![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have reverted the article due to vandalism by 66.204.165.126. This IP has been vandalising wikipedia for over a year now if you look at their user page. Also they put their names on the wikipedia vandalism and the IP is registered to the state of arkansas, department of computer services. The names posted on the vandalised page are Zack McCumpsey and blake wimberly. Is there any way we could send an email to this place highlighting abuse of department computer systems for wikpedia vandalism? Simon.uk.21 ( talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I felt that a picture of barrels spelling "free kuwait" did not present a neutral point of view, nor did it look very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerloch ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did for example IP: 203.118.180.86 out of nowhere add North Korea as alleged supporter. I've started seeing the same things lately in other threads such as Insurgency in the Philippines. Out of nowhere you see Libya, North Korea...etc etc "supporting the bad guys". Facts that I guess in the case of the Gulfwar have been hidden for what 20 years and now suddenly proven (ofcourse without any sources?). Is wikipedia perhaps the perfect 1984? Where history can be changed at the blink of an eye? Without anyone noticing. Just look at that IP. The guy is up, during the same hours of the day, each day, editing articles concerning mostly military subjects where the US is/has been involved. It sickens me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.111.208 ( talk) 13:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This point has not been talked about in detail at all. Things that need to be there are:
- Kuwaiti theft of Iraqi oil (slant drilling).
- Kuwati oil over production angering Saddam.
- Iraq-Kuwait relationship before the war. (Iraq protecting Kuwait from Iran)
- The exact terms of the Kuwaiti ultimatum by Iraq.
(of course needs to researched).
here is one
http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/12/23/edcool.t.php
129.107.240.1
07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The Department of Veterans Affairs, May 2007, Gulf War Veterans Information System reports the following: Total U.S. Military Gulf War Deaths: 73,846 – Deaths amongst Deployed: 17,847 – Deaths amongst Non-Deployed: 55,999 Total “Undiagnosed Illness” (UDX) claims: 14,874 Total number of disability claims filed: 1,620,906 - Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911 - Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995 Percentage of combat troops that filed Disability Claims 36%
-Source: http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.54.93 ( talk) 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That report lists veteran deaths, not Coalition combat deaths! According to it 17,847 veterans have died since the conflict, but that has nothing to do with the combat casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphoddd ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Could wikipedia file this under another name, like "American-extremist muslim conflict?" It's now obvious this has been going on for a while- the farthest back I can remember is the Oil Embargo of the 70's, because we supported Israel, but that might not be considered part of it, however, obviously the bombing of the marine barracks in lebanon would be considered part of it. It seems appropriate to do so, as the "arab-israeli" conflict has its own article. It appears America is in this for the long haul- we have the WTC1993, WTC2001, USS Cole, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now our troubles with Iran, and Syria's support of Hizbollah. as components for it. 75.183.149.139 23:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A persistent anonymous editor is insisting on using this image [1] for the top of the article. I think it is completely inappropriate. I'm not going to break the 3RR over something like this, since it's not "vandalism" so much as just a poor encyclopedic choice. Thoughts? Antandrus (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The license on this image allows use only in an article dealing with the game in question, thus it is inappropriate for this article. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) It's off topic and of a poor quality. -- 86.29.252.36 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, and as far as we know it, real life is not a video game...yet! Fermentor 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If Bush's claim that Iraqi troops were in significant numbers in Kuwait was false, how could they then suffer vast casualties when defending Kuwait. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prezen ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
This struck me as being out of place, first for grammar reasons and then for context reasons: "The U.S. remained officially neutral during the outbreak of hostilities in the Iran-Iraq War, as it had previously been humiliated by a 444 day long Iranian hostage crisis and expected that Iran was not likely to win. " First, it should read "..a 444-day long..", or even better: "....THE 444-day long...", or just "...the Iranian Hostage Crisis". Secondly, why is this even mentioned? Is there a citation to support this event as being THE reason why the US remained officially neutral? It smells like speculation to me, and I think the whole article would better from removing everything in that sentance after the comma. I'm not going to edit it quite yet, because I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I want to feel out the boundaries. Fermentor 08:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Kissinger famously said: pity they can't both lose. The US had offered support to the Iranians warning them that Iraq was preparing war and been rebuffed, while Iraq was a Soviet ally and on the US countries-supporting-terrorism list. Prezen 14:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Well, someone should elaborate on that statement rather than leave it hanging there. It appears completely irrelevant. Encyclopedias generally do not give the reader the benefit of the doubt when it comes to specifics. Remember that I'm not talking about the first part of the statement, that the U.S. remained neutral. I'm talking about the Iranian Hostage Crisis comment. Fermentor 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
i have some points i'd like to discuss , just hope to correct informations depending on sources !
