ and they led to nothing.

5. Contextualized the Senator Hollings thing. I really think this does not belong here at all. Senators and Representatives enter all kinds of things into the CR and it does not appear in an encyclopedia. The fact that Hollings read an op-ed piece as evidence of foreknowledge is meaningless -- even if it were true at best it would prove that bin Laden's plans were an open secret in parts of the Islamic world. But even that is not supported by the flimsy textual analysis Hollings offers. But let's say this guy knew OBL was going to blow up the towers. How is he connected to Saddam? He writes an op-ed piece in a "state-run" newspaper? I work at a "state-run" university in California; does that mean that if I know about a crime, it can be assumed that Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration was involved in it?? I feel ridiculous having to spell this out; it is difficult for me to believe that anyone can give this credibility.

Look, if there was really a collaboration between Saddam and AQ, where is the money trail? Where are the weapons? The evidence of planning together? The big things, not shadowy meetings that are disputed by other sources, or bizarre readings of op-ed pieces in local newspapers.

6. Got rid of Able Danger. Contrary to what RonCram thinks, I am not "afraid" of this information. If it was relevant, someone besides Wikipedia editors would have mentioned it. No article on Able Danger has seen fit to mention any of this. If Able Danger turns out to prove that the Commission lied or covered up a connection between Saddam and AQ, that would certainly belong here, but so far that has not happened and nobody is even speculating that it will happen (except on Wikipedia). This is not the place to explore such possible future worlds -- if mainstream newspapers start mentioning it then it belongs here. Otherwise Ron's assumption that the Commission's credibility on this question will be tarnished is "interesting", but it is original research. I've made this argument a number of times above and on the Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, but Ron does not seem to want to let it go. Can others offer their opinions on this? --csloat 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I am the one that speculated you were "afraid", although RonCram may have also. What would the cited sources have had to say in order to make it relevant? It is pretty clear that Able Danger, has politicians questioning the thoroughness and objectivity of the 9/11 commission, as well as Atta's timeline. Reporters are reporting this. We certainly are not claiming to be personal witnesses to it. Your arguments fail to go beyond mere assertions. Can you lay down your reasoning step by step, (assuming your assertions are the result of a reasoning process rather than mere intuition), so that we can perhaps reach an understanding and compromise?--Silverback 01:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
First silverback, do not make such massive reversions without discussing the issues. Second, Able Danger has not led to any questioning of the Commission's handling of the Saddam/AQ connection. If you insist that it does why is it that you cannot explain why not a single reporter has reported such questioning? I did lay my reasoning out step by step, silverback, I am not the one making inferences that are not sourced. If I am it would help if you pointed them out rather than just insisting that I am making assertions.--csloat 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's revert

User Silverback just reverted all the changes I made with a cryptic edit summary. He has been doing this kind of massive reversions on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page as well, and he does not respond to arguments or discussion in talk. I spent a lot of time rewriting this entry in good faith to include the arguments introduced by RonCram, even though I did not agree with the significance of those arguments. I also spent time writing my justifications for every change, which are listed above. Silverback reverted almost all of it without responding to a single of the justifications above. I have implored Silverback to stop this behavior on his user:talk page. He is not only reverting here; he is deleting relevant information wholesale. I hope I am not alone in perceiving such edits as highly problematic.--csloat 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Hey, um, why do we have this page whereas there's the much nicer, and NPOV, article at Iraq War?

the two pages do not cover the same topcis. This page talks about the invasion of Iraq as a military operations, Iraq War is more general. Rama 06:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
So why is this one much more POV then? Just compare the opening paragraphs even. JG of Borg 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

what cites support 90% opposition to the war in Spain?

The provide citations don't support Spains 90% opposition figure in the article. I haven't removed that figure yet, perhaps someone can come up with the citation. We need to be careful with the language, to avoid giving the wrong impressions by mixing polling results from different time periods with different questions and circumstances. For instance, the gallup polls which are cited are from January, before the invasion of course, but many then were still hoping that the UN would act responsibly. The poll results might have been different just before the invasion, after the UN had not responded good faith efforts at a new resolution by the US, UK and Spain. Of course, we will never know what the pre-war poll results would have been had there been general knowledge of the oil for food corruption's possible influence on the UN decision making.--Silverback 14:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link for editing Template:Infobox_2003_Invasion_of_Iraq --Theo Pardilla 13:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback tidbits

I realize he is just baiting me because of the RfA against him, so I don't plan on tinkering with Silverback's recent (minor) edits. But I want to first point out that his most recent edit summary refers to "indiscriminately reverted information" yet it isn't clear what he's talking about; he's changed the wording slightly but added no new information. More importantly his earlier edit adds the word "unspecified" and claims inexplicably that that is "more clear" ... Actually the stories are specified and detailed on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page if anyone wants to list them all. "Some unspecified information" just sounds ludicrous so it would be better if it was rewritten in a manner that made more sense. I'm going to lay off it though because I don't feel like getting sucked back into an edit war with Silverback, which he seems to be trying to do both here and on the other page.--csloat 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I thought right after I clicked that it might be unclear what I was referring to. Unfortunatly, you can't go back and edit the summaries. I was referring to Mr Tibbs reverts, a few edits earlier. That passage is talking about things that are not specified here in this article, so it is unclear what is being referred to. Disputing facts on this page that are not mentioned on this page, doesn't make sense, especially since only "some" of them are being disputed, some also apparently are NOT being disputed, which ones? There is no information there for the reader, and we shouldn't replicate the whole Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda page here.--Silverback 08:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm through doing your research for you Silverback. Read the timeline on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda yourself and you would know exactly which are being disputed. You certainly should know this given how aggressively you have edited that page. I agree that we shouldn't replicate that page here; in fact that is what I have been arguing on this page for a long time, but you and others have insisted on using this page as another forum for your silly conspiracy theory. My request is that if such nonsense is going to be put here that it be put in the proper context. By the way you changed the line about the known liar and murderer Mohamed Mansour Shahab to say "Guy Dinsmore questions his credibility" which is misleading; as you read on you can see that Dinsmore is not the only one "questioning" his credibility. The original sentence "His story is not considered credible" is more accurate. Also that guy does not appear on the timeline at all on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda which it probably should. Anyway I am all for removing this detail from this page and replacing it with a link to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and a simple summary that indicates that all relevant intelligence analysts, reporters, and scholars have concluded that there were no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and that most of the so-called "evidence" for such links was fabricated by an organized gang of criminals funded by the US but with close ties to Iranian intel. --csloat 02:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I propose this balanced summary, from the introduction to the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as a replacement for the whole section.

Vote to replace the text of the al Qaeda section with this summary

The header and the link to the main Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda would remain, here is the proposed replacement text for this messy section:

  • In 2003, the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on America, and used this allegation, among others, to persuade Congress and the American people to invade Iraq. Prior to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror, many believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to al-Qaeda. Reports of contacts between the two were published in various newspapers and magazines, but none of these are considered concrete evidence that Iraq conspired with al Qaeda in the past to commit terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks. [40] [41] This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.

--Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

vote here sign with [\wiki]--Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[\nowiki]

  • replace yes replace with the above proposed text --Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I would tinker with this a bit - first of all the redundant phrase "in the past" has to go, at the very least, and there should be some indication of the Admin's strong implication that Saddam was connected to 911 rather than the wishy-washy "might conspire to launch terrorist attacks." Actual quotes from Admin members would be best here I think. Second, I'm not sure we should have the same exact paragraph in two places. Third, I do not want to see the information that is here deleted if it is not on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page. The Sahab story needs to be there if we're deleting it from here. A vote, I think, is premature.--csloat 20:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the text to address your concerns. If the Shahab story has merit is should be in the "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda" page. Is there any sign that his tale was taken seriously and relied upon by the administration? If not, I'm not sure how notable is, just a case of nuts coming out of the woodwork.--Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, like all of these stories from bogus defectors. If we leave the story out someone will accuse us of censoring relevant information that helps prove their conspiracy theory. (You might be familiar with this line of argument). People who believe the conspiracy tend to insist on every tiny detail being included no matter how little credibility any detail has... Things like poorly worded articles from Italian newspapers from 1998, or local Iraqi newspaper articles with vague references to something or other... Anyway my point is I don't think the story has any merit whatsoever but it nonetheless belongs on that page if we erase it here (actually, whether or not we erase it here).csloat 09:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote to replace the text of the al Qaeda section with this revised summary

The header and the link to the main Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda would remain, here is the proposed replacement text for this messy section:

  • In 2003, the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on America, and used this allegation, among others, to persuade Congress and the American people to invade Iraq. Prior to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror, many believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to al-Qaeda. Reports of contacts between the two were published in various newspapers and magazines, but none of these are considered concrete evidence that Iraq had conspired with al Qaeda to commit terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks. [42] [43] This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.

--Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

vote here sign with [\wiki]--Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[\nowiki]

  • replace yes replace with the above proposed text. --Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to call for a vote for every change, especially when there don't seem to be major obstacles to consensus. I added the Sahab story to the timeline on the other page so it can safely be deleted here; I haven't read the rest of the section carefully enough recently to say whether there is anything else that is not included in the timeline but we should do that before deleting it here.--csloat 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda terminology "Coalition of the willing" & "Coalition"

"Coalition of the willing" is a loaded phrase which includes the implicit judgement of "willing" and the misleading "coalition". The impression given is of a large number of nations in alliance toward a common purpose is at odds with the invaders constituent sources being primarily the United States and Britain with a numerically minor component from other nations. This is in comparison to the first Iraq war which could be more fairly described in its essential character as a coalition. --Theo Pardilla 13:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Your concern is better addressed by an appropriate usage of quotations marks. Rama 13:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, yes normally i would be inclined to agree with that method, however, it is most often applicable when supporting text identifies the source and has contextual explanatatory information in the surrounding text. The problems with the current quotation marks method being used in the introduction are

  • It doesnt state why there are quotation marks and leaves it to the reader to guess why.
  • Misleading; if it is a coalition then it is between the us and uk as these 2 countries supplied 98% of troops
  • POV; "Coalition of the willing" is clearly POV, however, "Coalition" is still problematical
  • Propaganda; An introductory paragraph is not an appropriate place to repeat propaganda phrases unless there are significant reasons to do so and it is clearly identified as such.

Therefore i suggest

  • Remove from introduction or
  • Copy to 'Related propaganda and phrases' section 9. (whilst including the below changes)
  • Change to a neutral term; i suggest 'Anglo American', 'American British coalition' or 'American British alliance' or perhaps something like 'Invasion forces'
  • Add explanatory information and maybe "balance"

--Theo Pardilla 10:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Reference links characterized as "minor"

On Oct 25, User Reddi made about 50-60 massive changes without edit summaries; all characterized as "minor". I am tempted to revert them but I want to give him a chance to explain himself. On first glance, the changes seem quite major, and seem designed to obscure the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq. Can someone else confirm this? Can Reddi explain what all that was about? Thanks --csloat 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq? There were not stockpiles ... but read the Kay report and the final ISG report ... there were banned WMDs and associated programs. All characterized as "minor"? They were all mostly mnor ... it's moving out the inline web link to a proper reference section. JDR (PS., the edits were not "massive" ... I had been moving out the inline links to a proper references section; so if the page "goes dead", atleast there will be a title to the citation.)
LOL.. that's my point... Reddi seems to believe there were WMD found in Iraq when everyone in the world's media has reported that there were none. I have not looked his edits over closely but they do not look "minor" at all and they seem to be aimed at muddying the waters around this fact.--csloat 20:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Thats about right, Csloat. Other than that Reddi's massive overhaul is just building a huge reference section. Which unnecessarily bloats this article, but it's not nearly as bad as the POV stuff. - Mr. Tibbs 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Reddi has done this kind of thing before. He recently made a POV-fork of Iraq War at War of Iraq when people dared to interfere with his massive changes. All Reddi's changes have done is unnecessarily bloat this article by adding a large Reference section, and then delete various passages that don't fit his point of view: [44]. He's also done this sort of thing at Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005 and even Iraq war (disambiguation). There's even an RfAr up about this: [45] I'm just going to go ahead and revert all of his edits on this page, and if there turns out to be consensus for that, possibly apply that policy to the other topics I mentioned. - Mr. Tibbs 04:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back to moving the inline links to a proper reference section. JDR 14:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (PS., the NPOV-fork of Iraq War at War of Iraq to delineate the informal and formal uses of that term) (PPS. The Iraq Survey Group David Kay interview was taken out of context. But I'll put it back in with the references ...)

I would like to note that the David Kay's interview "statement" is unsourced (the one Tibbsy cited above)... as the link goes to a dead page and the person that put it in didn't give a title or any other information ... there is nothing there @ the linked page ... a better citation than that is needed! It seems to be taken out of context ... but I'll look around if I can find a better references page ... and verify the "quote" ... JDR 16:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

War of Iraq has been turned into a redirect per community consensus. [46]. So Reddi, stop trying to link to it, and stop trying to steamroll this article. - Mr. Tibbs 04:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and revert all of Reddi's edits again. Adding 30kb worth of references does not help this article, even considered solely from a readability standpoint. And the POV as Csloat mentioned doesn't help either. And here's the so hard-to-find missing source Reddi was talking about: [47]. Lexis Nexis is known for allowing online links one moment, then not the next. And it's not that I'm against a Reference section, but in long, heavily sourced articles like this one only the most important sources can be ReReferenced, instead of just embedded. That certainly isn't a new idea, imagine if George W Bush was similarily ReReferenced. - Mr. Tibbs 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi viewpoints

Where are the observations of Iraqis on this subject?

No i mean really this seems like some sort of self indulgent uni frat debating. It sort of reminds me of the Blues brothers film when Jake and Elmo are in a bar and one of them asks a patron what sort of music she likes and she replies "oh I like both types, Country and Western". It seems like the priviledged elite are locked inside of an incestuous echo chamber endlessly banging on, fighting and slappping each other on the back. Yes the posers are all so concerned with bringing democracy to Iraqis or preventing them from being slaughtered by foreign invaders that it would be beneath their social station to actually ask them what they want or their observations or opinion or to include it on these pages.

--Theo Pardilla 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't be against adding an "Arabic popular opinion on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq" to stand with American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq. If you haven't already, you should take a look at Al Jazeera[48] or ArabNews[49] or the multitude of Iraq-based news sources: [50][51][52]. - Mr. Tibbs 20:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WMDs smuggled to Syria?

Someone recently added in the "Invasion legitimacy" section:

There are also various International Intelligence agencies, including the U.S., that report that WMD's were smuggled across the Syrian border.

Does anyone have a good recent source for that? In the UK the serious media have not suggested that for a long time. Googling, I find a 2005 report from MSNBC which says exactly the opposite:

intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

and a similar one from CBS titled No Basis For WMD Smuggling Claims. -- Rwendland 11:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"various International Intelligence agencies, including the U.S." is an odd wording; this seems to suggest that the US intelligence would be the most reluctant to alledge such a thing, or among the most serious ones... Rama 12:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Discovered that the Duelfer Report addenda, from the CIA, says "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place". So this statement is false, so I will remove it. -- Rwendland 17:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added this material now that a senior Iraqi general has publicly stated that WMD was, in fact, airlifted to Syria. I have included links to the transcript of his comments on television and a link to his book. Dawgknot 00:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias in article

To Quote your page:

"In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline [1]. This demand was reportedly rejected [

Since the invasion began without the explicit approval of the United Nations Security Council, some legal authorities regard it as a violation of the U.N. Charter. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal." [2] There have been no formal charges under international law."

This seems bias. For example, in the link it states: "A defiant Saddam appeared tonight on Iraqi television in military uniform, in what appeared to signal his role as defender of the nation. Saddam last appeared in a military uniform after the 1991 Gulf War."

Furthermore, it does not address his speech properly and gives negative conotations rather than stating it as it is.

Finally, it seems important to state exactly what Bush's conditions for stepping down was. That is, either way the United States would take control of Iraq. He did not say step down and we will not attack. He basically stipulated that if he did not step down and let America basically take over than he would attack. Either way, America was going into Iraq to take control.