, then let's request to lock the edit on the article for non-regestered users , keeping it away from random edits. thanks :) Ammar 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
who are the key players involved in this crisis and peacekeeping event —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.216.196.1 ( talk) 20:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC). The U.K., U.S.A., France and Germany, I beleve. -- Lilidor 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't foget the Australian S.A.S' inteligence role in Iraq, the Australian brigade in N.E. Saudi Arabia, Argentina's aircraft carryer in the Gulf by Quatar or the 2,000 strong Bangladeshie unit in Saudi Arabia. -- Lilidor 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Or the Czechoslovak and Senegalese units. See Answers.com's 'Gulf war' page for proof! -- 86.29.252.36 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
A paragraph under the "infrastructure bombing" subsection actually cites Tom Clancy as the source for the statement. I quote the following: "He walked to the embassy courtyard, opened the briefcase, took one GPS reading, and put the machine beck in the case. then he returned to the U.S, gave the GPS receiver to the appropriate intelligence agency in Langley, VA, where the position of the U.S. Embassy was officially determined. This position served as the origin for a coordinate system used to designaye military targets in Baghdad. (Clancy, Tom. "Armored Cav". Berkley Books, 1994, p. 180.)" Is this really the best source for that information? I hesitate to edit it before I have a better solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.255.252 ( talk) 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC). I find it difficult to believe that we did not have coordinates for our own embassy, even before GPS. I don't know about the rest of the forces, but 1st Cav received GPS (SLGR) units only days before the ground war started. These were of limited use, as maps (mostly hand drawn) were marked in latitude and longitude using LORAN units, whereas the SLGR used military grids. Bad weather at the start of the ground war also prevented satellite acquisition. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that South Korea should be listed below the UN forces on the graph. It was not a United Nations member at the time of the Gulf War, but it did send troops and fighters to assist and its involvement in this war I believe lead to South Korea being admitted to the UN. Just a thought Magnum Serpentine 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking over this page and noticed the sentence:
Is that comma at the end meant to be a period or was the rest of the sentence deleted at some point? I thought I'd let someone more familiar with this article work it out as the vandalism (if that's what it is) wasn't in the last few edits as far as I can see. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I did a partial fix on the ones using the cite template. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed Murder of Col. James Sabow The intensity of focus on the operational activities in the Persian Gulf enabled criminal elements within the USG and DoD, on January 22, to murder Colonel James Sabow in Orange County, California at the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. Several hours after disclosing to Gen. John K. Davis his intention to expose USG involvement in drug smuggling using MCAS El Toro and other military bases, the message to Headquarters Marine Corps announcing that Col. Sabow had committed suicide was prepared, followed by Col. Sabow's death in his backyard within MCAS El Toro on the morning of January 22. Col. Sabow, who had been the acting Chief of Staff for MCAS El Toro at the time of his death and was a Marine aviator who served in Vietnam, suffered a blunt-force skull fracture from a club-like weapon, followed by an intraoral shotgun discharge into his brain. The DoD and USG ruled the death a suicide upon discovery of the body, which is the official determination to this day. [1] Reason: not part of this story. Midgley 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
References
The 250,000 number cited in the Information table is inconsistent with the section "Iraqi deaths and wounded". In fact, it appears to be high by a factor of 5 - 10. How is this number justified?-- Kbk 07:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have looked all over the net and haven't been able to find much information on the Forward Surgical Teams that were implemented in this war. They were important and helped a lot of people. I know there was at least one as part of the 101st airborne division. I think this needs to be researched and added to this page. -skip (uberangryghost@yahoo.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.46.152 ( talk) 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
I remember that Saddam's original plan was to invade Saudi Arabia in an alliance with Yemen. Does anyone else remember this? Jtpaladin 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good online resource for documents pertaining to the war? I mean documents like speech transcripts (like Saddam's 17 Jan 1991 "Mother of all Battles" radio address) and declassified military documents and the like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.235.204 ( talk) 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC). >>>>> I don't know about the Iraqi docs, but the National Security Archives are held over at gwu.edu. They contain all of the declassified info from US sources. There is an extensive list of documents in regards to Iraq (including some goodies like Ronald Regan's signature on the bottom of documents discouraging the UN from sanctioning Iraq for its illegal use of chemical weapons).
The paragraph referencing "computer war" erroneously contained references to the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter," which is a large conventional munition dropped out of the backof MC-130s. The primary method of locating and dropping this weapon, developed during Vietnam, is sight angle, out of the windows of the C-130 dropping it. There's nothing "computer" about it, so I deleted references to it in the computer war section. - Mugs 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the 'sneaky edits' by 76.20.34.20. The dates for the start and end of the Gulf War have been wrong for a month! Maybe more people need to add this article to their watch lists. And it might be useful, in the short term, to ask editors to cite sources for their changes otherwise just revert. I've removed the cleanup tag - unless someone wants to be a little more specific on what clean up is needed. - Ctbolt 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There is very little in this article about the war's impact on Kuwait. I'm not trying to make any sort of political point, but since Kuwait was invaded, there should be more about the Kuwati side of the war, including the impact of the occupation, the infrastructure damage during the invasion and the liberation, the impact on Kuwati relations with foreign nationals (which was very significant), etc. I'm not asking for the Kuwati's government's official account of what happened, but simply more attention to be given to what was happening in Kuwait, before, during, and after the war. Also and while this is sort of contradictary to what I have been saying, but this article is far too long, I think more Kuwati information should be integrated in while many other sections should be shortened or split off. The introduction especially is far too long.
Where is there more information on the Soviet-styled military that this article discusses? Iraqie troops and officers were traine and equiped by a variaty of countrys, including the U.S.S.R.-- Freetown 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Where's the section on criticisms or opponents of the war? There was no shortage of them at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.141.2 ( talk) 16:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
The UN "authorized" (resolution's wording) but did not mandate, any means necessary to compel Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The coalition was not a UN force, did not fight under the UN flag or with blue helmets (a la Korea). As UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar explicitly stated, "It was not a United Nations war." (Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1991) Djcastel 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm changing the Gulf War start date to the more conventional January 16, 1991. It takes two sides to have a war, and the U.S. gave ambiguous signals in August and September, and did not receive Senate authorization to use force until January 12. No one spoke of being already at war in 1990. Djcastel 14:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice article. Very thorough. One of the most important aspects of the war was the restraint put on Coalition Forces. This article needs to quote UN restrictions that saved Iraq from an invasion. Buhlah ( talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Buhlah Buhlah ( talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a box for "Arab-Israeli Conflict" at the bottom of this article? Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. A large coalition drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and entered Iraq. Israel's main involvement was being the subject of missile attacks, but it was not a protagonist in this conflict, and in fact was specifically asked to be, and remained, an outside non-participant. The absence of Israel throughout this article makes that non-participation clear. The fact that Saddam Hussein claimed that he was invading to "liberate Palestinians" is absurd, and should not be the reason for classifying this war in that regard. If such hyperbolic claims are to be used as the basis for Wikipedia article classification, then the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks should also be classified as part of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict" because there are Arab sources who to this day either claim the Israel occupation as the proximate cause of the attack, or blame the Mossad for having actually destroyed the towers in order to blackguard the Arabs! Of course, there are many people who would like to blame all trouble in the Middle East on the "Arab-Israeli Conflict," but by that logic then the Iran-Iraq wars should be part of the same "conflict," as well as Black September, the slaughter of the Kurds, the Hama massacre, and many others. (I originally had the Lebanese Civil War listed as another spurious case of classification, but I see that that one is already on the list, too. Jeesh!) So why is the 1991 Gulf War listed as part of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict"? -- Eliyahu S Talk 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed all the individual commanders from each country. There were 30 some countries involved in the coalition and many other sent supplies and other forms of aid. To list ALL the commanders, from every participating country is imprudent and impractical. Listing the commander of the actual coalition is the most reasonable solution. I have done this two or three times now and it was reverted by somebody claiming WP:COI, which does not apply here. Batman2005 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Tens of thousands were taken (60,000?), and they're only mentioned once as a source on casualties. -- HanzoHattori 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Just add the POWs on both sides of the conflict to the war box. -- HanzoHattori 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I hered i was about 55,000.-- 86.25.49.105 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
not make a single mention of the fact that Israel was hit by Iraqi scuds.
I also agree with the above statement. I believe that Israel should have its own section (or at the very least sub-section). It was bombed by 39 scud missiles by iraq and was requested not to retaliate by the US. The lives of most of the Israelis were stopped for much of the duration of the war and they were forced to live in bomb shelters. I think this deserves a little more than a few mentions buried in the body of the article.
Military (20,000-26,000 fatalities) and civilian (3,500). [2] -- HanzoHattori 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The reference to "various aircraft" operated by the RAF seems dismissive. The aircraft included squadrons of the following aircraft:
The aircraft were flown with great skill, bravery, and effectiveness, often at very low level, notably attacking heavily defended targets such as airfields in the face of intense anti-aircraft fire. I don't have time or knowledge to follow this up, would someone else please help? Some relevant details are given in the links. GilesW 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I put a fact citation in this section int he article -
Now I know there was a lot of debate then about whether to depose Hussein and whether such an overthrow might exceed the limits of the UN Mandate. However I don't recall any debate on entering Iraqi territory. Further, in light of the fact that the bulk of the operation (minus the US Marine and Arab forces which attacked straight into Kuwait) was a flanking operation through Iraqi territory to cut off Iraqi forces in Kuwait, I find this whole paragraph somewhat logically unsound. I would suggest the only controversy that happened in Iraqi territory (other then what is covered) is Barry McCaffrey's 24th Infantry Division movements after the cease fire was declared to cut off retreating Iraqi forces coming from Kuwait. I'm thinking of rewriting this paragraph for that deleting what is there ... any objections? ( Hardnfast 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
Hi I'm looking for Iraqi newsreader reports and the style of which they informed Iraqis about deploying more troops to the orders of Kuwait. There is a lot of stuff about the 2nd august and the invasion but nothing at all about the few days before the invasion. Any link will be very useful. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.79.230 ( talk) 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a wikipedia article about the 1991 uprisings in the N and S of Iraq? Can anyone create one? I'm not sure what the best name would be for the article. BobFromBrockley 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Could ya'll please spell right? This subject is very dear to me, because my dad is a gulf war veteran. So could somebody please learn how to spell?? 75.20.231.241 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please check this edit out? ← BenB4 01:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
We need to expand the article by seperating between Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in independed articles . anyone can help ? Ammar ( Talk - Don't Talk) 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I added this part to the article. Please have a look Mortyman 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since many argue that the Persian Gulf War was an outgrowth of the Iran-Iraq War, should we then call it the Second Gulf War? An advantage to calling it the Second Gulf War is that it situates the conflict within the context of Middle Eastern history and places the U.S. on the periphery--America was, for better or worse, reacting to events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigaba ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I personal think that people should shorten this thing or edit it because it is way to much to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testalor000 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has waaaaayy too many unsourced statements. Just glancing at the introduction, for example, reveals at least five. I'd give them the "citation needed" thing if I could, but I don't know how. Could somebody please source them, or at least mark them as being unsourced? On second thought, maybe the entire article should be marked as being unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.69.132 ( talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
For an article this long, nobody is going to know what {{ refimprove}} is referring to. Please use {{ fact}}s instead, so something can actually be done about the problem that you see. FarmBoi ( talk) 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the iowa battleships should be put into the strength part of the us infobox. First of all they where very significant vessels and had their own battlegroups. They where and arguably still are incredibly valuable ships and are considered capital ships when in a battlegroup. If Iraq had BBs they would be put into the infobox because of there importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.135 ( talk) 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In the article we should be consistent when we shorten his name from Saddam Hussein. Currently in the article we use both Saddam and Hussein as the shortened version of his name. I wanted to bring it up here first to try to get a consensus before just changing all the shortened versions to one or the other. Does anyone have any preference? Jons63 ( talk) 12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think the article on Operation Desert Storm could be separated and expand on, so that people can know more about Operation Desert Storm and can find it easily just by typing it in the Search box, instead of being diverted to "Gulf War". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shao jie ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings all; My attention was caught by this comment: "Post-war military analysis
...Although it was said at the time that Iraqi troops numbered over a million, the Syrians 600,000, and the Jordanians 54,000 today most experts think that both the quantitative descriptions of the Iraqi Army at the time were exaggerated,..." This suggests that the Iraqi forces were joined and augmented by Syrian and Jordanian forces. I believe this to be completely inaccurate, as in fact Syrian and Jordanian forces worked *with* the coalition specifically to clear Kuwait proper. I think this needs to be corrected. In addition earlier in the document this appears: "... On February 26, Iraqi, Syrian, and Jordanian troops began retreating out of Kuwait, setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields as they left..." I have never elsewhere encountered documentation of regular Syrian or Jordanian troops fighting against the coalition. I believe this needs to be corrected as well. Jdallen wa ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In the lede the article says:
Then the Desert Shield section says:
The two sections seem to contradict each other and the Desert Shield section seems to contradict itself. From the lede, the US did not even start to act until after being pressured on 9 August, but according to the Desert Shield section, US troops moved into Saudi Arabia on August 7 with the first ships arriving August 8, but on August 2 (within 48 hours of August 2) P-3s arrived. I am not sure how to reconcile these contradictions. Jons63 ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I accessed this page to research the oil field fires that Iraqi forces started toward the end of hostillities. I could not find any information pertaining to them. Perhaps i scanned the article too hastily. 68.41.82.18 ( talk) 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) w3igt
the spark was an insulting comment made by a Kuwaiti ruler, like "we will punish you (oil price wise) until every Iraqi woman is a whore!". Saddam took such offence that he launched this invasion in response. He unleashed all the subsequent problems over a personal slight and an offhand insult. He admitted as much to his FBI interrogator after has was caught. Its on youtube. The article (invasion of kuwait section) makes no mention of these newly established facts. -- 81.105.243.17 ( talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Do you have a citation for this? To my ear, it sounds completely fabricated, and I can find no credible source to back it up. 24.11.122.71 ( talk) 18:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Dave
At the bottom of the article page there is the section External Links. It contains a link to www.desert-storm.com. Upon entering that site, Avira AntiVir gives a virus warning about "HTML/Crypted.Gen". Not wise to include links to malware-spreading sites. Priest zadok ( talk) 10:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that the article mentions 18,000 troops, (twice), but the table "List of Coalition forces by number of troops", mentions 14,600.
I cannot check the source, (18,000), and there isn't a source for the other number. What is the correct number?