I could find this source, if you desire.

Either way, this part of thar article (especially the link) seems to stress a bias towards Bush being the good guy, and Saddam the bad guy - Bush telling him to step down for a just cause rather than an effort for U.S. to establish control over Iraq for another reason. This 'just cause' has yet to be proved, thus it cannot yet be stated as fact. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 16 Nov 2005.

Suggest Replacing "Invasion with "Incursion"

The word incursion retains the neutral meaning of invasion but without the negative subjective connotations of invasion, and without the positive subjective connotations of liberation, or other positive / negative subjective connotations.

The term incursion was used in a press Q&A session by President Bush on Dec. 12, 2005:

Excerpt from President Discusses War on Terror and Upcoming Iraqi Elections

"Q: Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.

THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq."

Perhaps incursion would be a more NPOV substitute for invasion. Bwithh 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My Oxford (Australian) dictionary lists incursion as a "brief invasion, sortie". It remains to be seen just how brief this invasion is, it's close to three years now. Calling the invasion of Iraq an 'incursion' would therefore (by this definition) be presumptive, and thus POV.
The simple fact that GWB used the term would be enough for me to label the word POV. He's hardly an unbiased third-party observer, is he? He also used the word with a qualifier - "initial incursion". He wasn't talking about the whole invasion, just the start. His use might even be correct in this case. But calling the whole operation an 'incursion' is wrong, IMNSHO. Imroy 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

German Article

The german article is much better. Maybe something could be taken from there as it represents a more objective view from outside. helohe (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained POV Pushing

From the most recent Edits:

Since the invasion began without the explicit approval of the United Nations Security Council, some legal authorities regard it as a violation of the U.N. Charter. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal." [53] However, critics of the UN 'point out that between the years of 1991 and 1998, the United Nations passed 11 resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with IAEA and UN inspectors, suggesting that the UN was not properly equipped to handle the Iraq crisis, and that compliance to the UN charter is thus irrelevant. Moreover, in light of the Oil-for-Food scandal that involved Kofi Annan's son and perhaps Annan himself, critics say that the Secretary-General may have had personal interest in preserving the regime of Saddam Hussein.


Since the invasion began without the explicit approval of the United Nations Security Council, most legal authorities regard it as a violation of the U.N. Charter. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal." [54] However, US critics of the UN claim that as between the years of 1991 and 1998, the United Nations passed 11 resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with IAEA and UN inspectors, suggesting that the UN was not properly equipped to handle the Iraq crisis.

First of all there is nothing to claim here, it is a well established fact that 11 UNSC resolutions had been passed. So much for your first claim of unexplained + unevidenced POV-pushing.

Secondly, The Oil for Food arguement has been made hundreds of times by dozens of people. Had you taken the time to read through the discussion, you would see that it had been settled 2 years ago, and been in ints present form since then. So much for your second claim of unexplained + unevidenced POV-pushing.

Utilizing massive presicion air strikes along with rapid ground attacks, the invasion was a complete success, and did not require the huge army build-up like the 1991 Gulf War, which numbered half a million Allied troops.


The invasion did not require the huge army build-up like the 1991 Gulf War, which numbered half a million Allied troops.

This is a fair assesment of the speed and conduct and outcome of the war, unless you can argue coherently otherwise, drop it. DTC 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


What does the 98% mean in the first sentance? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 5 Jan 2006.

It means 98% of the forces were either from the U.S. or UK, but it was poorly worded, I'll reword. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Result "

"Decisive Coalition victory" is clearly not a neutral description of the result of the invasion. In a so called war on terror it must be noted that the result of the war is unprecedented terror in Iraq. People keep dying every day from attacks not known to this country before. 14:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC), Note that during the war (March 20, 2003–May 1, 2003) there were no reports of insurgency.
see Post-invasion Iraq for insurgency. --James Bond 07:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the invasion is what resulted from it, not what happened during the invasion. "Decisive Coalition victory" without qualification is a ridiculous description of this invasion's result. 22:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user pushing one-sided POV

Please,, when you make changes to the page, indicate what you are changing and why in your edit summaries. When you are obviously pushing a one-sided POV, you should justify that POV here on the discussion page. Especially when quoting articles out of context or leaving out important passages that change the implications of your statements. It is clear you are putting in totally unconfirmed reports from the Russians about this stuff to push the POV that the attack on Iraq was justified, yet nobody, not even those who publicly justify the attack on Iraq, has ever cited this information to justify the attack, and it is quite clear that these warnings were not and are not taken seriously by anyone in the intelligence community. It's also clear that they do not establish "links between the government of Iraq and terrorist organizations" as the heading here claims. In fact, this information is totally irrelevant to the topic of this article, which is not Russian "warnings" but the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This information simply was never part of the discourse about that invasion (and in fact the article you quote has Putin himself saying that whatever information he had did not justify the invasion). Some of the other claims you added are just bizarre and will be deleted or fixed.--csloat 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute, not vandalism (I haven't seen any copyvios). Has he made more than three reverts to the same thing more than once? I can block for that. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 11:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes he has, though the reverts are sometimes partial. But look at the edit history -- the biggest problem is he makes the reverts without posting anything in the edit summaries or on talk - as you can see below I was very careful about explaining every change; to have it all reverted without responses to those explanations is disconcerting, not to mention insulting. This is more than a content dispute; this is user conduct that is a problem (though you're right it's not vandalism per se). As for copyvios, check again. The CNSNews thing he added (I hilighted the change on the complaint page) was word for word plagiarism from the CNSnews article, without an indication that it was a direct quotation. It was just a couple sentences, but still, we shouldn't have such plagiarism in wikipedia.--csloat 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Justification for recent changes

I made significant changes to the most recent edits; I address them each below:

1. Result - as established above, a massive increase in terrorism is one of the obvious results of this invasion. There is no reason to hide this from readers. The fact that the result occurred after the invasion is no reason to exclude it; it was, in fact, a result, therefore it took place chronologically later.

2. Sanctions - the Russian migs from the 90s do not deserve this much prominence here. I took out some POV wording from it but left it there after the first paragraph rather than before, but it really shouldn't even be there at all - the other issues here are more important. I also deleted an unsourced claim that was stated boldly; the point is made adequately without such ranting.

3. "links" to "purported links". Even if there were some links, they were purported; the fact is that most links turned out to be nothing. Saddam's support of terrorism -- like most Arab leaders -- was limited to support of Palestinian terror groups with limited aims in Israel rather than transnational terrorists like al Qaeda who attack the United States. This has of course been established over and over in many discussions on this page as well as on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Edits like this one are attempts to make such links seem stronger than they actually were, and are attempts to circumvent actual discussion of particular links. Please stop changing this.

4. Iraqi intelligence plots -- these do not show us any links to terrorist organizations. They are perhaps examples of terrorism or attempted terrorism by Saddam's agents but they do not establish links to terrorist groups. I moved this but there is probably a better place to put it than where I did. It doesn't belong under this section though. I also cleaned up some plagiarism from the washington post article (the wording was almost an exact quote without the marks) and included the source of the info. Can the anonymous editor who added this please provide additional information about this? Who was arrested in Yemen, Jordan? Was there anything confirming this in any of the ten other countries?

5. The Telegraph information I have qualified since this story, in my research of lexis/nexis, does not appear at all after it is reported on 4/13/03 and the so-called documents never seem to have materialized. If this is incorrect please cite sources when correcting it.

6. I erased the thing about the Pakistani ambassador because the article doesn't mention anything about it. If you meant to link another article please introduce the link here first - let's actually look over this information rather than posting it without reading the articles, which you seem to be doing.

7. Beslan school attack paranoia - I included a wikilink and I added information from the article, which it is clear the original poster either did not read, or intentionally withheld from the post in order to distort the facts. It's pretty clear from reading the article (and after some time has passed since the Beslan attack) that this was sheer paranoia.

8. Russian warnings - I've deleted extraneous uses of "Russian President" and I've made minor language fixes. I deleted the additional quotes which were clearly introduced to make it seem as if these warnings played a part in the decision to go to war. It is clear that they did not. It doesn't make sense anyway if Putin was supposedly also helping Saddam assassinate Americans, according to the Telegraph stuff added above? Anyway the Bush quote adds nothing - we already know Bush thought Saddam was dangerous; this paragraph is about whether Bush cited Putin's warning, or took it seriously in any way. In fact it is never mentioned by US intel analysis or the SSCI when covering this issue. The McCormack quote is even less useful. It says, elaborately, "no comment." The fact that we sometimes share intel with the Russians is nonresponsive to this issue.

9. I erased the Yasin information that the anon editor added. It is already addressed in the article. The anon editor is also incorrect -- Saddam did offer extradition and the Clinton Administration refused it. This is also dealt with extensively in Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as well as below in this article. In any case it does not belong in this section.

I think that's it. Please address these concerns directly before you revert.--csloat 08:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

GB in NY: I added an item from today's headlines about the US Administration's own doubts about the justifications it was making for the invasion, which I fully cited with a NY Times article. In response to your comment about POV edits, I still think that the lead sentence of this section of the article: "Many have argued that the legitimacy of the invasion could be disputed..." is both verbose and unclear. That's why I proposed shortening it to something like: "Many have argued that the invasion was illegal..." or if you like, instead of "illegal", it could state "...illegitimate..."

I corrected a date I posted earlier. As is obvious from the dates of the sources I cited, the U.S. destruction of Al Jazeera and other non-embedded media bureaus in Baghdad took place on April 8, 2003.

TDC, stop it! Explain why you think the destruction by the US military of several key independent media outlets in Bagdhad during the invasion does not belong in the media section of this article. I am giving you a chance to respond and fair warning.

I shed light on the relationship between the occupation forces and Al Jazeera and non-embedded journalists in today's contribution (Jan. 25, 06).

OKC Crap

I'm deleting the stuff about the OKC conspiracy theories for three reasons:

1. they were blatantly plagiarized from the first paragraphs of sources that the editor probably didn't read. As such they are copyright violations.

2. they report information that is not at all related to the topic of this article. Noone in the administration ever suggested that the OKC bombing justified the war in Iraq, and they would have been laughed out of town had they suggested so.

3. they report a conspiracy theory that is not accepted by anyone except Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie, that the courts found against, and that is only being taken seriously by conspiracy theorists. The Oklahoma City bombing page doesn't even bother to mention; there is a separate page for conspiracy theories about OKC. Laurie Mylroie's analysis has been totally discredited (look at her page) and Davis has not said a word about this in three years, leading me to believe she doesn't have the goods to back any of this up. Regardless, it has precisely nothing to do with this article. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs) .

Just some friendly advice, you probably have a point, but please don't refer to it as "crap" (or just tone it down) just to avoid causing dissonance and disharmony; just state why you find the material unacceptable and use professional language if you can. It's much better as a whole. Cheers! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 12:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

necessity of weasel words?

TDC felt the need to add "It is claimed that" to a perfectly reasonable sentence. First, let's use active verbs - *who* claims what here? And what is being claimed? Here's the new sentences:

It is claimed that some of the evidence cited by the United States for Iraq's possession of illegal weapons was known at the time to be of doubtful value. In January 2006, the New York Times reported that "A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was 'unlikely.'"[55]

So it is not just "claimed" that the evidence was known to be of doubtful value; that is a fact. Note - at issue is not whether the evidence was of doubtful value -- that is another debate that I will not get into here -- but rather whether it was known by the Bush Administration to have been so. Either that intelligence assessment by the Bush Admin exists or it doesn't, and the NYT says it does. Let's either say "The NYT reports..." or leave it out. There is no reason to question uncontested facts with weasel words just because you don't like those particular facts. If someone contests them in the news or scholarship or whatever, that is of course a different story. But if nobody contests the fact in every published account of an event, there is no reason for people on wikipedia to do so.--csloat 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but for far too many people what comes out of the NY Times is very much contested, especialy on the Niger urainum deal. DTC 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but that doesn't respond to the point here. If you have a published contestation of a specific claim, that's great for wikipedia. If you don't, adding weasel words based on your assumption that "far too many people" agree with you is silly. Shall we put "it is claimed that George W. Bush is president" or "it is claimed that bats navigate using echolocation" simply because such things are published in the new york times?--csloat 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is the most NPOV way to make this statement. First, we have to assume that this high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration, is bieng reported in its proper context, without the author distorting anything. Secondly, there is the information from both the Butler inquiry and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report that state that the beleif in the sale was reasonable to believe and backed by further evidence. DTC 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CommodoreSloat. The NY Times cites a "high-level intelligence assessment" of the US gov't itself. Even if you say that the CONTENT of that memorandum is a "claim", the point is what the Bush Administration believed at the time about the claims it was making. If you have a cite about the Bush Administration's reasonable belief about the Niger sale let's see it. The CIA took out the line about the Niger sale from a previous Bush speech several months before that State of the Union speech, but the White House put it back for the State of the Union. In any case, if the article says something like "according to a high-level U.S. intelligence assessent as reported by the NY Times..." we cannot be accused of making a judgment or having POV on the issue.

I already told you, the Butler inquiry and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report deals with this matter. DTC 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh, that doesn't respond to anything here that I can see. We're talking about a Jan. 18 2006 NYT article. Your argument was that you don't think the NYT is credible, not that it was preempted by committees two years ago?--csloat 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My arguement is that this is an a-l-l-e-g-a-t-i-o-n, made by someone, and ,as such, should be treated like one. DTC 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes we know that. Your argument is incorrect, unless you are prepared to treat every newspaper report as an "allegation." Hell, even mathematical formulas are allegations according to this view -- shall we say "the Pythagorean theorem is allegedly a relation in Euclidean geometry between the three sides of a right-angled triangle."? If there is reason to disbelieve the report (in this case, a report that a specific report existed) then state the reason; "it is claimed that a certain document exists" is as silly as "it is claimed that the value of pi is 3.14159..." All we have to say is NYT reported such-and-such.--csloat 06:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Title in Infobox Military Conflict

It seems to me that the title of the infobox should be changed from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "2003 Invasion of Iraq" for three reasons:

  1. The invading forces took the form of a coalition of many countries, only one of which used the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
  2. The article title is "2003 Invasion of Iraq", so for consistency sake, this should be the title of the infobox as well.
  3. "2003 Invasion of Iraq" is less confusing. Not everyone knows the specific propaganda phrase "Operation Iraqi Freedom". "2003 Invasion of Iraq" is much less ambiguous and more NPOV.

I see there's been some revert-warring on this already so I'm putting it here to get some sort of a consensus before committing a change on the main article. --Cyde Weys 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care either way because the current title is accurate enough, but it should be mentioned that Operation Iraqi Freedom is the military pay code name for the operation for the CJTF-7 armies, which include more than just the US, also the UK, Australia, and others. The name itself refers to the military operation, so I hardly think a historically factual name can be called POV, even though it does have POV connotations. It'd be like, in an extreme example, WWII, Operation Market Garden was renamed Operation Kill Black Men. While the title Operation Kill Black Men would be POV by anyone's standards, the actual historical name of the operation would have been factually accurate as Operation Kill Black would be silly to call POV on a fact, a name no less. Swatjester 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa when the hell did the info box move to the right side?Swatjester 10:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for final consensus on the "results" section

Ok, so there's a debate over the results section. It seems to center around 2 parts:

"Decisive Coalition Victory" and "unprecedented terrorism"

I've been involved in an edit war against an anonymous over the latter part (I don't care about the former), and I'm asking for final consensus on the subject. Due to the fact that much of the reverting has come from anon IPs, I am looking for a consensus from the registered editors, especially those who have been consistently editing this entry.

I've never done one of these before, but I feel that 7 days is long enough yes? That makes it at January 30, approx. 9pm EST (GMT-5).

Anyway as of the time of this consensus request, I will not edit this section further until a consensus has been reached, and I ask that nobody else do the same. Swatjester 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*Decisive Coalition Victory

  • Delete Decisive (keep victory): I feel the decisive word is plain incorrect as I fought in that war, and the victory over the Iraqi army was hardly decisive...most of them disappeared without a fight. Swatjester 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is misrepresenting what happened, however, the military was defeated quickly, in so far there was a victory. In order to express the downside I regard unprecedented terrorism as most exact. 10:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You'll note the request asks for registered editors only. Anonymous IP's are not usually involved in consensus votes, such as this one here, or those on an AfD. Swatjester 10:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Instead of discussing to count my vote or not you should discuss the topic itself. Consensus is easier to be found in a discussion than in a vote anyway, and it helps everyone to agree with the result if it is clearly expressed why it was chosen. 11:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly why you shouldn't be cluttering this section up or not. This is clearly a vote. Stop cluttering it.Swatjester 11:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Victory" is inaccurate; Bush himself recently indicated that "victory" had not yet been achieved in Iraq. But I understand what is meant here, that the Coalition overthrew the regime quickly and occupied the country. I'm not sure how to reword this.-csloat 11:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm viewing it as meaning directly the invasion's result in the victory against the army, so in that sense victory is accurate. The other stuff is covered by the "emerging insurgency" including the terrorism. Swatjester 11:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*Unprecedented Terrorism

  • Delete: I feel this is a dangerously vague and POV entry. What is unprecedented? Unprecedented in Iraq? In the middle east? What about Saddam's regime? They committed huge and extreme acts of barbarism against hundreds of thousands for years. What about the Intifadah? What about the Chechens? Is the level of terrorism in Iraq unprecedented elsewhere in the world? Can it even be called terrorism, when it's already accurately and indisputably referred to under "emergence of insurgency"? Much of the so called terrorism in Iraq is little more than street crime punctuated by daily bombings, but how does that differ from other parts of the world? Swatjester 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The terrorism we see in Iraq now is unprecedented in that country because daily bombings on random civilians and suicide attacks did not happen before the invasion. The tyranny before was a tyranny, not terrorism. Terrorism is also different from an insurgence, as an insurgence is typically characterized by attacks directed at the occupants. Terrorism is directed at anyone in order to spread terror. If you suggest a better wording in order to express that there is no precedent in Iraq I am ok with that. I regard it extremely impolite to repeatedly revert without any discussion and with derogatory edit summaries in spite of the fact that the matter was already discussed above. [56] [57] There is no need to disrespect users who choose not to log in for whatever reason, and Csloat supported the term, too. 10:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually as noted in WP:WHY, only registered users are afforded the right to vote. Sorry, yours don't count. Swatjester 11:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, instead of discussing to count my vote or not you should discuss the topic itself. 11:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The terrorism is unprecedented both in terms of numbers and in terms of sheer brutality. Perhaps another wording could be hammered out -- specifically we are talking about unprecedented numbers of suicide bombings by terrorists in Iraq. Maybe specify "jihadist terrorism"? We are also talking about unprecedented strength of Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate group. If someone wants to do the math, plenty of relevant facts and figures are here. I'm not sure how to word it but we cannot hide the fact that the invasion led to a massive increase in terrorist attacks against Americans and others in a land where such attacks were previously virtually unknown. Swatjester's comparison to Saddam's brutality is irrelevant - that is a very different thing.--csloat 11:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Different why, because you say it is? Saddam Fedayeen entered towns and ruthlessly slaughtered Kurds where they were found, to the tune of tens of thousands dead. How is that different than Sunnis bombing Shiite neighborhoods in the present? Just because it was state sanctioned, and domestic, doesn't stop it from being terrorism. And again, it pales in comparison to the Chechens and the Intifadah in terms of terrorism.Swatjester 11:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? Just read what the article on terrorism says. Terrorism is when random civilians are killed in order to spread terror. Saddam singled out particular groups he regarded as a threat to his powers. That is not any better, it is just something different. And no, even in Israel and Chechnia you do not have attacks with dozens of victims nearly every day. 11:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, someone has never read the news paper. That has to be the most ignorant and plain wrong statement I've ever seen. By your logic, the palestinians bombing the jews are not terrorism because they are singling them out. 9/11 is not terrorism because it singles out america. ETA hasn't been committing terrorism because it singles out the Catalan. Chechnya? [58] there's your casualties right there. [59] There, from human rights watch. Need I spell it out for you, in case you don't click the links? "Sunday, with Chechen officials reporting more than 60 dead in three attacks...." "A correspondent for Reuters news agency witnessed the funerals of 27 people killed in the south-eastern village of Serzhen-Yurt...." "The Chechen authorities reported two other attacks. One was in the town of Vedeno, also in the south east, where a rocket was said to have killed 23 people" "Thursday's rocket attack on the capital, Grozny, which killed around 140 people", "Chechen reports say that a further 163 people died in attacks on Friday and Saturday." The Chechen government website says casualties "are at least 230 thousand. It is 23 percent of the entire Chechen population living on the territory of the former USSR until 1994." So don't call this terrorism unprecedented when in fact FAR worse has been going on all over the world. Swatjester 11:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Insulting others says more about you than about anyone else. An attack by an army on a particular group is something different from an organization killing random people, just face it and read it at terrorism. ETA by the way does not single out the Catalan, it is a bask terrorist organization that fights for independance and killed random Spanish civilians as well as Spanish, even including Bask people who opposed their aims. A chechen government site is hardly a neutral source on how bad terrorism is over there. Casualties in Chechnia are mostly from the conflict going on between the military and the insurgents. Iraq has nearly daily terrorism on random civilians. I do not know actual numbers and I doubt anyone knows. You need to take into account that the Chechen conflict has been going on much longer, too. As far as news reports are concerned, Iraqi terrorist attacks have been the most frequent since the invasion. Furthermore, the discussion here is about whether the terrorism is unprecedented in Iraq, as was already specified. 11:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh so sources are only unbiased if you say they are now? Nice try. And no, the discussion is not limited to whether it is unprecedented in Iraq, good job not reading the original request for consensus. Let me put it to you plainly. If you cannot adequately contribute to the vote discussion here, anon, then your comments will be deleted to make it easier to read. Take your POV and bias elsewhere.
It is quite obvious a website of a conflicting party is not a neutral source. It was already stated that there is no problem if better wording is found and that the only thing Csloat and I regard as important is that the wording expresses that the terrorism happening in Iraq now is unprecedented to that country. You are not entitled to delete anything. 17:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
how is "unprecedented terrorism" preferable to "emergence of insurgency"? The terroists (and their supporters) do not call themselves terrorists. How can this not be POV?--Jiang 05:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we quite need a poll yet (as we are still discussing), but for the purposes of both the discussion and the poll, I say "decisive coalition victory" and "unprecendented terrorism" are both flagrantly POV and inaccurate. The current wording is adequate: "Saddam Hussein and Baath Party toppled; occupation of Iraq;" already implies that the coalition achived its objective of invading and occupying iraq. Whether it was "decisive" or even a "victory" is subject to debate. There's no need to editorialize here. "emergence of insurgency" is preferrably to "unprecendented terrorism" because "unprecedented" is a matter of opinion and the word "terrorism" is itself inherently charged and POV. Everyone calls what is happening in Iraq an "insurgency". Whether there is terrorism, or unprecedented terrorism, is subject to different viewpoints and debate. --Jiang 05:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Unprecedented" means without precedent. Either suicide attacks on civilians and televised beheadings were common in Iraq prior to 2003 or they weren't. It's a fact that can easily be checked on rather than a POV. And it's quite relevant since the invasion was justified in part to reduce terrorism. It has had the opposite effect. If you can substantiate that there was such terrorism in Iraq prior to 2003 then perhaps you would have a point. But you can't.--csloat 23:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Jiang for saying what I have been trying to get across here. The words Terrorism and Decisive are too charged and too much disputable for this article's accuracy, therefore they should be removed. Swatjester 09:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
What is happening now is cannot be properly characterized as an insurgency. An insurgency would be associated with attacks on the occupying forces. Terrorism is directed at Iraqi civilians, too. That is why the word is needed. 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: People get killed every day by bombs and suicide attacks of terrorist groups that did not exist in the country before the invasion. The term is absolutely correct. Get-back-world-respect 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote for keeping it as it currently is. The facts are stated in the article. The reader can draw accurate conclusions about the decisive nature of the actual military operation, and embellishment is not required. The current level of terrorism may or may not be unprecedented. I happen to agree that what Saddam did to his own people was clearly terrorism. However, it's not germane. I disagree that the use of the word "terrorism" is POV. The intention of the actor is what counts...not what the actor calls himself. Nonetheless, a dry statement of the emergence of the insurgency is sufficient. A reader will draw any necessary conclusions from the article itself.Dawgknot 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as it is worded now it is an "insurgency", which would not be associated with terrorist attacks on civilians who have nothing to do with the occupants. Furthermore, what Saddam did was terrible, it is however not what one would call terrorism, as you might agree if you read that article. Get-back-world-respect 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Illegality of the war

Please do not delete information about what legal experts say about the international law aspects of the war. 10:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - "many" is not really accurate since I know of no legal experts who say it was legal. "Most" is quite accurate; perhaps even "the overwhelming majority." I believe this issue has been discussed here before. It would be nice if someone researched this and presented a few quotations and other information about this issue.-csloat 11:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The sources are already provided. 11:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
A logical fallacy. The amount of legal researchers you know personally do not come close to equaling the amount in the world. I know personally quite a few lawyers, Con Law practicioners, and legal experts who DO agree that the war is not illegal. Many is far more accurate than most, until someone can find me a list of all the legal experts with opinions on the war and show that 75% of them explicitly say it is illegal. Swatjester 11:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Just read the sources. Experts say that there is near consensus about the illegality, e.g. here: [60]: "E. Résumé - To conclude, the decision of the BVerwG is in line with the predominant opinion on the legality of the war in Iraq amongst legal scholars not only from Germany,[69] but also from the rest of the world.[70]." You can read that in any somewhat balanced news source, too. A UN Secretary General would never speak of any UN member country doing something illegal if he was not completely sure. 11:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I suspect that far more think the action was legal than don't. But it's not relevant nor necessary to reach that point. The use of "many" is more than sufficient to communicate your view. I would propose that it go on to say that "many" legal experts have concluded it was legal. These are highly charged political issues and people opine to suit their own purposes...including the UN Secretary General and writers in German Law Journals. Perhaps it would be more neutral to merely state that the issue of the legality of the war is a hotly debated subject and leave it at that.Dawgknot 01:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
While you "suspect", others have investigated. The article gives an overview of the literature, clearly showing that most experts regard the war as illegal. I completely agree with what was written above that a "UN Secretary General would never speak of any UN member country doing something illegal if he was not completely sure." Versions in other languages also point out that the illegality of the war is more or less consensus. Get-back-world-respect 02:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the current status of the article is just fine. No agreement is likely to be reached upon your assertion. Even the Attorney General of the UK in his secret legal opinion to the Prime Minister, while advocating a more cautious appoach himself, stated that a reasonable case could be made for UN 1441 having authorized the action. I certainly don't share your view that the Secretary General's view on that point is any more dispositive than anyone else's. To the contrary, he had a dog in that race. I vote to leave it as it is.Dawgknot 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
A UN Secretary General is a diplomate, agreed upon by all countries because he is deemed to be neutral. He completely destroys all the power he has if he makes a statement about a legal dispute if there is any reasonable doubt that his judgment may be wrong. Note that the former Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali agreed with him. The Attorney General of the UK is a representative of a conflicting party. Of the side that presented forged documents to the Security Council and spied on other members. You certainly would not trust Hussein's Attorney General. And as you can see from the detailed information in the law journal article and many other sources, there is an overwhelming majority of law experts agreeing on the illegality of the war. [61] [62] [63] Get-back-world-respect 04:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A UN secretary general, who is under intense investigation for getting rich off a scandal that supported Saddam's gov't? Sure, how could he ever lie! Swatjester 11:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On a lark I did some scouring of lexis/nexis on this topic and was unable to find a single law review article justifying the legality of the invasion; not a single one, though I found several that said it was illegal. Even the ones that justified the invasion on moral grounds and on national security grounds could not justify it on grounds of international law. I'd like to see some evidence for the claim that "many legal experts concluded it was legal" - I could not find a single one. My browsing of lexis/nexis is hardly a representative sample, but it does indicate that a preponderance of legal scholars do think it was illegal. But if you have evidence that this is not the case please share it.--csloat 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
At the time when he said that the war was illegal there were no investigations. He himself has never been under investigation "for getting rich". He could not have said that the war was illegal had he not been supported by UN law experts which come from all countries. If you cannot remain calm on the topic, maybe work on other articles? 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you relook into the Oil for Food scandal. And don't personally attack my ability to remain calm. I'm quite calm. Personal attacks are frowned upon in Wikipedia. Swatjester 17:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From Oil for food: "On June 14, 2005, two 1998 memos surfaced that appeared to link Kofi Annan to Cotecna Inspection S.A." Annan had already said that the war was illegal in 2003. Nothing indicates that Annan received any money, and he is still Secretary General after intense investigations. Your repeated condescending comments and weak argumentation speak poorly of your ability to contribute to an article on this topic. 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
And we all know, anon, that wikipedia should not be considered a factual source of information, since anyone can edit it. Your own edits should have proved that.Swatjester 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like people here to tone down a little bit. The legality or illegality of the war in Iraq is quite unrelated to the personal probity of Mr Annan, so throwing mud at him is not topical. Rama 17:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who brought up Mr. Annan's character record. Swatjester 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Above you wrote: "A UN secretary general, who is under intense investigation for getting rich off a scandal that supported Saddam's gov't? Sure, how could he ever lie!" So who is lying? 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to edit paragraph about opinion of UK Attorney General

I propose to edit the following paragraph in section 5.3.2 in the Legality of the Invasion:International Law

On 28 April 2005, the UK government published the full advice given by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003 on the legality of the war. The publication of this document followed the leaking of the summary to the press the day before. In a Labour press conference, Tony Blair responded to a question from journalist Jon Snow asking whether the full report could be published by saying 'we may as well, you've seen most of it already'. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighs the different arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without a second UN Resolution. Saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action," it clearly stated that invasion for the purpose of regime change was illegal. [142]

to say the following:

On 28 April 2005, the UK government published the full advice given by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003 on the legality of the war. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighed the different arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without a second UN Resolution. While he urged a more cautious approach, he said:

Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating

history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving

the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.
He concluded his analysis by saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action".

My reasoning is that its irrelevant that the opinion was leaked. By adding the real heart of his opinion, it makes this paragraph meaningful. I propose to delete the final citation to the Guardian as being non-factual and instead is an opinion piece that has no place in this discussion. The only citation necessary is to Lord Goldsmith's opinion.Dawgknot 03:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I object. Given that Goldsmith also writes I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. and "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with this view. your summary gives a completely distorted impression. Furthermore, the whole reason why it was mentioned that the Goldsmith report was published after it had been leaked is that the British government had not been satisfied with Goldsmith's original opinion that a second resoultuion was needed:
the IoS has learnt from sources connected to the Gun case that in November 2002, when the Security Council passed resolution 1441, threatening "serious consequences" if Iraq did not "comply with its disarmament obligations", Lord Goldsmith agreed with the Foreign Office view that a further resolution would be needed to make war legal. As the possibility of war without such a resolution loomed, Britain's military chiefs of staff argued that they needed a clearer legal basis on which to proceed.
Between November and the end of January 2003, the IoS was told, the Attorney General's staff produced a paper dealing with the issues raised by the military chiefs, but it fell short of the legal authorisation the chiefs of staff wanted. "The military said they needed something harder if they were to commit troops," a legal source said. Lord Goldsmith's advice argued that a UN resolution from 13 years ago remained in force. [64]
Goldsmith's legal opinion was drawn up in part to answer the demands of Adm. Michael Boyce, then chief of the defense staff. He wanted assurances that soldiers could not be prosecuted either by the international court or in the British justice system for taking part in an illegal war.

Goldsmith's paper, dated March 7, 2003, and marked "Secret," carefully laid out both sides of the case and did not rule out the possibility of war without a new U.N. resolution. But it pointed out the possible legal consequences and urged caution.