FFMG (
talk)
14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
See my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1991_uprisings_in_Iraq#A_main_category.3F -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I won't check here, so please decide to something this among yourselves. What, say, happened to the marshlands needs an article just like if not more than the Kuwaiti oil fires. -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I am going to have to dispute the neutrality of the source used in this following line:
“ | The British High Commissioner drew lines that deliberately constricted Iraq's access to the ocean so that any future Iraqi government would be in no position to threaten Britain's domination of the Gulf. [9] | ” |
I've tagged this statement and the link as being questionable because it links to what is evidently a non-neutral, non-vertifiable source. ThePointblank ( talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I just edited the what is now the "Reasons for intervention" section and was previously titled "Justifying the war." I hope I've made an improvement on it, but there's still an egregious, almost completely unsourced incident of alleged Kuwaiti propaganda. That paragraph begins by mentioning the well-documented Iraqi abuses of human rights, but the incident it then relates seems quite irrelevant, or at least totally insignificant next to the aforementioned human rights abuses. I'm in favor of deleting that paragraph from the otherwise well-written and very thorough article. We could also add some more information on the very relevant human rights abuses. Do you think it would be right to delete the paragraph? KNVercingetorix ( talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As a french Navy officer, I can testify that we were 14 600 in the Gulf at this period, not 18 000. I'm actually translating this article into French. Thanks to all the contributers of the original article. comment added by ( talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Captain B.
were the british prime ministers actually commanders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.51.117 ( talk) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) They should be on there i added them because they were the leaders of the armies as was George H.W. Bush and all the other kings, prime ministers, and presidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) And it might be easier to make a page called leaders of the gulf war like the world war II one involving all the countries and their presidents prime ministers and kings or queens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the picture of the Hercules aircraft from three different nations is a fake. The flags do not shade in with the rest of the picture. It looks like a badly done propaganda mock up. I will remove it unless given proof. Mindstar ( talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, the "Consequences" section need to be updated and/or reworked. There are so many parenthetical phrases and "citation needed" marks that it is nearly impossible to read. Further, the author of this section shows personal bias in several areas. The one that stood out in particular to me was the "Bill Clinton ordered air strikes to distract from Monica" statement. I even agree with this, but the evidence to support it is limited at best, and certainly needs citation. I urge the powers that be at Wikipedia to review this section of the article. Elwood64151 ( talk) 02:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I agree -- Even I am shocked by the amount of bias in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.46.21 ( talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all this quote is completely wrong: "Precision guided munitions (PGMs, also "smart bombs"), such as the United States Air Force guided missile AGM-130..." The AGM-130 was not used in ODS, it did not become an operational weapon until 1994, and was used for the first time in combat in 1999 during Operation Allied Force. Source ( http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-130.html ) This line is just plain ridiculous: "Other bombs included cluster bombs, which break up into clusters of bomblets and often cause civilian casualties years after conflicts finish" This doesn't even accurately describe how a CBU works, the bomb does not "break up" it dispenses cluster bomblets. I don't even want to get into the blatant POV of the end of the sentence, but it hardly sounds academic. Next there is: "and daisy cutters, 15,000-pound bombs which can disintegrate everything within hundreds of yards." I really would think an encyclopedia would at least refer to the weapon as it's actual nomenclature, the BLU-82B. The description is not very accurate of its effects and hardly academic. Only 11 BLU-82's were dropped in ODS, all on minefields to test the weapon's effectiveness on such a target. Also I thought this section of the article would focus on all the new warfighting technologies that made their debut in combat during ODS. Cluster bombs were not new, and the BLU-82 was used extensively in the Vietnam War, and certainly not used enough to be mentioned as predominantly as it is in this section. A reader with no military knowledge would assume every Allied aircraft were dropping "daisy cutters" on every mission. Also the only "PGM" mentioned was a munition not in service at the time of the war, and is optically guided. Optically guided weapons have been around since WW2, and while laser guided bombs were not exactly new in ODS, it was the first time they were as widely used as they were. I think the PAVEWAY bomb system should get a mention. The section then has the longest paragraph, which is about the SCUD missile. The SCUD was not exactly new, or very technologically advanced. Why would this weapon system have the longest description in the section? I feel the ENTIRE section needs a re-write with actual relevant and accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.247.196 ( talk) 05:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
|strength1=956,600
[1]
1,820 fighter aircraft](1,376 American, 175 Saudi, 69 British, 42 French)
3,318 tanks (mainly
M1 Abrams (U.S.),
Challenger 1 (UK),
M60 Patton (U.S.)
8 aircraft carriers
2 battleships
20 cruisers
20
destroyers
5
submarines
[2]
|strength2=260,000
649 fighters
2,000 tanks (Chinese
Type-59 and
Type-69s, self-produced
T-55 and
T-62, about 300 Soviet
T-72)
[2]
I cleaned-up this a bot, too. --
Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (
talk)
09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Currently this section as written is incorrect. I have never heard of this controversy so I am not sure how to fix it. It appears to say that US/UK/French forces entered Kuwait and then crossed the border into Iraq in pursuit of Iraqi forces. US/UK/French (XIIX Airborne and VII Corps) forces entered Iraq directly from Saudi Arabia, they did not enter Kuwait and then pursue Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Some of them may have gone from Saudi to Iraq to Kuwait and back into Iraq in pursuit, but most of these US forces never entered Kuwait. I am placing a disputed tag on this section until it is either fixed or has references. Jons63 ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Does a minor Intel operation conducted by Norwegian forces really warrant the longest paragraph in the "Coalition" Section? It seems to be Norwegian propaganda. Not saying the operation didn't happen, but it was nothing more than a footnote in the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.247.191 ( talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a great source for Gulf War casualties. [10] Can someone try and use it in the article and espically the casualites and lossses section? -- EZ1234 ( talk) 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I found this Houston Chronicle page http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1990_732902 - how does this fit into the article? WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC) http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1990_747557 Also this is about oil prices dropping after Baker-Saddam talks. WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged the media section of this article with {{ worldwide}} because that section is based exclusively on the US media reaction (which is covered in some detail). I can understand prominent comment on the US Military's policy regarding interviews with personnel (given that the large majority of coalition troops were American) and Iraq's policies on satellite transmission and media censorship for Baghdad-based reporters and suchlike - but the article goes a lot further than that, going into some detail of individual US networks' coverage of the war without mentioning any non-US media outlet. Pfainuk talk 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
It's the first time that I know that Israel participate in the war !! I don't think that they have any role in it. -- Qadsawi ( talk) 11:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Operation Desert Sabre, redirects here, but isn't mentioned at all. Some clarification by those with more knowledge on the subject would be helpful. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have reverted the article due to vandalism by 66.204.165.126. This IP has been vandalising wikipedia for over a year now if you look at their user page. Also they put their names on the wikipedia vandalism and the IP is registered to the state of arkansas, department of computer services. The names posted on the vandalised page are Zack McCumpsey and blake wimberly. Is there any way we could send an email to this place highlighting abuse of department computer systems for wikpedia vandalism? Simon.uk.21 ( talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I felt that a picture of barrels spelling "free kuwait" did not present a neutral point of view, nor did it look very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerloch ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did for example IP: 203.118.180.86 out of nowhere add North Korea as alleged supporter. I've started seeing the same things lately in other threads such as Insurgency in the Philippines. Out of nowhere you see Libya, North Korea...etc etc "supporting the bad guys". Facts that I guess in the case of the Gulfwar have been hidden for what 20 years and now suddenly proven (ofcourse without any sources?). Is wikipedia perhaps the perfect 1984? Where history can be changed at the blink of an eye? Without anyone noticing. Just look at that IP. The guy is up, during the same hours of the day, each day, editing articles concerning mostly military subjects where the US is/has been involved. It sickens me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.111.208 ( talk) 13:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This point has not been talked about in detail at all. Things that need to be there are:
- Kuwaiti theft of Iraqi oil (slant drilling).