The paper was disclosed neither to the cabinet nor to Parliament. Instead, 10 days later, Goldsmith released a one-page statement fully endorsing the decision to go to war without a new U.N. resolution and containing none of his earlier caveats. [65] Get-back-world-respect 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you would have to agree that the paragraph was misleading before my proposed change. I have read the AG's analysis very closely, and I think that I captured the very essence of his view. He urged a more cautious approach but conceded the reasonableness of the other view. I don't mind participating in an effort that reasonably balances differing conclusions. Perhaps, rather than my formulation, we can add yours.

I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force... Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.

In this way, I think we capture his opinion. It is not necessary for us to conclude which view would survive a legal challenge. I have my view and I'm sure yours is a different one.Dawgknot 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, it should give the most relevant information in a concise way, not quote blocks of reports. The relevant information is he backed the legality of the war when it started with a short note. Then a colleague resigned claiming he had changed his mind under pressure from the US and a memo was leaked that showed he had severe doubt. Get-back-world-respect 05:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

length of article

This article is presently 136 kilobytes long. More than half of that is in the "Rationale"- and "Legitimacy disputes"-sections, moving these to some other article would keep this article more in line with Wikipedia:Article size. While noting we already have lengthy articles about the Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraq disarmament crisis, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Stances and opinions regarding the 2003 Iraq conflict, etc., I still suggest moving these two sections to a separate article, entitled "Rationale and legitimacy of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq", or somesuch, and that only a brief one-paragraph summary should be kept here. I'm a bit uncertain about how to word this summary, though.

We might also create a template to help users navigate many of the articles dealing with the justifications, opposition protests, memos, letters and all sorts of other opinions. I believe this article should only in length deal with the undisputed technicalities of the actual invasion; when it started, what troops were there, and where they were, and so on. Everything else should be mentioned, but not dealt with in detail here. Any suggestions, or comments? —Gabbe 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest Edits

The information about the Ark Royal BBC row is not accurate. It was not "naval officers" who were tired of hearing the BBC report Baghdad Bob and Fisk as the lecturns of truth, it was the whole crew, as the story reports.

On April 8, 2003, the U.S. military neutralized the Al Jazeera Baghdad bureau and other non-embedded journalists, in a series of actions the U.S. claimed were accidental.

Duplicate sentence, removed because it was redundant.

The deliberate targeting of Al Jazeera would have been consistent with repeated U.S. government criticism of Al Jazeera as "anti-American" and with the report of a leaked top secret memo detailing a lengthy conversation on April 16, 2004 between Prime Minister Blair and President Bush, in which Bush proposed bombing the Quatar central office of Al Jazeera

As phrased, completely POV, and draws reader to a conclusion based solely on opinion.

But its nice to see you jump on the bandwagon again Bernardo. DTC 00:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The insults really aren't necessary. There is no bandwagon here; I looked at your edits and saw no justification for them. The sentence above is not POV and not based on opinion - it is a fact that the memo was leaked and it is a fact that bombing al Jazeera in Iraq is consistent with bombing them in Qatar.
If you're enough of a sleuth to figure out my given name, surely you could have been clever enough to read what you are reverting, which you did not until it was pointed out to you the second time that you were inserting nonsense links. It's consistent with your carelessness in entering revert wars generally, so that's what called my attention to your reverts, not some bandwagon. I'm not going to get in a war over the above sentence but that edit is incorrect. It is pretty typical of your style to delete information you don't like rather than adding the information which might balance it in some way.--csloat 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

3rd brigade combat team

Stop reverting edits on the caption "3rd brigade combat team OF the 3rd infantry division. the 3rd Infantry division is divided into 3 Brigade combat teams, the one in the picture is the 3rd brigade combat team. Hence, it's the 3rd brigade combat team OF the 3rd infantry division (brigade is a lower tier of unit than a division, which is comprised of brigades). See my article on Brigade Combat Team for more info. Swatjester 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

this is the image name. it has nothing to do with being grammatical. if you change it, the link is broken and we no longer see the image. you can try reuploading the image, and then tagging the old image as speedy delete, but this may not be necessary since the reader will not see the image name if we use alternate text, as i am about to do. --Jiang 06:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't know I was doing that. Sorry, carry on. I was just trying to make sure the visible thing to the user shows the right thing. Swatjester 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be working fine now, with the correct caption and alt-text. Swatjester 10:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Duel

Some time ago, someone had put in a tidbit about the proposed duel to "settle up" before the war, that was suggested be held between Saddam & George W. Bush. Did somebody remove it? And why? -- takthemud 11:43, 27 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Bush bomb Al Jazeer edit

I think that the anon edit that adds material from the leaked internal document from the UK about Bush expressing a desire to bomb Al Jazeera needs work. A couple of very clear POV issues must be addressed. First of all, the White House statements on the matter must be included. Secondly, the leakers of the document were arrested for violation of the Official Secrets act. They should be identified as having done so. Third, when the matter was originally released in the Mirror, a source said the President was joking. If the anon editor does not wish to make these changes, I shall do it myself. Dawgknot 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Media Coverage section needs work

I propose to remove entirely the paragraph on European complaints about American press coverage and the harsh language used by some commentators such as Christopher Hitchens. This has no place in this article and it is entirely unbalanced in its POV. For example, if one wants to examine harsh language, then there will a rich supply of material about President Bush that was neither moderate nor accurate. Dawgknot 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The belgian journalist is hardly known to anyone, however, you chose to leave him in the article. You should carefully rethink whether you are trying to work on a balanced encyclopedia article or just present your view. The US and UK media coverage drew harsh criticism, and in many countries it is entirely unimaginable to have their highest quality newspapers calling presidents of other countries "poodles", "worms" and "weasels". It should also be noted that many US papers expressed severe repentance for their uncritical war coverage after the "end of major combat". 01:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I would happily delete the setion on the Belgian journalist. It's not necessary either. The press coverage in the Europe of the US and President Bush was pretty harsh. I doubt that much would be gained by having a weighted-average hash of press coverage just so this issue can have a more balanced POV. Would removing the Belgian journalist lines be acceptable?Dawgknot 01:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"""User""" wouldn't it be better for all of us to discuss these changes more prospectively here rather than wholesale reverts and edits? I think we have to agree that neither your view about events nor my view is particularly relevant. If we work cooperatively, we can get this done smoothly and without rancorous editing exchanges.

On the Al Jazeera section.

1. Wiki policy is to use the mose direct sources. I think everyone would agree that the BBC is a far more direct link that the links you have chosen. Moreover, wiki has a policy against using sources that are part of the discussion. Clearly the site you have used is part of the debate. Those links should be replaced with more neutral sources.

2. I used a quote that has been sourced properly. Why do you replace it?

3. I can't find a reliable source for your claim about the Kabul office.

4. Your statement that the tank firing on the hotel and something you call a lie seems awfully gratuitous to me. I think that would have to be carefully sourced. There is absolutely no evidence of lying going on.

5. We should be clear about the report of the meeting. It is only alleged that Bush said these things. We have not seen the memo and we can't confirm that is what it says. The word "allegedly" has to remain. The White House denies it.

Let's try to get this cleaned up. Again, I'm not going to immediately revert your changes, but I will wait a period for others to weigh in and give you a chance to discuss it first. Sooner or later, this has to get fixed. Let's try to do it reasonably.Dawgknot 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome discussing reasonably.
1. I am ok with using the most direct sources. I am not ok with replacing sources saying something with something else backed by other sources giving a different impression. I am furthermore against using unnecessary quotes.
2. An encyclopedia should only quote really important statements, not what some officer said.
3. The Al Jazeera article itself as well as any article you find with google, e.g. [66] [67] [68]
4. The lie is sourced, Two Murders and a Lie An Investigation by Jean-Paul Marie, January 2004 [69] The report said US officials at first lied about what happened and then, in an official statement four months later, exonerated the US Army from any mistake or error of judgement. The report provides only some of the truth about the incident, which needs to be further investigated to establish exactly who was responsible.
Pentagon spokespersons said right from the start that an M1 Abrams tank opened fire on the hotel in legitimate self-defence in response to "enemy fire" coming from the hotel or the area around it. This line was maintained and emphasised at the highest official level in the days that followed.
Sgt. Shawn Gibson, the 3rd Infantry Division (3ID) tank gunner who fired the fatal shot, and his immediate superior, Capt. Philip Wolford, who authorised it, denied they had fired because of shooting from the hotel. They said the 4-64 Armor Company of the 3ID's 2nd Brigade, which was stationed on the Al-Jumhuriya Bridge soon after US troops entered Baghdad, was in fact seeking to neutralise an Iraqi "spotter" monitoring and reporting on US military activity. Some of this data caused the US Army to change its line slightly in its official report released on 12 August 2003. It did not speak of direct shooting but of an "enemy hunter/killer team" which required a response in legitimate self-defence. This too was a lie - by omission.
5. I see what you mean here. Ok with the changes? 03:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
We're making progress. First we have to be mindful that there is another article on this subject April 8, 2003 journalist deaths by U.S. fire
1. If the point here is to properly source facts, I don't see the point of citing a reference to an obscure website that has published what is essentially a higly charged opinion piece. It certainly does not add any new facts. While I understand why you want to use it, I think that it belongs in another article, the purpose of which is to discuss the highly-charged issues that some journalists have campaigned about. This article is about the invasion. We should be trying to put up facts about what actually happened. The BBC article is all that is needed to source these facts.
2. Ok. About Kabul. Here is a quote from the Christian Science Monitor:

In November 2001, Al Jazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a US missile, although no staff were in the office at the time. US officials said they believed the target was a "terrorist" site and did not know it was Al Jazeera's office. [70]

Does this work for you?
3.I agree that we should only cite important facts. But equally important is balance. If the impression is given that somehow journalists were targeted, then in fairness we should add statements that deny that implication. Fair is fair. Do you have a better quote than this officer's?
4. As for the hotel and the tank, we can't say that anyone "lied". That is an unnecessarily emotion-charged word that may not even be accurate. War is dirty business and information gets fogged up in the smoke and noise. The point is that we can't leave the implication that this was done on purpose and then fail to permit someone to state that it wasn't. If you like, we can use the "enemy hunter/killer team" statement rather than they took fire from the building. However, it's important to point out that the explanation didn't change. On April 8, 2003, the day of the event, PBS published this article that included both explanations.[71] I think that it is also only fair to say that while journalists were in the hotel, Saddam was more than willing to put to military use all sorts of facilities that might put innocents at risk as he may well have done with this hotel.
There is also that business about the Belgian journalist above. I think that we should delete both paragraphs. As I said above, this article is not about European views of American journalism nor is it about American views of European journalism. That is the subject of a different article. And I think we can all agree that this article is way too long as it is.Dawgknot 16:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, here is a comletely riveting account of what happened that day when the tank fired. It was prepared by Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and published the followning month. This should probably be referenced also. It discusses the tank radio traffic and the information from embedded journalists at the site.[72] While the army gave conflicting accounts of what happened, including the comments of the tank commander himself, ultimately it seems pretty clear that they were shooting at what they thought was an enemy spotter during heavy combat operations involving serious danger. There is no reference to yellow press banners. Dawgknot 16:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Dawgknot, I'd like to add that during the referenced point in time, I was with 4/64 Armor as an Infantry SECFOR attachment to 3ID, and we were under nearly constant mortar attack that was being adjusted by enemy spotters and forward observers. The anon below who continuously says "they lied, there was no combat in Baghdad" was entirely wrong. I was there. There was very fierce combat in Baghdad, hence the awarding of the Congressional Medal of Honor to a sergeant from 3rd ID, and several Silver Stars. Again, I was there, and the pictures taken by my NBC embedded reporter are available in NBC's photojournal Operation Iraqi Freedom, showing the fierce fighting in the city. Swatjester 08:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dawgknot.
1. Could you tell me again which link you want to get replaced?
2.&3. Your link does not add anything to this article. The information relevant to this article is that Al Jazeera's office in Kabul having been destroyed by US forces, too, allegations quickly emerged that they were intentionally targeted. No need to say the US denies it, that can be taken for granted.
4. They did lie. They said they had been fired upon although all journalists denied it. No US tank was destroyed when taking Baghdad, there was no heavy combat. When it became obvious the claim could not be upheld that they had fired back and international pressure was fierce, the explanation was changed to they thought they were in danger. The scandal was that while the whole world knew about the Palestine hotel being the residence of the international press, the soldiers on the ground had not been informed about it. The question is whether this was done on purpose.
5. I am completely ok with deleting the Belgian journalist who is hardly known to anyone. I am not ok with deleting important information about the shocking lack of balance in US "reporting". That is pivotal to the article about the invasion because once "major combat" was over, even US media expressed deep concern about their failures.
Source for the yellow "Press" banners. 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Where we seem to have a difference is on what this article is supposed to be about. It is not a critique of the press or press coverage. That should be a subject of another article. This article is aobut the 2003 invasion. Much of what you wish discussed is already in this paragraph higher up.
1. The source that should be deleted is #184, the Common Dreams web page. This is not a proper source for facts. It is opinion. The same for #186, the Fairness in Media. This is critique. This article isn't about critique. The German language source in # 188 should also be deleted.
2. The CSM source is a direct source for the facts that you want about the Kabul office. This article is no place for allegations about Al Jazeera offices being purposefully bombed. It certainly cannot be alleged without the balance of a rebuttal statement. That would not be NPOV.
3. Unless you have a better quote than the Commander of the 3rd Army, we'll have to use it.
4. "Lies" are intentional misrepresentation of facts. In the fog of war, facts are often not understood until quite later. If you read the CPJ report, you can see pretty much what happened. It would be wildly irresponsible to label what people said during active warfare as lies. There is no place for that in this article. Moreover, if you read that CPJ article, journalists present with that tank unit reported:

Beginning at dawn that day, the battalion engaged Iraqi forces in skirmishes that continued for the next 36 hours. On April 8, as the battalion continued to push into the heart of Baghdad, U.S. soldiers encountered stiff resistance from Iraqi forces...At around dawn on April 8, intense fighting resumed on the west side of the Tigris in the vicinity of the Al-Jumhuriya Bridge. Reporters, who had clustered on the balconies of the Palestine Hotel, located on the eastern bank of the Tigris, observed a significant counterattack by Iraqi forces armed with light arms, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), and mortars. The attack continued for several hours, and, according to AP reporter Tomlinson, snipers on tall buildings aimed at the hatches of the tanks, eventually wounding two members of Wolford's battalion.

You cannot superimpose your judgment of the ferocity of combat that day over many journalists who were actually there and reported it. Particularly since CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists) is the source of the reporting. It's important to point out that major combat operations were still underway when these events happened.
As for the exchanges aobut what Europeans thing aobut American journalism, it is entirely inappropriate for this article. Moreove, it is a highly charged political issue that we should stay away from. I am going to make the changes to the article we have discussed and I hope that we can arrive at a balanced solution.Dawgknot 01:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Light arms against tanks, wow. Journalists unanimously reported there was no one attacking from the Palestine hotel. However, the US army kept up that lie. You cannout superimpose your pride over the fact that innocent lives were avoidably taken under dubious circumstances.
You obviously have no idea about how tanks work in combat. First of all, the hatches usually stay open for the commander and loader to operate their machineguns. Hence, they are vulnerable to small arms fire. Secondly the m2 bradleys, m113 APC's, and other vehicles ARE vulnerable to RPG fire, as well as the heavier morters the Iraqi's were firing. Finally, the iraqi army had access to 155mm howitzer shells used as IED's which were employed, though unsuccessfully in that fight. As I noted above, I was there. It was fierce fighting. You can denigrate it all you want, but you can't hide the truth. Furthermore: "It happened during some of the most intense fighting between U.S. and Iraqi forces in Baghdad, and dozens of journalists were eyewitnesses or had been in the hotel at the time" That quote comes from the CPJ link provided above. Nobody's pride is being involved except for yours. You are the only one here not acting in good faith.Swatjester 08:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely appropriate for this article to point out that US journalism lacked balance. This is not what Europeans think, this is what US journalists think themselves after the invasion, e.g. here. 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Was the 101st Airborne even involved in the capture of Hillah? I don't remember any army being around at the time, they were mostly to the west in Karbala and Najaf, and the Marines were in Hillah with Army air support out of a base outside of Baghdad that shall remain nameless. Can anyone confirm or disprove this? Just cause I don't remember you guys being there doesn't mean the 101st wasn't there of course. pookster11 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was with 3/124th infantry, attached to TF Tarawa, and I don't remember any 101st joes there, just marines and our small SECFOR attachment. Swatjester 07:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Break This Article Up Please! Vote here

This article is huge, and a brief overview of the discussion and the edits shows that most of the work being done on this article is entirely tertiary to its subject, namely the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I propose for issues of length, clarity, purpose, and to allow a more on-topic discussion of specific matters, that this article be broken up. The section on WMD's already, I believe, has its own article, and if not could handily make an article of its own, and, while it has relevance to the topic, does not need to be explored in-depth in an encyclopedia article on the invasion. Rationale, once again, references two other main articles on the topic, and then proceeds to provide essentially all of the information in those articles. This needs to either be cut down or eliminated, and a basic narrative for the rationale behind the war given with reference to other possible ideas. The Sanctions section seems to have little if anything to do with the article and more to do with the Oil for Food program and ensuing scandal. Human Rights has its own article, and once again, does not need to all be included here. Purported intelligence plots could be tightened up and integrated into a new rationale section. The Saddam/Al-Quaeda stuff already has its own article. Legitimacy Dispute has two articles related to it. In the section on countries, global protests are brough up again after just having discussed the topic, and then we go back to, once again, discussing the legality of the invasion, which is a topic in and of itself and should be referenced, but not necessarily included, in an article that is about the invasion. And then we talk about the opposition to the war again. Basically put, some of this could be incorporated into the articles that are already cited in the article, and some of it just repeats itself over, and over, and over again, and can get severely edited down and new articles created. What does everyone think? pookster11 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Swatjester 07:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
please use wikipedia:summary style instead of just splitting text to other pages--Jiang 08:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I even did propose this less than three days ago on this talk page... Also note that although we have {{Iraq-war}} and {{Iraq War}}, they are currently unused. If there were template-boxes on all sorts of pages related the invasion, I think there is less risk that any single page will become bloated again. Maybe making a new template to link all articles related to the war/invasion would be appropriate? —Gabbe 12:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. This has become too wordy and too long.Dawgknot 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Media Coverage

Is there anything specifically in this section that isn't covered in 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage and needs to be moved over there? It seems its just a collection of short paragraphs about individual articles. pookster11 03:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it can be eliminated. I've worked hard on it, but only because it is there. I wouldn't cry a tear if it was deleted. I really don't think it adds anything to the article about the invasion itself which is already way too long.Dawgknot 03:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it needs to be removed from the article, but before that I want to make sure that there's nothing in the section that someone thinks should be moved to 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage that isn't there already. pookster11 03:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The Al Jazeera issue is not covered in the other article. It could certainly be moved there. It more properly belongs there in my view. We can wait for some more comment on the point.Dawgknot 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The bombing of the Palestine hotel was a pivotal event in the invasion and thus needs to be included in the article. 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Pivotal? Not at all. The capture of the bridge at Nasiriyah was pivotal. The securing of the Karbala gap was pivotal. A single tank shot that killed 2 journalists, did nothing to affect the future of the invasion, far from pivotal. Take a look at the dictionary definition of the meaning. BTW Pookster I support elimination. Swatjester 08:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it covered in the main article? And in what way does it relate to the invasion? It may have been an important event, but if there is a media coverage section on the invasion it will be a general summary and reference the main Media Coverage article as per Wikipedia guidelines, not an article by article discussion as is currently there. In other words, the story by story format that is currently there is getting ditched, mainly because its a mess, is unprofessional, and does not conform to Wiki guidelines. The question here is what needs to get moved over to the main article that isn't there already. pookster11 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pookster, what became of the legitimacy section? It was 5.3.2. Did it get moved to another article. Dawgknot 04:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is now under Iraq War - Legitimacy, and is referenced at least twice in the article. pookster11 04:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I see. I left a msg for you on your page. Semper Fi Dawgknot 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Changes

Article has been cut and shortened down, and two additional pages created with their relevant sections. Nothing in these sections has been deleted or otherwise edited; they are intact from this page. Please take whatever discussions, gripes, concerns, complaints, whatever, about those sections to those articles, and do not try and reinsert the unrelated material back into the article without making an effort to discuss it first. Thanks. pookster11 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


While you keep the UN Resolutions and the US "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" you completely delete the legitimacy question from the Political and diplomatic aspects. This invasion has created the largest ever protests all over the world and is seen as a turning point in history as the only remaining super power ignored the UN Security Council which in the eyes of most experts equals breaking international law. The most important content needs to stay, and I urge you to rethink whether you are trying to help to improve an encyclopedia or just trying to present things the way you like them. 19:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with those arguments, but they do not directly relate to the invasion of Iraq, and as such were moved to their own page where they can be handled with greater discussion and greater depth, and with far more relevance to the article topic. A summary of those arguments and links to places where those arguments are handled in-depth is contained within the article, but please keep in mind that the article is supposed to deal with the invasion and not every single topic that may be related to the invasion in a tertairy way. Once again, I assure you that the edits and reconstruction of the page are meant to make the article more on-topic and succint, and not an attempt to squelch one side of an ongoing argument over aspects of the legality of the invasion. pookster11 20:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So enumerating all the Iraq resolutions is relevant to the introduction of the invasion article but the international protests and the failed Security Council that would have authorized force are not. Is that what they tell you to call neutral at UCLA? 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The Iraq resolutions are directly relevant. Mention of the protests is relevant as well, and the protests are mentioned and links to respective article about the protests are presented; the protests themselves had no bearing on the leadup to or the exercise of the invasion, and as such are teriary to the topic. The failure of the Security Council to authorize the invasion is referenced as well, and once again the reader is directed to the article where questions of legitimacy are handled more in-depth. In short, everything you just brought up is in the article, as well as notification of where more in-depth information on the subject can be found. This is not the article that should be concerned with debatingthe legitimacy of the invasion, the protests, and so on. Reference to tertiary topics is necessary, but it is unnecessary that this article cover fully all tertiary topics related in whatever way to the 2003 invasion. pookster11 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
As it was before, the introduction enumerated Security Council Resolutions dating back to the early 90s and did neither mention that the attempt to get a Resolution authorizing force in 2003 failed nor that other countries protested and called the invasion illegal or that the largest ever world wide demonstrations took place in protest against the war. 22:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with your new edits, adding a sentence here or there is fine. In the future, please refrain from simply re-entering entire sections that are now part of sepparate articles.pookster11 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


It's time to archive this talk page. Who want's to volunteer?Swatjester 15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't for the next couple days at least, until the changes have been fully discussed and agreed upon by everyone. Otherwise you will spark an edit war with people not understanding the new changes and thinking someone has simply deleted all their fine arguments. Thanks. pookster11 20:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to do it myself. I want someone to do it for me. Swatjester 08:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

UK Attorney General

Not sure what the relevance is to the article as a whole or to the "Prelude" section. It seems much more of a topic that should be covered in the Legitimacy section. Once again, the piece is supposed to be a summary, not a blow by blow account of who said what where and when in regards to the legitimacy. As to the Republican party reference, it has direct relevance as to the build up to the war, as the Republican party had made it part of its political goals some three years before the invasion to effect regime change in the country, and is thus part of the overall background and lead up to the invasion. This at any rate is my rationale. If you could please explain why a comment from the UK Attorney General is more relevant in the prelude section than the Legitimacy section, it wouldbe appreciated. pookster11 21:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you just thought it would be more appropriate elsewhere, why did you remove rather than move it? 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Because it is more relevant in the Legitimacy article created yesterday, where it currently resides. pookster11 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
What is more relevant, the source cite by editor 88.9 does not stand for the proposition he asserts. Moverover, I have read the AG's report carefully and I can't find any such words. Perhaps editor 88.9 can help me out on that. But beyond that, I doubt it relevance to this particular article. The AG in the UK has repeatedly stated his view that the invasion was legal.Dawgknot 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I take it back. The AG in paragraph 35 made substantially the same statement although not in those words. The article cited doesn't support it, but a direct reference to his opinion would. Still, it doesn't belong in this article. It belongs in the legitimacy article.Dawgknot 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Operation Iraqi Freedom is the name of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Please explain how a reporter using the actual title of the operation is propoganda? pookster11 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Freedom is the propaganda name devised by the military. That's not a POV statement; that's the truth. Most countries have a long history of naming wars such that they are more palatable to the general public. Do you remember the propaganda name ("operational title") of the Vietnam War? Nah, neither do I. It kind of died out over time and now we just refer to it as the Vietnam War. The same is going to happen with the Iraq War. Do you remember the propaganda name of Gulf War I? I don't. --Cyde Weys 02:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this statement that OIF is only propoganda and is not the actual name of the operation? If so I would be interested to know what the name of the operation actually is. As to your other questions, the Vietnam war comprised several operations occuring at the same time and did not fall under a single operational heading. The Persian Gulf war was known as Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. It can hardly be argued though that reporters referring to the operational title of a military exercise is an act of propoganda, no more than referring to the Great Barrier Reef is an implication that all other reefs suck; its the technical name. pookster11 02:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
He just explained you, it is the name of the operation as given by the military for propaganda reasons. You may call that technical name, it still is propaganda. If Hitler called the Polish invasion operation polish freedom you would not accept that as a technical name either, would you? 02:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice job invoking Godwins Law. And in your hypothetical situation, yes, Operation Polish Freedom would be the correct name. Can anyone here dispute the fact that on my pay stubs I received in the war they say "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? No. That is the factual and technical name of the invasion operation. Swatjester 07:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The point is encyclopedias should not use terms because aggressors write them on pay stubs. We do not refer to terrorists as martyrs either even if that is what their family gets written on their pay stubs. 14:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the usage of the name of an operation by a reporter tantamount to biased reporting? pookster11 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what the original dispute was about, I just point out that Cyde is completely correct in saying that OIF is a propaganda term. 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Good for you. pookster11 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not propaganda. It's what they named it. It's always capitalized in the press Iraqi Freedom. Desert Storm. I don't see why that is propaganda. It's a naming convention. But then that's one of those issues that reasonable people should be able to disagree about without rancor.Dawgknot 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
They named it so for propaganda reasons. Do you know what propaganda is? This debate was about the sentence The fact that American news programs accepted the administration's war terminology like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" uncritically, and that many American reporters were "embedded" with American military units and wore US flags in their lapels, were seen as inappropriate behavior. Using a propaganda term uncritically is inappropriate, and even if you do not think so you cannot deny that many others do. There is no need to use propaganda terms, we do not use them either. That is why the article title is not operation iraqi freedom. As is explained in the article, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom," for example, expresses one viewpoint of the purpose of the invasion, and is almost never used outside the United States. You are just proving over and over that it is a really bad idea to have soldiers of a conflicting party dominating an encyclopedia article about a war. 14:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea that refering to the war by its operational name is the press participating in propaganda, or otherwise being a tool of the administration, is certainly POV. How else should the press refer to OIF if not as OIF? pookster11 04:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I find the anon's argumentation easy to follow. It is backed by our own article. The press can refer to an invasion as an invasion, no need to rely on the terms the military uses for obvious reasons. Please do not remove others' text from talk pages, that violates wikipedia rules. Even if there had been a personal attack - I cannot see any - it would have been sufficient to remove it instead of the whole text. Get-back-world-respect 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not really concerned with your opinion but thanks anyway. pookster11 03:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The question remains, how should the military operation in Iraq be referenced if not by its operational title? And, once again, how is OIF a propaganda term? Assume I'm stupid here and spell it out, don't just say "Its propaganda". pookster11 03:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

do you prefer the terms "marketing" or "spin"? Derex 10:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer baloney on honey wheat with mustard. Any other non-related questions? pookster11 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You are rude. Read it in the article, it is explained there. I have the impression you are just not willing to see this. Get-back-world-respect 13:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
i am now willing to stipulate as to your desired assumption. the phrase is propaganda because it is explicitly designed to influence public perception of the justice or nobility of the mission. as a sidenote, to see the difference with usual historical practice (pre-1990), contrast it with the vast majority of operational code names. Derex 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to combine Political/Diplomatic, Prelude, and Rationale

... as they all seem to be stating the same info over and over again, there's got to be a way to combine this into a heading, just simply "prelude to war" or something like that. What does everyone think? pookster11 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This works for me. I think that if this article is going to make it to a manageable length, topics will have to be combined. Particularly since we can't deal with them in the detail that they deserve.Dawgknot 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Media Section

Please reference Wikipedia:Summary style regarding the proper format of this section. pookster11 01:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have any particular problem please point it out rather than delete whole blocks others have spent a lot of work on. Deleting the information that US reporting was seen as gung-ho by many in spite of my repeated explanations that even the NYT had an editorial about its lack of criticism later on in my eyes is grossly offensive. 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The line about gung-ho reporting is there. I had no problem with it in the first place.pookster11 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You are not entitled to remove whole blocks. As I am unwilling to waste my time with you I revert the whole thing, you can move the gung-ho comment yourself if you like. If you have suggestions about the media coverage block be more specific and if you want it at a more appropriate place move it instead of deleting it. 01:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The section is a list of individual stories, most of which relate to events after the invasion, and is at odds with Wikipedia:Summary style. There is no place to put this other than Wiki news. It is in an inappropriate format for Wikipedia. If you think otherwise please point out how. pookster11 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Point out specific examples rather than delete a whole block. 01:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how these articles are a summary? pookster11 01:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Palestine hotel event was a crucial event in the invasion. The information that 69% of the US population thought it "likely" or "very likely" that Iraq was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, although no evidence of an Iraqi connection to the attack has ever been found is highly important to explaining how this war could be fought. You are welcome to propose better style but do not delete whole blocks. 01:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, how is this a summary of the media coverage and not just imply individual events? if you would like to make a page for these events and reference them, I have no problem. Considering however that there already is an article dedicated to the MEdia coverage of the war, and this is an article about the invasion, only a summary of the Media coverage is necessary, as per Wiki standard, and as such the event by event posting that is currently up there falls outside of those standards. Please either specify how these article fit with summary style, or delete them from the section. pookster11 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the entire media section should be substantially shortened. The embedded media facts should be reported and maybe 2 or 3 other short topics, but there are whole article in the Wiki devoted to these subjects and that is where it belongs. All these reverts are just making a very tough job even tougher. Show some good faith and assume some good faith. Give Pookster a chance to get htis done. This is not a unilateral effort on his part. He proposed this work up on this page earlier and detailed what he thought should be done. And it was commented on. Give him a chance and stop the reverts. Otherwise this article will just devolve into utter worthlessnes.Dawgknot 02:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can point out anything that is not worth mentioning, do so. If you just want to delete a whole block again I will revert again. And do not tell me about other articles again unless you make a serious effort to really place the information there that you regard more appropriate there. Many other users have worked on this section for a long time, you cannot just remove all of it . 02:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made an honest attempt to clean up the Media section. I have left the items that are factual about this particular military action such as the embedded journalists, the criticism of it, the internet and al jazeera. The rest has been moved to 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage I concede it is not pretty yet over there and we have to work to organize it, but the subject matters under debate here belong there. See if this works for you. Dawgknot 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And I will ask again, how is this a SUMMARY? I have no problem with the content of the sections, the problem is the format; a listing of individual articles, no matter how important, does not conform to Wiki standards. If you would like this section will be moved to the Media section and replaced with the previous summary of Media coverage of the war. But this is not the article that a list of individual news stories should be placed in. The question is not about what is and is not worth mentioning; the question is does it belong in a summary here. pookster11 02:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the question is whether it is worth mentioning. Better to have an article covering the important stuff in bad style than a well-written article omitting relevant information. 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please elaborate how its relevant to a summary of the media coverage. pookster11 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, if you want to make changes it is you who needs to explain. Give any particular example of something you regard irrelevant and we can discuss it. Unless you do so, the text needs to stay as it is. 03:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As I have already explained, the section as you would like does not conform to Wiki standards of summary. Please explain why you think it does. pookster11 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As I have already explained, if you want to make changes it is you who needs to explain. Give any particular example of something you regard irrelevant and we can discuss it. Unless you do so, the text needs to stay as it is. 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage Let's work on this article too.