- Kuwati oil over production angering Saddam.
- Iraq-Kuwait relationship before the war. (Iraq protecting Kuwait from Iran)
- The exact terms of the Kuwaiti ultimatum by Iraq.
(of course needs to researched).
here is one
http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/12/23/edcool.t.php
129.107.240.1
07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The Department of Veterans Affairs, May 2007, Gulf War Veterans Information System reports the following: Total U.S. Military Gulf War Deaths: 73,846 – Deaths amongst Deployed: 17,847 – Deaths amongst Non-Deployed: 55,999 Total “Undiagnosed Illness” (UDX) claims: 14,874 Total number of disability claims filed: 1,620,906 - Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911 - Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995 Percentage of combat troops that filed Disability Claims 36%
-Source: http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.54.93 ( talk) 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That report lists veteran deaths, not Coalition combat deaths! According to it 17,847 veterans have died since the conflict, but that has nothing to do with the combat casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphoddd ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Could wikipedia file this under another name, like "American-extremist muslim conflict?" It's now obvious this has been going on for a while- the farthest back I can remember is the Oil Embargo of the 70's, because we supported Israel, but that might not be considered part of it, however, obviously the bombing of the marine barracks in lebanon would be considered part of it. It seems appropriate to do so, as the "arab-israeli" conflict has its own article. It appears America is in this for the long haul- we have the WTC1993, WTC2001, USS Cole, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now our troubles with Iran, and Syria's support of Hizbollah. as components for it. 75.183.149.139 23:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A persistent anonymous editor is insisting on using this image [1] for the top of the article. I think it is completely inappropriate. I'm not going to break the 3RR over something like this, since it's not "vandalism" so much as just a poor encyclopedic choice. Thoughts? Antandrus (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The license on this image allows use only in an article dealing with the game in question, thus it is inappropriate for this article. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) It's off topic and of a poor quality. -- 86.29.252.36 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, and as far as we know it, real life is not a video game...yet! Fermentor 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If Bush's claim that Iraqi troops were in significant numbers in Kuwait was false, how could they then suffer vast casualties when defending Kuwait. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prezen ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
This struck me as being out of place, first for grammar reasons and then for context reasons: "The U.S. remained officially neutral during the outbreak of hostilities in the Iran-Iraq War, as it had previously been humiliated by a 444 day long Iranian hostage crisis and expected that Iran was not likely to win. " First, it should read "..a 444-day long..", or even better: "....THE 444-day long...", or just "...the Iranian Hostage Crisis". Secondly, why is this even mentioned? Is there a citation to support this event as being THE reason why the US remained officially neutral? It smells like speculation to me, and I think the whole article would better from removing everything in that sentance after the comma. I'm not going to edit it quite yet, because I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I want to feel out the boundaries. Fermentor 08:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Kissinger famously said: pity they can't both lose. The US had offered support to the Iranians warning them that Iraq was preparing war and been rebuffed, while Iraq was a Soviet ally and on the US countries-supporting-terrorism list. Prezen 14:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Well, someone should elaborate on that statement rather than leave it hanging there. It appears completely irrelevant. Encyclopedias generally do not give the reader the benefit of the doubt when it comes to specifics. Remember that I'm not talking about the first part of the statement, that the U.S. remained neutral. I'm talking about the Iranian Hostage Crisis comment. Fermentor 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
i have some points i'd like to discuss , just hope to correct informations depending on sources !