Let's work together to make the 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage article organized and balanced. There is plenty of opportunity to highlight many topics of dispute such as word opinion, internation media vs US media. Criticism of the embedded journalists, debates about vitriol and the al jazeera bombin and hotel bombing. I happen to think that those two issues may belong in this article if we can agree on language and sources. Let's try to do that.Dawgknot 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no way you will get the April 8 bombing of the Palestine hotel out of an article about the invasion. 02:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please explain then what it has to do with a summary of the media coverage? pookster11 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that 67.92 may be right about this. It was a military event as was the al jazeera bombing. I'm open to be persuaded otherwise, but if we can mutually agree on language and sources, I think 67.92 has a point. I"m willing to find a way to make it work in a short form. Obviously the issue can get more and fuller treatment in the other media article.Dawgknot 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If the events took place during the invasion operation until the point where major combat operations were declared ended, they have a place in this article, in the short form at least. If not, then they do not. How simple is this? Swatjester 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a rough effort (very and sadly rough) to organize 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage. Please take a look at it and let's see if we can gain some ground on these issues. It's an important article and needs to be taken seriously. There is a whole section on Criticism of US Media Coverage. There is also a section on international perspectives. I think that we can make a good job of covering the criticisms of the embedded journalists and give a full exposure to international and domestic criticism. Let's try to get it right.Dawgknot 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a section to the main article on the al jazeera bombing and the Palestine Hotel event. I am working on the text now. Please give me a chance to present a summary form of this material for this article. YOu can then review it and give me your thoughts. The full discssion of this event belongs on the Media page.Dawgknot 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If any reference is applicable, it would be applicable within the text of the invasion, as a reference, as the other article treats it more fully and is the correct place for the reference. It should not have its own section.pookster11 03:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, if you want to make changes, it is you who needs to explain in detail, not me. And stop deleting my edits at talk pages, that is a gross violation of wiki policy. 03:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You still have yet to explain how the article as you want it conforms to Wiki policy. If you do not wish to discuss the topic, then please refrain from reverting the article. pookster11 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, a draft of the Al Jazeera bombing and the Palestine Hotel shelling is posted Please take a look at it and see what needs to be done. It is in a summary form and is more fully discussed in the 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage article. It may not be perfect, but it's an honest effort to summarize an important set of events that probably belong in this article....if we can agree on it. Let's see if we can get this right.Dawgknot 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

What is left that is disputed? Besides the fact that the article is still huge, almost twice as big as the Wiki standard. pookster11 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As you were constantly deleting pivotal material I kept the dispute tag up. Disputes were e.g. about the relevance of the bombings of Al Jazeera and the Palestine hotel and the perception of gung-ho US media as well as how the legality issue should be addressed. 04:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Bombings were incorporated, as was the gung-ho line, and I thought the issues of how to present legailty were addressed already? What else about legality did you want to put in there? pookster11 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You kept a line, I insist we need a whole section. I did not see an ok improved version of the bombings and I do not accept the legality issue to be taken out of the first prelude paragraph. 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
They have their own articles. This is not the article for the discussion of those topics, once again referring back to wikipedia:summary style which I think you desperately need to read. Reference and summary of those main articles is fine, but they can be treated in much greater depth and much more on-topic with their own pages. This is also the first time you've insisted that a legailty issue be put back in. There is ample reference to and inclusion of, in summary, the question of legality. Referring to a conversation farther down this page, what exactly do you think this page is supposed to be about? pookster11 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You deleted sections from this talk page about what the neutrality dispute was about, which is a gross violation of wiki rules. You then deleted my complaint about your removal. 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder about the age and experience of the anon user, as I keep having to repeat the same thing over and over again and s/he doesn't seem to get it. Lets try this. PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS HAVE NO PLACE ON A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE. Maybe that will help. pookster11 19:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You tell others not to personally attack by yelling at them and wondering about their age and experience? That does not seem very mature to me. He does have a point that you should not have removed the neutrality dispute tag [73] or the discussion here [74] as he claimed in the Request for comment on your user conduct. And please do not waste your time on requesting comments on an anon. Get-back-world-respect 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

3 RR warning

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, its about time someone brought that up. I also requested a protect on this page some 5 hours ago now. pookster11 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the history, I have decided to protect the page rather than block individual editors that have violated WP:3RR. Please take this time to cool-off, and arrive at consensus on how to proceed. Once you are ready to resume editing, place a request at WP:RFPP. 04:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I think that editor pookster has been doing terrific, but entirely thankless, work. I think he has consistently acted in good faith to substantially shorten this article to conform to wiki policy. Many other articles have been created with material from this overly long and unwieldy article but other editors will not give him a chance to finish so that we can debate the whole scheme. If it doesn't get done by this editor, it won't get done at all for a very long time. I think he should have been given a chance to finish.Dawgknot 04:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
He deleted whole sections, even here at the talk page. If you want to rewrite, do it in the sandbox. 04:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sections deleted from the talk page pertained to your behavior .92, after I requested that if you had a personal problem with me you took it up in the user talk pages, not in the talk section of this article. If you wish to continue harping on this topic I have no problem with the a restoration of what you said, though I doubt you would fully appreciate that. Personal conversations and insults do not have a place on a Wiki talk page. Further, I would question how long you've been working with Wiki, as you don't seem familiar with any of the editing or article standards, and seem to be thrown off about what the article topic is supposed to be about. pookster11 08:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, he moved them to different pages. Learn to use wikipedia anon, and try registering some time before you lecture people. Thanks Pookster for your work. Swatjester 07:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Pookster11 had deleted the whole section about media coverage without moving it to the other article. That was later attempted by Dawgknot. And he deleted sections from this talk page about what the neutrality dispute was about, which is a gross violation of wiki rules. Before lecturing people look at the facts. 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that you have been unwilling to assum his good faith. I feel very confident that the failure to get the material to the other articles was an accident. Frankly, his job was not helped by your constants reverts. I, myself, could not keep track of where material was because every time I turned around you had reverted yet again. How about participating in the process rather than obstructing it. You;'ll find that everyone involved is perfectly willing to work things out. Give it a try. And it doesn't help to hold old grudges.Dawgknot 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright then...

What is the problem with the last edited edition, before the last revert? pookster11 04:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins do not pick versions, they just block when they see a revert war. My problem with it was that this information is irrelevant: The U.S. 1st Marine Division initially weathered the sandstorm in and around Nasiriyah, then quickly moved north through Hillah and Kut, establishing a perimeter some 30 miles south of Baghdad. and a whole bunch of important stuff was deleted for the umpteenth time. 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) is that irrelevant to an article about the military operations in Iraq? Swatjester 08:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So... wait... events that detailed the actual invasion of Iraq, you had a problem with, but you wanted to keep all this superfluous stuff about Media coverage and such? Are you aware of the title of the article being written? pookster11 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Some soldiers moved from somewhere to somewhere else. There was a sandstorm. Who will care in ten years? Who cares today? That does not belong in an encyclopedia. 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that the point of the encyclopedia? If people do forget things such as troop movements they can always reference it. Is it conceivable that someone interested in military history might want to know the tactics used by coalition forces, some of the problems they faced and how they responded? While inconcievable to some, that is a topic that is interesting to people and this is exactly the place for it to be included. War is just politics by other means. Since the political factors which have been talked about in crushing detail remain in the article so to should the facts and analysis of how the actual invasion was done. As an outsider looking in it seems that the left camp is throwing a fit since a few soldiers and Marines started editing. In the end it will only make for a better article.--Looper5920 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The people who made this entry care, because this is where the information belongs. Swatjester 08:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry maybe we should start from the beginning. What exactly do you think the article is supposed to be about? pookster11 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this statement. The title of the article is 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The invasion is the subject matter. Just as media coverageis the subject of another article and weapons of mass destruction yet another...and so on. The thrust of the invasion is exactly what this article is about.Dawgknot 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If it was an article about WWII, would you want to include "Some soldiers moved from somewhere to somewhere else. There was a sandstorm." Definitely not. Only crucial events that are worth remembering in the long run need to be included. 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but if it was an article about the invasion of normandy, I'd definately want to include it. And guess what. This is an article abotu the INVASION of Iraq. Troop movements are crucial. By your logic, we can delete the section on the palestinian hotel, because it's not a crucial event worth remembering in the long run. Swatjester 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the anon that people will remember in ten years that US tanks killed journalists in the Palestine hotel and not that there was a sandstorm when they moved from x to z. Get-back-world-respect 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's fine and good GBWR, for an article on the war in general, but this is one specifically about the invasion itself. Yes the shooting should be put in there, it's historically significant as a major event during the invasion. But the sandstorm should be in there, as the sandstorm on the 4th day ( I think) of the invasion was the largest in a hundred years in Iraq. That deserved mention. And in an article on the actual invasion, it should be important to note how the invasion actually took place. Nobody is saying that the Palestine hotel incident SHOULDN'T be in, we're saying that the troop movements are important and the focus of the article. Swatjester 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't thoroughly looked at the current differences between the versions, but I do have one issue: Pookster, I get the impression that you've assumed that it was your own version that should be the status quo, and that people who wish not to have these sweeping changes are the ones who have to first justify their position on the Talk page. (Side note: it's good to use edit summaries and say "see Talk" if you've made a note on the Talk page; up to this point there was no note directing to Talk in the summaries.)
That said, I am in favor of improving the article's brevity. And freezing the page for now is a good idea; there were far too many reverts occurring. I'll continue looking through the changes. --Mr. Billion 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr Billion, I think the reverse is more appropriate. Wiki has length and summary policies. Don't you think that is incumbant upon folks to justify how this article meets those standards in the face of someone who is willing to do the hard work to fix it? I think, at this point, that pooksters' recent version should be the status quo and others should discuss the issues off of it. No material is being deleted. It's being moved, in accordance with policy, to new and related articles with topics that permit more detailed discussion of those issues. At the end of the day, we should hope to have an integrated set of articles, all with a unified naming structure, that can act as a body of encyclopedia information that is cross-referenced and useful to a reader rather than the current hodge-podge that is of no use and no value whatsoever.Dawgknot 19:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. If you look further up the page you will see pookster's proposal for this effort. Dawgknot 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, multiple requests have been made of the anonymous user as to why they think certain aspects of the article pertain to the topic or conform to Wiki standards, with out any reply, as can be noted above.pookster11 08:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That was posted after he began changing the article, and as I've said there was no mention of Talk in the edit summaries until the edit summary in the change I linked, which struck me as sounding indignant that other parties hadn't gone to Talk first. Anyway, simply proposing a change doesn't make it the status quo.
Actually, the proposed restructuring was posted some 2 days before any changes were made. pookster11 08:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
But that's not a major issue. The version at which it's currently locked looks okay to me, and it includes most of the changes Pookster made. --Mr. Billion 06:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It is decidedly NOT okay. There are rambling and off-topic discourses about foreign criticism of US media in the media section. I offered a summarized version that was a serious attempt to offer a balanced statement of events. Most of the stuff in that section belongs in the Media article. Certainly there must be a presentation of the issues in dispute, but this article is not the place for elaborate discussion. Pooksters should be permitted to finish the job and we can discuss whether it (1) was a reasonable job and (2) conforms to Wiki policy.
The biggest difference between the two is a restructuring of the prelude, which right now repeats itself over and over again, and an edit of the media section to conform to Wiki summary style, as an article already exists for the information and its tertiary to this topic. pookster11 08:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There were repeated complaints about your deletion of whole blocks in edit summaries as well as here, however, you just went on. That is why the article was blocked and why Cyde, Mr. Billion and myself complained about you. 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, there were repeated complaints by you, after your reverted it over and over and over. Then when you couldn't revert anymore, you got your friends to come in and do it for you. You keep trying to pass this off as deletion. It's not deletion. No information is being removed. Duplicate information is being cleaned out, and the rest is being moved to subarticles. What's your problem with that? Mr. Billion can speak for himself, you don't need to speak for him. If you'll look up, you'll notice that Mr. Billion states that he's all for brevity in this article. Swatjester 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Another other comments, complaints, concerns about the edited version from those who understand that this is an article about the invasion of Iraq? pookster11 06:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki summary policy and content forking

I think it might be profitable to take advantage of the Wiki suggestion in Content forking [75]and try using temporary pages:

One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy which people can then edit to show others proposed refactorings, rephrasings, or other changes. This can be helpful for controversial subjects or controversial changes; editors can show others exactly what their vision for a proposed change is -- without the controversy of having that new proposed version automatically replace the existing version. However, just as "spinout" articles have sometimes been mistaken for POV forks, temporary subpages have also sometimes been mistaken for POV forks. Care should be taken on both sides to minimize such mistakes. Temporary articles should be given names which clearly indicate they are not part of the regular article namespace (a temporary version of X-and-So might be called X-and-So/temp, for instance) and their existence should be clearly noted on the talk page of the main article. Those who think they have found a POV fork, in turn, should check to see whether the article title indicates a temporary subpage and whether the talk page of the main article indicates that this is a place to work on consensus rather than to dodge it.

In this way, editor pookster can show us what he has in mind for this article. We have to be aware of Article size and Summary style[76]. It might be very helpful to us all to review these policy statements and come back with fresh energy to get this job done.Dawgknot 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem seems to be that the anonymous user doesn't seem to have any familiarity with Wiki article style, and from comments above, seems to have a completely different idea of what this topic is supposed to be, contrary to the title. Despite multiple requests s/he will not clarify their position or place it within the context of Wiki summary style, and frankly I think the comments about wanting a legitimacy and expanded media section (despite these articles existing independently) and wanting to remove aspects of the invasion itself, show just how off-topic this individual is. The version prior to the last revert stands as my subission, if anyone cares, and I am perfectly willing to add to or take from anything that someone feels is POV or would make the article more NPOV, but once again conforming to Wiki style, which is something that should go without saying but unfortunately needs to be said. pookster11 08:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You broke the 3 revert rule, deleted whole sections with the false justification of moving the content to other articles, deleted sections of this talk page about the neutrality dispute and even the complaint about this and you made several personal attacks. As Mr Billion rightly noted, you are not supposed to deal with this article as if it was yours. If you want to make big changes, please discuss them here. Saying "it is not wiki style" is no justification for deleting whole sections without any attempt to cover their content. Do not tell me anything about wiki rules. 14:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You are an anon, you don't get to lecture anyone about Wiki rules. Pookster11 is not attempting to delete entire sections: He is copying them into new articles, and leaving a link to the new article, in an attempt to save space, as this entry is massively over the recommended size. You also have broken the 3rr, and you are the only one here not acting in good faith. Please review WP:AGF Swatjester 16:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before numbers, I am no longer discussing these childish issues with you. If you are unable to remain on topic or add to the talk page, please refrain from participating in the discussion. You have yet to answer questions about how the article as you want it conforms to Wiki style, and until you do I have no desire to hear from you, andyou have no part of this conversation. Thank you. pookster11 18:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Soldier's bias