, then let's request to lock the edit on the article for non-regestered users , keeping it away from random edits. thanks :) Ammar 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
who are the key players involved in this crisis and peacekeeping event —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.216.196.1 ( talk) 20:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC). The U.K., U.S.A., France and Germany, I beleve. -- Lilidor 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't foget the Australian S.A.S' inteligence role in Iraq, the Australian brigade in N.E. Saudi Arabia, Argentina's aircraft carryer in the Gulf by Quatar or the 2,000 strong Bangladeshie unit in Saudi Arabia. -- Lilidor 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Or the Czechoslovak and Senegalese units. See Answers.com's 'Gulf war' page for proof! -- 86.29.252.36 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
A paragraph under the "infrastructure bombing" subsection actually cites Tom Clancy as the source for the statement. I quote the following: "He walked to the embassy courtyard, opened the briefcase, took one GPS reading, and put the machine beck in the case. then he returned to the U.S, gave the GPS receiver to the appropriate intelligence agency in Langley, VA, where the position of the U.S. Embassy was officially determined. This position served as the origin for a coordinate system used to designaye military targets in Baghdad. (Clancy, Tom. "Armored Cav". Berkley Books, 1994, p. 180.)" Is this really the best source for that information? I hesitate to edit it before I have a better solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.255.252 ( talk) 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC). I find it difficult to believe that we did not have coordinates for our own embassy, even before GPS. I don't know about the rest of the forces, but 1st Cav received GPS (SLGR) units only days before the ground war started. These were of limited use, as maps (mostly hand drawn) were marked in latitude and longitude using LORAN units, whereas the SLGR used military grids. Bad weather at the start of the ground war also prevented satellite acquisition. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that South Korea should be listed below the UN forces on the graph. It was not a United Nations member at the time of the Gulf War, but it did send troops and fighters to assist and its involvement in this war I believe lead to South Korea being admitted to the UN. Just a thought Magnum Serpentine 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking over this page and noticed the sentence:
Is that comma at the end meant to be a period or was the rest of the sentence deleted at some point? I thought I'd let someone more familiar with this article work it out as the vandalism (if that's what it is) wasn't in the last few edits as far as I can see. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I did a partial fix on the ones using the cite template. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed Murder of Col. James Sabow The intensity of focus on the operational activities in the Persian Gulf enabled criminal elements within the USG and DoD, on January 22, to murder Colonel James Sabow in Orange County, California at the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. Several hours after disclosing to Gen. John K. Davis his intention to expose USG involvement in drug smuggling using MCAS El Toro and other military bases, the message to Headquarters Marine Corps announcing that Col. Sabow had committed suicide was prepared, followed by Col. Sabow's death in his backyard within MCAS El Toro on the morning of January 22. Col. Sabow, who had been the acting Chief of Staff for MCAS El Toro at the time of his death and was a Marine aviator who served in Vietnam, suffered a blunt-force skull fracture from a club-like weapon, followed by an intraoral shotgun discharge into his brain. The DoD and USG ruled the death a suicide upon discovery of the body, which is the official determination to this day. [1] Reason: not part of this story. Midgley 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
References
The 250,000 number cited in the Information table is inconsistent with the section "Iraqi deaths and wounded". In fact, it appears to be high by a factor of 5 - 10. How is this number justified?-- Kbk 07:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have looked all over the net and haven't been able to find much information on the Forward Surgical Teams that were implemented in this war. They were important and helped a lot of people. I know there was at least one as part of the 101st airborne division. I think this needs to be researched and added to this page. -skip (uberangryghost@yahoo.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.46.152 ( talk) 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
I remember that Saddam's original plan was to invade Saudi Arabia in an alliance with Yemen. Does anyone else remember this? Jtpaladin 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good online resource for documents pertaining to the war? I mean documents like speech transcripts (like Saddam's 17 Jan 1991 "Mother of all Battles" radio address) and declassified military documents and the like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.235.204 ( talk) 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC). >>>>> I don't know about the Iraqi docs, but the National Security Archives are held over at gwu.edu. They contain all of the declassified info from US sources. There is an extensive list of documents in regards to Iraq (including some goodies like Ronald Regan's signature on the bottom of documents discouraging the UN from sanctioning Iraq for its illegal use of chemical weapons).
The paragraph referencing "computer war" erroneously contained references to the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter," which is a large conventional munition dropped out of the backof MC-130s. The primary method of locating and dropping this weapon, developed during Vietnam, is sight angle, out of the windows of the C-130 dropping it. There's nothing "computer" about it, so I deleted references to it in the computer war section. - Mugs 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the 'sneaky edits' by 76.20.34.20. The dates for the start and end of the Gulf War have been wrong for a month! Maybe more people need to add this article to their watch lists. And it might be useful, in the short term, to ask editors to cite sources for their changes otherwise just revert. I've removed the cleanup tag - unless someone wants to be a little more specific on what clean up is needed. - Ctbolt 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There is very little in this article about the war's impact on Kuwait. I'm not trying to make any sort of political point, but since Kuwait was invaded, there should be more about the Kuwati side of the war, including the impact of the occupation, the infrastructure damage during the invasion and the liberation, the impact on Kuwati relations with foreign nationals (which was very significant), etc. I'm not asking for the Kuwati's government's official account of what happened, but simply more attention to be given to what was happening in Kuwait, before, during, and after the war. Also and while this is sort of contradictary to what I have been saying, but this article is far too long, I think more Kuwati information should be integrated in while many other sections should be shortened or split off. The introduction especially is far too long.
Where is there more information on the Soviet-styled military that this article discusses? Iraqie troops and officers were traine and equiped by a variaty of countrys, including the U.S.S.R.-- Freetown 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Where's the section on criticisms or opponents of the war? There was no shortage of them at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.141.2 ( talk) 16:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
The UN "authorized" (resolution's wording) but did not mandate, any means necessary to compel Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The coalition was not a UN force, did not fight under the UN flag or with blue helmets (a la Korea). As UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar explicitly stated, "It was not a United Nations war." (Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1991) Djcastel 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm changing the Gulf War start date to the more conventional January 16, 1991. It takes two sides to have a war, and the U.S. gave ambiguous signals in August and September, and did not receive Senate authorization to use force until January 12. No one spoke of being already at war in 1990. Djcastel 14:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice article. Very thorough. One of the most important aspects of the war was the restraint put on Coalition Forces. This article needs to quote UN restrictions that saved Iraq from an invasion. Buhlah ( talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Buhlah Buhlah ( talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a box for "Arab-Israeli Conflict" at the bottom of this article? Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. A large coalition drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and entered Iraq. Israel's main involvement was being the subject of missile attacks, but it was not a protagonist in this conflict, and in fact was specifically asked to be, and remained, an outside non-participant. The absence of Israel throughout this article makes that non-participation clear. The fact that Saddam Hussein claimed that he was invading to "liberate Palestinians" is absurd, and should not be the reason for classifying this war in that regard. If such hyperbolic claims are to be used as the basis for Wikipedia article classification, then the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks should also be classified as part of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict" because there are Arab sources who to this day either claim the Israel occupation as the proximate cause of the attack, or blame the Mossad for having actually destroyed the towers in order to blackguard the Arabs! Of course, there are many people who would like to blame all trouble in the Middle East on the "Arab-Israeli Conflict," but by that logic then the Iran-Iraq wars should be part of the same "conflict," as well as Black September, the slaughter of the Kurds, the Hama massacre, and many others. (I originally had the Lebanese Civil War listed as another spurious case of classification, but I see that that one is already on the list, too. Jeesh!) So why is the 1991 Gulf War listed as part of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict"? -- Eliyahu S Talk 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed all the individual commanders from each country. There were 30 some countries involved in the coalition and many other sent supplies and other forms of aid. To list ALL the commanders, from every participating country is imprudent and impractical. Listing the commander of the actual coalition is the most reasonable solution. I have done this two or three times now and it was reverted by somebody claiming WP:COI, which does not apply here. Batman2005 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Tens of thousands were taken (60,000?), and they're only mentioned once as a source on casualties. -- HanzoHattori 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Just add the POWs on both sides of the conflict to the war box. -- HanzoHattori 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I hered i was about 55,000.-- 86.25.49.105 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
not make a single mention of the fact that Israel was hit by Iraqi scuds.