As this article is dominated by two soldiers of one of the conflicting parties, namely pookster11 and Swatjester who repeatedly show their bias, e.g. by not even seeing that "operation Iraqi freedom" is a propaganda term (see OIF above) it needs to be looked at carefully. 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My bias? You're the only one here who's too blind to see that OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM WAS THE OFFICIAL MILITARY NAME FOR THE OPERATION!!!!! It's the name of a book by NBC detailing the operation. If you click on this link [77], which shows the list of ongoing operations, guess which one was listed when you click on Iraq: OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM! On the first page of an search, I show 19 out of 20 of the listings have OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM in the name. Yes it's politically charged. Yes it's POV. It's also historical, and factually accurate. It's the name of the OPERATION of the invasion, just like the Israeli hostage rescue in Uganda was Operation Entebbe, just as D-Day was Operation Overlord, just as the first gulf war was Operation Desert Storm, this is Operation Iraqi Freedom. On that note, stop calling me biased just because you disagree with me. I'm not putting up with any more personal jabs from you. Swatjester 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This soldiers' bias thing is way off base and I think that you should tone it down a few notches. You clearly have biases....we all have them. It's the final result that matters and you can't assume that merely because someone served in this conflict means taht they are not capable making a balanced presentation of the various issues any more than someone who has Euro-centric views could. The fact is, pookster has been willing to do the hard work. I haven't seen you volunteer to do it. But I've seen a lot of carping, complaining and reverting. Let's try to be a little more constructive.Dawgknot 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear what exactly you think my bias is. What do you think that my opinion about the war is exactly? I've never presented or discussed it, so please tell me what I think about the war? You seem to be the only one here with an agenda and with a desire to place your POV in the article. BTW, to my knowledge none of the three of us are soldiers. pookster11 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely NOT soldiersDawgknot 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (I accidentally deleted this comment when I added my own in, readding as of 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
I am. Swatjester 05:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm sick of this. I've filed a request for mediation against you. It's time for your nonsense to stop anon. If the mediator cannot get you to see reason and stop harassing people who edit on this page, I will file a request for arbitration. Swatjester 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been filed on the anonymous user, in response to his violations of Wiki policy, his personal attacks against users here, and his WP:POINT violating RfC against Pookster's edits. Please respond with your comments.Swatjester 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
A request for mediation over the page content was filed yesterday as well and still has not received a response. Its sad when a random anon user can come in and take over an article, demanding that their POV be placed in there. pookster11 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The RfC against pookster has been deleted due to lack of support. Swatjester 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for consensus

The problem seems to be the anon user. My proposed changes can be found at 2003 invasion of Iraq/temp. I am certainly willing to address any problems, POV or otherwise, that anyone may have with it. Please post here if you agree with this edited version. Please do not alter the edited version; only post what problems you have with the proposed article and post them here for discussion. If in 24 hours the proposed article has enough support (ie: a majority of users), it will be inserted as the consensus version of this article. At that point, any user deleting, reverting, or altering the article without discussion will be reported as violating Wiki rules and standards and reported for vandalism. pookster11 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to do soemthing like a diff, comparing this version to that version? Swatjester 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The temp version is the last version in this article's history whih was edited by me before being reverted by anon.pookster11 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
See URL section of Help:Diff Dawgknot 01:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I mean is it possible to take the current version of this page, and compare it to the temp page? Oh wait I see what you said Pookster, so the temp page is identical to the last edit of this page by you (meaning I just compare that with the current version?) Swatjester 05:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, looking through the external links, ALL but one, which is a Guardian archive, are from left wing or anti-war news sites, obviously a gross violation of POV; regardless of what some of may anonomously believe, there are in fact two sides to the Iraq war controversy. Additionally, only a couple actually have to do with the invasion. If anyone knows of any right-wing or pro-war blog sites that are decent, or at least a number of neutral sites that can replace the extensively leftist list that we have now, it would be appreciated, but as I said few if any of these deal with the invasion, and from the looks of it this "ecyclopedia article" had become little more than a sounding board for those against the war.pookster11 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No. While I agree with you that left wing and anti-war news sites are a violation of NPOV, it's just as bad to put right-wing pro war sites up to counter it. NPOV does not mean both sides get equal time to counter each other, it means that you don't take sides. Swatjester 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree but I think in this case we have to be realistic. This is a charged page which has a tendency to get off topic; if those links aren't there, to left or right or whoever sources, people are going to put them in anyway. That and when it comes to this war, individuals have a hard time even aknowledging that the other side of their argument even has a point; if both sides are initially presented in ongoing and updated sites from both perspectives, it will head off a lot of POV editing and links that will occur later on. That being said, I'd like to delete the whole bunch except the two or three thatare archives, but I throw it out there for consideration.pookster11 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Pookster, I think we will need more than 24 hours. There's alot to cover here and alot of folks will want to read it and weigh in. I've had a chance to blow through it quickly and have some initial comments:

1) I think that the al jazeera and hotel incidents during the fall of Baghdad were important events that should be mentioned. Not becasue they were, in fact important, but becasue so many folks think they are.

If the event is that important it should receive its own page; it has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Unless someone wants to take up the argument that Iraq was invaded so that Bush could attack Al Jazeera (which, ironically, is what one of the cited sources for the previous section argued), it has no bearing on either the causes, progress, on conclusion of the invasion. Additionally, the sources for that section are extensively POV; as I stated, one of the sources suggesting that Rumsfeld has a plan in place to kill journalists, and thats what this was a part of. Anyway, thats my case to having it removed, please post if you feel otherwise.pookster11 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Pookster, I agree completely with your point about all the POV on that subject. This article is no place for that debate. Clearly, that anon editor had a great deal to say on the subject and wanted to insist on it. And I repeatedly replaced all those partisan sources that kept popping up over and over. However, as for the subject itself, my only reason for including it would be because it was, in fact, caught up in and as a result of direct military action. Armament, whether intentional or not, was directed at those two buildings and it caused quite a stir. In the overall military operation it was inconsequential, but the political fallout was severe, as is so often the case. By the way, I don't know if you read that CPJ report [78] I dug up on the Palestine Hotel, but it was a riveting presentation of the military and communication issues that led to the firing on the Hotel (that of course, intentionally killed those two Spanish journalists).Dawgknot 04:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

2) Clearly the run-up to the war in the security council needs to be cleaned up. Not all the facts are accurate.

I'm tempted to turn that whole section into another article. It depends on how strict we want to be with the subject matter. Is the article about the invasion and just the invasion? Then the prelude needs to be summarized and we need to get to the point quickly. Is it about the invasion in a broader context? Then it needs to be a bit cleaned up, and Here's a great place to suggest how. pookster11 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

3) The article at 54 MB is still a little long. One possible way to shorten it further is to create a sub-article on the detail of the actual military operations. I completely reject what anon said last night about "who cares". I think it is the very kind of detail that belongs in an encyclopedia. Perhaps those parts of this article could be summarize too with the gritty details in a referenced sub article. Just a thought.

I agree with the postings below. If we create another sub-article about the military operations, why exactly is this article titled "Invasion of Iraq"? pookster11 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think yoiu did a great job for whatever it's worth. This needs some cleaning up but it's a very good start. Congratulations.Dawgknot 20:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Responding to Dawgknot's comment #3, I would like to say this: The article is actually called "2003 Invasion of Iraq." Invasion is a military act. If anything, this article should be about the Invasion, meaning the military actions. It's really the other content which is superfluous. Sure, most people don't care about the details of the military invasion when they speak of the Iraq War, but those details are exactly what this article should be about. Perhaps there needs to be a different article title. But remember that this is an encyclopedia. Objective truth and correctness and facts and details are what should be emphasized, especially considering that NPOV is so highly prized here on Wikipedia. Was the invasion justified and how did people justify/condemn it? That's an important question, and one that Wikipedia can cover in its articles, but that question should be a secondary one in an article about something that's literally a military act. I believe that the legality of the Invasion should be treated primarily in a secondary article. If you look at the "Allied Invasion of Germany" during WWII in an encyclopedia, you are going to primarily find military details, since invasion is a military act. The occupation of Germany was just as frought with politics and questions of legitimacy and rights and what-not (the whole West Germany/East Germany thing and the Soviet occupation), but those questions are dealt with primarily in other places. Maybe I'm being too optimistic as to the ability of Wikipedians to set aside politics for a moment and focus on the facts, but this is what making an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Robotbeat 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
From Wiktionary:
invasion (noun)- an attack of sorts, usually against another nation
Robotbeat 21:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the invasion argument. You may have noticed that I made that same argument last night when the anon editor raised the question. But as pookster said, we need to have an agreement about what, exactly, this article is. I think it has become a proxy for an article that might have more properly been titled: Iraq War (2003). That would then be the main summarizing article about the war with references to all the sub articles about the collateral issues. One of those collateral issues might be a very detailed discussion in an article called Iraq War (2003) -Military Operations. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for it, but it should probably be discussed a little. However, there is an article Iraq War that is also about 56kb that references this article for the details of the invasion. It contains duplicate material that is here and covers material that is not here. So perhaps this article should really only about the military invasion itself. In which case, we could safely remove a lot more extraneous material that is covered elsewhere like all the run-up to the war stuff in the UN. In fact, it could be very substantially shortened to cover ONLY the military invasion.Dawgknot 22:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree Dawgknot, and I think thats where we are running into our main difficulties. This article over time became about something other than the actual invasion. We have to decide how much about the invasion we want this article to be. Do we create new articles for the Prelude and such and just use summary style? Or do we leave it as it is, and simply reference other articles back to this one for information as to the buildup of the 2003 invasion? I think primarily the edited article is a place to start, having reorganized repititious material and eliminated most, if not all, tertiary topics. By no means am I suggesting that this be the article to end allarticles about the invasion; what I am suggesting is its a start and its a damn sight better than what we have now. pookster11 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The anon user is the only one who has problems with removing all the irrelevant information to respective other articles or subarticles, with links left behind, and cleaning this up for military invasion information only. I'm not sure why, since this is a military thread, but this is the same user who disputes that the invasions name was Operation Iraqi Freedom, so I wouldn't put it past him. Swatjester 05:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No one disputed that the US military called the invasion Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was only noted that this name should not be used uncritically given that it was chosen for propaganda reasons. Get-back-world-respect 21:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No that's just it. The anon WAS disputing the name was OIF. Myself, I've never denied, even personally admitted that the name itself is POV, see my edits above. But, while it IS pov, you can't deny the fact that it's the name of the operation, and should be shown as such. If so many editors have a problem with the POV statement of that, I don't see any problem with adding a line at the end of the article, or the beginning or something, saying "It should be noted that some, especially outside the US, consider the name Operation Iraqi Freedom to be chosen for propaganda reasons, particularlly in light of the alleged reasons for the war." Swatjester 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You are fighting windmills here, check above, the anon expressly wrote "it is the name of the operation as given by the military for propaganda reasons." No one denied that this was the name used by the coalition military, the dispute was only about the term being not neutral when used uncritically. Get-back-world-respect 03:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I once met someone who was doing a master's thesis in History about the names of US military operations since the 80s. Perhaps the subject is definitely interesting enough to have its own article, to which we could link, something which might provide a solution to this question (I fear that this article might be a little bit tricky to mentain, but still...) Rama 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Rama, that wouldn't by any chance the guy who published a book a year or two back listing the names of nearly every military codeword in the past 20 years, both classified and not would it? I can't think of the name right now but it'll come to me. Swatjester 15:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not think so: the person in question was a girl, and I think that the meeting is too recent for a publication to have occurred yet. But it seems that the subject does interest some people... Rama 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual errors in article

There are factual errors in the article as stands. The first, and probably most blaring one, is "if Saddam Hussien did not give up his WMD program". Saddam Hussien, though he wanted a WMD program, did not have one, and thus it would be impossible for him to give it up. So this statement, while directly implying something which is false (and the CIA (the OSP notwithstanding) knew this), is logically equivalent to saying "unconditionally", and I dont' think anyone would construe that resolution as a resolution forcing the president to declare war immediately. In fact, the president can't declare war, that power is constitutionally reserved to the legislature. And furthermore, the constitution provides no means by which constitutionally delegated powers can be transfered, save a constitutional amendment. So either the resolution declared war, it didn't, or it is null and void. And in any case, to repeat for the sake of emphasis, saddam did not have a WMD program at the time (nor the means of pursuing one), and therefore couldn't give it up. So all-in-all the statement makes no sense at all.

Partially correct partially not. See the problem is, yes Saddam HAD a WMD program, but it was basically nullified sometime after the gulf war, and was as far as evidence has shown, gone by the time the Iraq War started. So in one sense your first sentence is accurate, because he can't give up what he didn't have, but only when it's quantified by saying "At the time of the war." because it's known that at some point in time he DID actually have one. Swatjester 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That and regardless of whether he had one or not, he was ordered to stop producing the WMD... that it later turned out he wasn't producing. Still, in the description of events the phrase is accurate; Saddam was ordered to give up his WMD program or face military action. The fact that it later turned out he didn't have one, or at least that to this day none of it has been found, is in there as well. Second, under the War-Powers act the President, as Commander in Chief, has the right to deploy US troops for up to 90 (or 60, can't remember exactly, my last poli-sci course was years ago) days without Congressional approval, after which time he must seek Congressional approval or withdraw the troops (something that no President has agreed is constitutional and has never gone to SCOTUS). Regardless, Congress gave approval and under the War-Powers act the troops can be deployed. This is why constitutional law should be left to constitutional lawyers and not regulars joes trying to write an article on the Invasion of Iraq. pookster11 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
He was never producing WMD. He had bought WMD from the United States (Rumsfield and GWB sold them to him) He had programs to try to produce WMD, but they were never successful. He was ordered by the U.N. to stop the programs, and they enforced it with inspections, and it worked. They stopped the programs, and the CIA found out that they stopped the programs. GWB knew, at the time of all his war rhetoric, that the inspections were effective in stopping the programs. So whatever orders he gave to SH were disingenuous, and in any case, non-sensical and therefore invalid. Skipping to the end... I'll leave it to the Constitutional lawyers. They filled suit. (a pretty big news event, odd that it got so little press) Kevin Baastalk 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. Regardless of whether or not he had them or was producing them or could produce them or hid them or ate them or buried them in a camel, he was ordered to get rid of his WMD and stop producing, which is what is recorded. The debate about the whole WMD existence or not or whatever is on another article. pookster11 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It is misleading to write someone was ordered to do something and refused when he was not able to do it. By the way, presidents of another country cannot be ordered anything, they can only be called upon. But I do not really see the problem in the article. The article correctly gives the condition for the authorization of force and notes that actually no WMD were found. Drawing conclusions from this about the validity of the authorization is not this article's job. Get-back-world-respect 02:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. Any nation that is a signatory member of the UN may be ordered by the UN to take action. Swatjester 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, like the US can be ordered not to break international law. The UN did not try to order Hussein to stop with WMD, the UN did weapons inspections. The US was who tried to "order" but could not. Get-back-world-respect 13:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work in the direction of factual accuracy. Kevin Baastalk 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the courts recognize Congress's craven authorization for the use of force as a de facto declaration of war. While on the one hand, you are correct that war was never declared, on the other hand that power is vested in Congress. And Congress basically said "go right ahead". The courts simply aren't going to interfere under normal circumstances. Now, what would be fascinating would be a legal challenge to the war by a member of Congress who did vote to authorize force. They might have a very good argument that they never intended to authorize this, because this obviously would require a declaration of war. Sometimes I despair, but then I realize it has always been this way. We are a strange and savage species. Derex 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well that would be interesting actually. The courts would not have power to interfere, due to lack of jurisdiction, with the exception of the SCOTUS, and if they can't get a consensus of justices to approve writ of certiorary, there would never BE any challenge. Congress could of course censure itself, but this would, again, require a vote from congress, thus voting against yourself. Regardless, as we've seen in the past half of the century a congressional declaration of war is not necessary for the President to exercise his emergency war powers, whether you like it or not. Swatjester 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
true enough, but there have been some awfully long "emergencies". clearly congress knowingly allowed this to happen. it's just a shame they don't have the balls to be accountable for it, with an explicit vote. Derex 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the Iraq War falls under the scope of the Emergency Powers Act. (either in regard to the situation at the time or the military campaign) Kevin Baastalk 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It'd be an interesting debate. I'm sure westlaw or lexis has an article on it somewhere. Swatjester 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How about adding something small like "(The existence of which was disputed.)"? Kevin Baastalk 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Death Totals

I have three questions about the death totals in the box in this article: 1. Why does the box include deaths from the "invasion" as well as "post-invasion". There is a seperate article about "post invasion" so those deaths should not be included in this article.