I also agree with the above statement. I believe that Israel should have its own section (or at the very least sub-section). It was bombed by 39 scud missiles by iraq and was requested not to retaliate by the US. The lives of most of the Israelis were stopped for much of the duration of the war and they were forced to live in bomb shelters. I think this deserves a little more than a few mentions buried in the body of the article.
Military (20,000-26,000 fatalities) and civilian (3,500). [2] -- HanzoHattori 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The reference to "various aircraft" operated by the RAF seems dismissive. The aircraft included squadrons of the following aircraft:
The aircraft were flown with great skill, bravery, and effectiveness, often at very low level, notably attacking heavily defended targets such as airfields in the face of intense anti-aircraft fire. I don't have time or knowledge to follow this up, would someone else please help? Some relevant details are given in the links. GilesW 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I put a fact citation in this section int he article -
Now I know there was a lot of debate then about whether to depose Hussein and whether such an overthrow might exceed the limits of the UN Mandate. However I don't recall any debate on entering Iraqi territory. Further, in light of the fact that the bulk of the operation (minus the US Marine and Arab forces which attacked straight into Kuwait) was a flanking operation through Iraqi territory to cut off Iraqi forces in Kuwait, I find this whole paragraph somewhat logically unsound. I would suggest the only controversy that happened in Iraqi territory (other then what is covered) is Barry McCaffrey's 24th Infantry Division movements after the cease fire was declared to cut off retreating Iraqi forces coming from Kuwait. I'm thinking of rewriting this paragraph for that deleting what is there ... any objections? ( Hardnfast 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
Hi I'm looking for Iraqi newsreader reports and the style of which they informed Iraqis about deploying more troops to the orders of Kuwait. There is a lot of stuff about the 2nd august and the invasion but nothing at all about the few days before the invasion. Any link will be very useful. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.79.230 ( talk) 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a wikipedia article about the 1991 uprisings in the N and S of Iraq? Can anyone create one? I'm not sure what the best name would be for the article. BobFromBrockley 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Could ya'll please spell right? This subject is very dear to me, because my dad is a gulf war veteran. So could somebody please learn how to spell?? 75.20.231.241 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please check this edit out? ← BenB4 01:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
We need to expand the article by seperating between Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in independed articles . anyone can help ? Ammar ( Talk - Don't Talk) 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I added this part to the article. Please have a look Mortyman 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since many argue that the Persian Gulf War was an outgrowth of the Iran-Iraq War, should we then call it the Second Gulf War? An advantage to calling it the Second Gulf War is that it situates the conflict within the context of Middle Eastern history and places the U.S. on the periphery--America was, for better or worse, reacting to events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigaba ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I personal think that people should shorten this thing or edit it because it is way to much to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testalor000 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has waaaaayy too many unsourced statements. Just glancing at the introduction, for example, reveals at least five. I'd give them the "citation needed" thing if I could, but I don't know how. Could somebody please source them, or at least mark them as being unsourced? On second thought, maybe the entire article should be marked as being unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.69.132 ( talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
For an article this long, nobody is going to know what {{ refimprove}} is referring to. Please use {{ fact}}s instead, so something can actually be done about the problem that you see. FarmBoi ( talk) 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the iowa battleships should be put into the strength part of the us infobox. First of all they where very significant vessels and had their own battlegroups. They where and arguably still are incredibly valuable ships and are considered capital ships when in a battlegroup. If Iraq had BBs they would be put into the infobox because of there importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.135 ( talk) 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In the article we should be consistent when we shorten his name from Saddam Hussein. Currently in the article we use both Saddam and Hussein as the shortened version of his name. I wanted to bring it up here first to try to get a consensus before just changing all the shortened versions to one or the other. Does anyone have any preference? Jons63 ( talk) 12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think the article on Operation Desert Storm could be separated and expand on, so that people can know more about Operation Desert Storm and can find it easily just by typing it in the Search box, instead of being diverted to "Gulf War". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shao jie ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings all; My attention was caught by this comment: "Post-war military analysis
...Although it was said at the time that Iraqi troops numbered over a million, the Syrians 600,000, and the Jordanians 54,000 today most experts think that both the quantitative descriptions of the Iraqi Army at the time were exaggerated,..." This suggests that the Iraqi forces were joined and augmented by Syrian and Jordanian forces. I believe this to be completely inaccurate, as in fact Syrian and Jordanian forces worked *with* the coalition specifically to clear Kuwait proper. I think this needs to be corrected. In addition earlier in the document this appears: "... On February 26, Iraqi, Syrian, and Jordanian troops began retreating out of Kuwait, setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields as they left..." I have never elsewhere encountered documentation of regular Syrian or Jordanian troops fighting against the coalition. I believe this needs to be corrected as well. Jdallen wa ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In the lede the article says:
Then the Desert Shield section says:
The two sections seem to contradict each other and the Desert Shield section seems to contradict itself. From the lede, the US did not even start to act until after being pressured on 9 August, but according to the Desert Shield section, US troops moved into Saudi Arabia on August 7 with the first ships arriving August 8, but on August 2 (within 48 hours of August 2) P-3s arrived. I am not sure how to reconcile these contradictions. Jons63 ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I accessed this page to research the oil field fires that Iraqi forces started toward the end of hostillities. I could not find any information pertaining to them. Perhaps i scanned the article too hastily. 68.41.82.18 ( talk) 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) w3igt
the spark was an insulting comment made by a Kuwaiti ruler, like "we will punish you (oil price wise) until every Iraqi woman is a whore!". Saddam took such offence that he launched this invasion in response. He unleashed all the subsequent problems over a personal slight and an offhand insult. He admitted as much to his FBI interrogator after has was caught. Its on youtube. The article (invasion of kuwait section) makes no mention of these newly established facts. -- 81.105.243.17 ( talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Do you have a citation for this? To my ear, it sounds completely fabricated, and I can find no credible source to back it up. 24.11.122.71 ( talk) 18:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Dave
At the bottom of the article page there is the section External Links. It contains a link to www.desert-storm.com. Upon entering that site, Avira AntiVir gives a virus warning about "HTML/Crypted.Gen". Not wise to include links to malware-spreading sites. Priest zadok ( talk) 10:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that the article mentions 18,000 troops, (twice), but the table "List of Coalition forces by number of troops", mentions 14,600.
I cannot check the source, (18,000), and there isn't a source for the other number. What is the correct number?