Agreed. Needs to be fixed.Swatjester 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Why is their no figure for the number of deaths in the Iraqi military?

Likely it's not declassified yet. I've not yet seen an official one. Swatjester

3. As I understand the Lancet survey, it attempts to name all deaths due to violent cause from the begininning of the "invasion". Therefore, it includes Iraqi civilian AND military casualties. If this is true, then our current version of the article is misleading in that it labels these deaths as "civilian". Johntex\talk 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to dig up the article condemning the Lancet survey, but there are all sorts of errors in the lancet survery. It's misleading prima facie, but when added into context of this article it's misleading a second time. Swatjester
Found it, [79] Swatjester 05:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Also [80]
We can't use that link. It's heavily biased pro-war (that's actually what the entire site is about) and it's just not a notable source. "Just another blog". Lancet is much higher on the notability/verifiability/trustworthiness scale. All you have to know about the stupidity of that site is where they try to justify the Iraqi War by saying no American civilian casualties took place in America after the war was started[81]. As if the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians or American civilian contractors who are dying in Iraq don't matter. And as if there were American civilian deaths before the war that were attributable to Iraqis. Nahh, that site is clearing sipping and distributing the Kool-Aid. Definitely does not meet WP:V. --Cyde Weys 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So Cyde, I take it you're for scrapping the entire External Links section of the article like me then? pookster11 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, are you saying that Iraq Body Count, the .pdf file, is heavily biased? Cyde, peoople on BOTH sides have discredited the lancet report as improperly formulated. It's not the journal itself they're discrediting, it's the article. Swatjester 05:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

- :::::|Slate (MSN) is heavily biased? Here are another half dozen links, some of them blogs. | This one with links to emails from the Lancet article author, [ | this one stating a quote from the UK Foreign Minister] "The UK foreign secretary told the BBC's Today programme that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000" | The Jawa report, which ranks up there with Daily Kos, as one of the top news blogs, and also links to | this statistical analysis of the lancet article. | This media watchdog group, that has first hand research on the subject: "This was a challenge we had to accept. We were disturbed by Dejevsky’s response and were keen to know what the team behind the Lancet report would make of it. We contacted Les Roberts, a world renowned epidemiologist and lead author of the report. Roberts responded on August 22 with an email which he asked us to forward to the Independent:" Finally, "On the same day, an Independent leader added that the Lancet findings had been reached "by extrapolating from a small sample... While never completely discredited, those figures were widely doubted." (Leader, 'The true measure of the US and British failure,' The Independent, July 20, 2005" Swatjester 06:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Regardless of whether the Lancet article is good science or not, it seems very clear to me that it is talking about all Iraqi deaths, not just civilians. Therefore, I propose a one word change from "civilian" to "Iraqi" in the top row, second column of the casulaty box. Are there any objections? Johntex\talk 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Negative Connotation of Invasion? Positive Connotation of Liberation?

Honestly, I do not think this page can be completely NPOV. An invasion implies that the opposing army's intention is hostile, while a "liberation of Iraq" implies that Iraqis are currently devoid of dictatorship or tyranny. There will always be users that will be offended, until perhaps twenty or thirty years later when we can reflect on this war without polarizing emotions. --SeanMcG 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, let me rephrase myself. This page will not be NPOV until we can find neutral sources of information. --SeanMcG 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Next time be a bit more careful with your edit: you deleted a very long paragraph of mine. Swatjester 06:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sean. Both "Invasion" and "Liberation" have POV connotations. Let's go with "War". That would be consistent with articles such as World War II and Gulf War Johntex\talk 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, we are drifting into the confusion about what this article is about. In my understanding, this article is about the military act of invading Iraq. There are other articles about the whole Iraq war.
As to the negative connotation of the term "invasion", this has been discussed over and over (and over and...) again, and it has never been said that "invasion" is always negative. For instance, the article about the landing in Normandy in 1944 refer to it as an "invasion". Rama 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The argument that that the article is focused on the entry of coalition forces into the country breaks down breaks down when you look at what is included in this article. For example, the caputure of Saddam Hussein is mentioned in the article even though this came 9 months after the start of the engagement. Another example, is the death totals, which are inflated by including all deaths all the way to the present. Johntex\talk 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not technically a "war"; quite explicitly war was not declared. Liberation is just over-the-top POV. We don't even have "liberation of Normandy", as Rama points out. Invasion is about as good as you're going to get. Further, it's a completely accurate description. Whether or not it was justified, this was an "invasion". The only technically accurate alternative I can think of is "attack", and that has a subtle implication of "unprovoked". Finally, regarding "war", this article really is about the invasion per se. To the extent the public uses the phrase war, the reference is generally to the on-going hostilities with insurgents, not with the Iraqi military. So, I don't even think "war" works in the colloquial sense as an accurate description of this article. Derex 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a liberation of Normandy, but we do have a liberation of France, and a liberation of Europe. Swatjester 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how well it flies, but I relate this to widely used and accepted expressions; "Liberation", with a capital, is used in countries which has been occupied by the Nazis (France, Belgium, etc.) in reference to this particular "liberation", and it has even named newspapers, events, places, etc. So far, I have to see such a phenomenon occurre about Iraq. Rama 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
well that's a fair point. so, i've struck that part of my statement. it was a cheap argument, but i'll ditto Rama again: liberation is generally used with regard to occupying powers. "liberation of japan" and "liberation of germany" would seem the more apt comparisons. and those both have fewer than 1000 hits on the entire web (mostly irrelevant). in contrast "invasion of iraq" has over 4.5 million hits. and "invasion of japan" has almost 80,000 even though it never even ocurred. Derex 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, I've got to dispute you...."womens liberation movement?" "Animal Liberation Front", etc. The word liberty technically means freedom...though an occupation by default inhibits liberty, an occupation is not needed to have a liberation. Swatjester 19:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
can you give me an example of the phrase "liberation" being widely used to describe a military invasion of a country not occupied by a foreign power? and by "widely", i mean somewhere at least in the general ballpark of "invasion of". the "women's liberation movement" has no more to do with this than "equal rights amendment" has to do with equal.
well, that's glib, but my point is that these are very different things. however, let me give you "freedom" as the definition. what if we just call the article the "2003 freedom of iraq"? maybe that doesn't look pov to you, but it does to me. i personally do think liberation will eventually be an apt phrase, but that's just not relevant here. one could equally well argue that it probably should not take a standing occupying army of 250,000 to maintain "freedom". clearly someone there doesn't feel very liberated at the moment, or they wouldn't be trying to kill us. and whether or not we like that someone, we still shouldn't be imposing our pov of that on the article title. Derex 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The assertion that this is not a war is not correct. Wars do not have to be declared. Wiktionary defines war as "A conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force between countries or other large-scale armed groups. The warring parties hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war." No formal declaration of war was issued for the Gulf war either, yet the fact remains that it was a war. Johntex\talk 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
well, i think i'll go with merriam-webster defintion #1 "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations" (my emphasis). or, if you still prefer the wiki, i can just run over and change the defn. however, this is exactly why i added the point about colloquial use. the great irony is that most common references to the "iraq war" fit neither definition; the term as popularly used currently refers to people planting IED's, not large-scale armed groups. Derex 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How about "2003 Troop Entry into Iraq"? Johntex\talk 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be obstinate, but I don't really understand the objection to "invasion". Do you find "Invasion of Japan" or "Invasion of Normandy" to be POV or negative in the context of WWII? It just doesn't seem to me like the word itself in a military context has any POV. I mean, we weren't exactly "invited" in. We didn't "enter". We blew up stuff. "Shock and awe". That's simply not an "entry".
Well, here's an alternative, which I personally think is inappropriate, but it's a heading in the Afghan history article: "Soviet intervention in Afghanistan". I wanted to make the point that people would flip out if we had the "Soviet liberation" or "Soviet entry", but there it was in all it's milquetoast glory: Intervention. I don't like it; I'll oppose it; but it's to the right of "invasion" and to the left of all the proposed alternatives. However, please note that the main article is Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Also please see the list of precedents in Invasion. Do you really want to go through and change all those to liberation, or entry, or intervention? How could you justify not doing so, if you change this one, except because it suits your world-view, also known as pov. Derex 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Derex, I do believe you are interested in being fair and balanced. I do believe the is a negative connotation to "invasion". Please consider a slightly altered form of the word; the term "invasive". If the doctor told you she wanted to perform an invasive proceedure, or if the border patrol agent said he wanted to perform an "invasive" search on you, I think you would be at least concerned, if not alarmed. Again, turning to, they define invasion as "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer." The stated aim of the coalition is specifically not to conquer Iraq. Conquer Hussein, yes, but not Iraq. Using this definition and considering an example you gave, "Invasion of Japan" is very accurate and NPOV because it is quite clear the allies meant to conquer Japan.
I think your parallel to "Soviet intervention in Afghanistan" is a good one, and I will join with you to support "2003 Intervention in Iraq" as the new article name. Thank you for your flexibilty and thought in finding this new solution. Johntex\talk 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Derex, you have changed the text of your remark while I was typing the above. It is not considered good form to edit your comments such as that. Please add a new comment instead. Otherwise, it is very difficult to dialog with you. Had I seen the new version of your comments, my post would have been:
I do believe the is a negative connotation to "invasion". Please consider a slightly altered form of the word; the term "invasive". If the doctor told you she wanted to perform an invasive proceedure, or if the border patrol agent said he wanted to perform an "invasive" search on you, I think you would be at least concerned, if not alarmed. Again, turning to, they define invasion as "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer." The stated aim of the coalition is specifically not to conquer Iraq. Conquer Hussein, yes, but not Iraq. Using this definition and considering an example you gave, "Invasion of Japan" is very accurate and NPOV because it is quite clear the allies meant to conquer Japan. Johntex\talk 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, 1989 invasion of Panama, Invasion of Grenada, Bay of Pigs invasion, Invasion of Normandy, Allied invasion of Italy, Allied invasion of Sicily, 1898 invasion of Guantánamo Bay, Invasion of Canada (1775), Roman invasion of Britain. There are a bunch of "conquest" articles too, often by Muslims.
I'll support changing this to "intervention", if we also change the rest of these, and the conquests, to "intervention". I'm serious, and that's not intended to be silly. I just want us to think carefully about implicit POV when doing this. Derex 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
And apologies for the edit. I make too little use of preview, and sometimes go ahead and change in the next couple minutes, if I'm not involved in a "live" discussion. Apparently, I was though I didn't realize it. Sorry. Derex 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Derex for the apology. It was not that big a deal, I may be a little snappy today so I'm sorry about that. I appreciate your suggestion. My initial reaction is to say that the term invasion should apply when the objective is/was to conquer the other country, so that would apply to most of the examples you list. I would argue to rename only 1989 intervention in Panama out of your list. Johntex\talk 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's where I'm stuck. Lot's of people around the world do believe that's exactly what we did. I don't. But lot's do, and will still regard it as a puppet government if we ever leave. I'll note that the top brass just told Congress it would probably be at least a decade before we could leave. Now, I view that through the eyes of an American ... "oh, fuck". Lots of people will view it another way ... "America after oil". One of OBL's two main stated reasons for the 9/11 attack was the decade-long U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. Now it's easy to dismiss OBL, but the fact is that hundreds of millions of people do see it that way. Did the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan as a "conquest"? Not as they saw it. They were protecting an existing friendly socialist regime under attack from Muslim extremists ... who would later form the core of the Taliban. So, do they "invade", while we merely "intervene", against essentially the same enemy? They have a much greater claim to "intervention" than we. Or, if we "invaded" Afghanistan (which you didn't suggest changing, what's the difference with Iraq? Did they invade Hungary & Czechoslavakia during those uprisings? Well, yes they did technically. Was it a "conquest"? Depends on where you stand.
After all, what is a "conquest"? Almost always historically, conquest is followed by installation of puppet regimes who pay tribute and military aid to the conqueror. Usually, it's not a matter of physically settling the area. Now, personally, I don't think America as a whole has any interest in "conquering" Iraq. (Though, I truly have no idea what the current administration's goal was.) But, that's exactly the point; it's my POV. I don't think we should be picking and choosing which forced entries of military power are "invasions" and which are "interventions". To do so is to explicitly make a value judgement, or at the least a judgement about the intentions of the invaders. If we really want to go by stated intentions, this article should be 2003 forcible disarmament of Iraq. Of course, that has one wee little problem. Certainly, "liberation" was not used as the primary contemporaneous justification for war.
Now all things considered, I would otherwise go with "war" despite the technical lack of declaration. That was probably a pedantic objection on my part, because I'm pissed at the Congressional cop-out. But the practical objection, as I said before, is that this is about the invasion. Yet what people now call the war is really the occupation and insurgency. So, that's not suitable. Back in the good old non-propaganda days, we could have used the operational name, but OIF just screams POV. Invasion seems to me like the most neutral word. It's precisely what we did. It's the way it's commonly described. There are 18 million google hits for Iraq + invasion. There are good invasions (Normandy) and bad invasions (Iraq --> Kuwait); the word itself can carry respectively either a heroic liberation connotation, or a sinister conquest connotation. But the word alone is simply factually descriptive.
This is a prominent article, about an incredibly prominent recent event. So I am very hesitant to make a change of that sort, which I really do see as more POV than the current title, which is a simple factual description applicable to all of these articles. In contrast, the applicability of intervention, entry, liberation, etc depends on your perspective. That's my view. So, I'd like to seek wider community input through an RFC. Derex 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't see the POV problem with invasion. That's, in fact, what it was. The established government was that of Hussein and we toppled it. Regardless of whether one thinks it was the right thing to do or not, there is no escaping the fact that the coalition marshalled forces on the borders, invaded the country and toppled the governement. I have far more trouble with the word, "occupy", but there's no getting around that one either. Really, intervention just seems silly as if they had a drinking problem or something.Dawgknot 01:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. It was an invasion. This article was originally designed around dealing with the specific aspects of the initial invasion.
  2. Whether or not it was a liberation has yet to be seen; as we are all well aware, the conflict and reconstitution of the Iraqi government is taking place as we speak. Once Iraq is reconstituted as a stable, constitutional government we could consider calling it a liberation. Until then, the possibility exists that the situation may simply deteroriate into a civil war or theocratic dictatorship or what have you, and in reality the invasion and occupation was nothing more than a transitional period from one bad to another.
  3. As far as intervention... intervention of what? We did not enter exclusively on the side of any of the factions of Iraq, we entered solely against Saddam and then occupied the country in the face of local uprisings. The occupation might be called an intervention, in that we kept all the various sides from outright slaughtering each other afterwards forth good of the country as a whole, but I'm not sure that at any point Iraq was invaded in order to intervene on someone's behalf. pookster11 20:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

oppose/Support changing invasion to intervention

Getting hard to read: just copy and paste :# ~~~~ below this under the appropriate section. You can debate it above in the next section up, lets keep this one just signatures for readability sake hmm?

Support: Proponents of this view support changing article name to 2003 Intervention of/in Iraq.

  1. Johntex\talk 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Proponents of this view oppose changing article name, keeping it as 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

  1. Looper5920 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Derex current name is most neutral. undisputed fact, not a loaded word. is accurate regardless of personal pov. 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. csloat 01:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC) This vote is just silly.
  4. Kevin Baastalk 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Intervening in what?! This suggestion is outright ridiculous.
  5. Dawgknot 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Intervention doesn't work. It was an invasion regardless of POV.
  6. Howrealisreal 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. "Intervention"? What in the hell, was Iraq addicted to alcohol or something? --Cyde Weys 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. An "intervention" is typicall a punctual event, not followed by the occupation of the country, enforced changes in the society of the country, etc. Rama 08:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Czolgolz 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) It certainly was an invasion.

Neutral: Neutral proponents feel that either title is acceptable.

  1. Swatjester 23:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither: Proponents of this view feel neither title is acceptable.

  1. War would be a better term, similar to Gulf War. Johntex\talk 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. War is more acccurate. 07:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. War is more accurate, yet there is already an Iraq War article --SeanMcG 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)