FFMG (
talk)
14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
See my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1991_uprisings_in_Iraq#A_main_category.3F -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I won't check here, so please decide to something this among yourselves. What, say, happened to the marshlands needs an article just like if not more than the Kuwaiti oil fires. -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I am going to have to dispute the neutrality of the source used in this following line:
“ | The British High Commissioner drew lines that deliberately constricted Iraq's access to the ocean so that any future Iraqi government would be in no position to threaten Britain's domination of the Gulf. [9] | ” |
I've tagged this statement and the link as being questionable because it links to what is evidently a non-neutral, non-vertifiable source. ThePointblank ( talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I just edited the what is now the "Reasons for intervention" section and was previously titled "Justifying the war." I hope I've made an improvement on it, but there's still an egregious, almost completely unsourced incident of alleged Kuwaiti propaganda. That paragraph begins by mentioning the well-documented Iraqi abuses of human rights, but the incident it then relates seems quite irrelevant, or at least totally insignificant next to the aforementioned human rights abuses. I'm in favor of deleting that paragraph from the otherwise well-written and very thorough article. We could also add some more information on the very relevant human rights abuses. Do you think it would be right to delete the paragraph? KNVercingetorix ( talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As a french Navy officer, I can testify that we were 14 600 in the Gulf at this period, not 18 000. I'm actually translating this article into French. Thanks to all the contributers of the original article. comment added by ( talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Captain B.
were the british prime ministers actually commanders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.51.117 ( talk) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) They should be on there i added them because they were the leaders of the armies as was George H.W. Bush and all the other kings, prime ministers, and presidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) And it might be easier to make a page called leaders of the gulf war like the world war II one involving all the countries and their presidents prime ministers and kings or queens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the picture of the Hercules aircraft from three different nations is a fake. The flags do not shade in with the rest of the picture. It looks like a badly done propaganda mock up. I will remove it unless given proof. Mindstar ( talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, the "Consequences" section need to be updated and/or reworked. There are so many parenthetical phrases and "citation needed" marks that it is nearly impossible to read. Further, the author of this section shows personal bias in several areas. The one that stood out in particular to me was the "Bill Clinton ordered air strikes to distract from Monica" statement. I even agree with this, but the evidence to support it is limited at best, and certainly needs citation. I urge the powers that be at Wikipedia to review this section of the article. Elwood64151 ( talk) 02:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I agree -- Even I am shocked by the amount of bias in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.46.21 ( talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all this quote is completely wrong: "Precision guided munitions (PGMs, also "smart bombs"), such as the United States Air Force guided missile AGM-130..." The AGM-130 was not used in ODS, it did not become an operational weapon until 1994, and was used for the first time in combat in 1999 during Operation Allied Force. Source ( http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-130.html ) This line is just plain ridiculous: "Other bombs included cluster bombs, which break up into clusters of bomblets and often cause civilian casualties years after conflicts finish" This doesn't even accurately describe how a CBU works, the bomb does not "break up" it dispenses cluster bomblets. I don't even want to get into the blatant POV of the end of the sentence, but it hardly sounds academic. Next there is: "and daisy cutters, 15,000-pound bombs which can disintegrate everything within hundreds of yards." I really would think an encyclopedia would at least refer to the weapon as it's actual nomenclature, the BLU-82B. The description is not very accurate of its effects and hardly academic. Only 11 BLU-82's were dropped in ODS, all on minefields to test the weapon's effectiveness on such a target. Also I thought this section of the article would focus on all the new warfighting technologies that made their debut in combat during ODS. Cluster bombs were not new, and the BLU-82 was used extensively in the Vietnam War, and certainly not used enough to be mentioned as predominantly as it is in this section. A reader with no military knowledge would assume every Allied aircraft were dropping "daisy cutters" on every mission. Also the only "PGM" mentioned was a munition not in service at the time of the war, and is optically guided. Optically guided weapons have been around since WW2, and while laser guided bombs were not exactly new in ODS, it was the first time they were as widely used as they were. I think the PAVEWAY bomb system should get a mention. The section then has the longest paragraph, which is about the SCUD missile. The SCUD was not exactly new, or very technologically advanced. Why would this weapon system have the longest description in the section? I feel the ENTIRE section needs a re-write with actual relevant and accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.247.196 ( talk) 05:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
|strength1=956,600
[1]
1,820 fighter aircraft](1,376 American, 175 Saudi, 69 British, 42 French)
3,318 tanks (mainly
M1 Abrams (U.S.),
Challenger 1 (UK),
M60 Patton (U.S.)
8 aircraft carriers
2 battleships
20 cruisers
20
destroyers
5
submarines
[2]
|strength2=260,000
649 fighters
2,000 tanks (Chinese
Type-59 and
Type-69s, self-produced
T-55 and
T-62, about 300 Soviet
T-72)
[2]
I cleaned-up this a bot, too. --
Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (
talk)
09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Currently this section as written is incorrect. I have never heard of this controversy so I am not sure how to fix it. It appears to say that US/UK/French forces entered Kuwait and then crossed the border into Iraq in pursuit of Iraqi forces. US/UK/French (XIIX Airborne and VII Corps) forces entered Iraq directly from Saudi Arabia, they did not enter Kuwait and then pursue Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Some of them may have gone from Saudi to Iraq to Kuwait and back into Iraq in pursuit, but most of these US forces never entered Kuwait. I am placing a disputed tag on this section until it is either fixed or has references. Jons63 ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Does a minor Intel operation conducted by Norwegian forces really warrant the longest paragraph in the "Coalition" Section? It seems to be Norwegian propaganda. Not saying the operation didn't happen, but it was nothing more than a footnote in the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.247.191 ( talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a great source for Gulf War casualties. [10] Can someone try and use it in the article and espically the casualites and lossses section? -- EZ1234 ( talk) 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I found this Houston Chronicle page http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1990_732902 - how does this fit into the article? WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC) http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1990_747557 Also this is about oil prices dropping after Baker-Saddam talks. WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged the media section of this article with {{ worldwide}} because that section is based exclusively on the US media reaction (which is covered in some detail). I can understand prominent comment on the US Military's policy regarding interviews with personnel (given that the large majority of coalition troops were American) and Iraq's policies on satellite transmission and media censorship for Baghdad-based reporters and suchlike - but the article goes a lot further than that, going into some detail of individual US networks' coverage of the war without mentioning any non-US media outlet. Pfainuk talk 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
It's the first time that I know that Israel participate in the war !! I don't think that they have any role in it. -- Qadsawi ( talk) 11:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Operation Desert Sabre, redirects here, but isn't mentioned at all. Some clarification by those with more knowledge on the subject would be helpful. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |