![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What happened to this section? It appears blank on the page as of Apr 3, 2006...
This whole entry seem likes its from a liberal POV and it should be more nuetral.
This paragraph seems very pov to me: "According to opinion polls, the war was unpopular from its beginning in many Coalition countries. The war's unpopularity was reflected in widespread protests, including the largest worldwide protest in human history on February 15th, 2003 (eg., a day of Global protests against war in Iraq). The Iraq War was widely viewed by many critics as counterproductive. Many viewed the war as improper (being a moral and ethical violation) and illegal under international law. By the summer of 2005, there was an increase in the number of individuals in the United States that felt the same way."
A lot of uses of the word "Many", "Widely viewed", "many critics", etc. It claims "many" opinion polls, but does not cite them. It claims the largest world wide protest, but this is currently under factual debate and is inaccurate information. There is no compelling reason for anything but the last sentence to stay. Swatjester 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Headline text" header is showing on sections 4 and 5 of the ToC. How do I remove this (I didn't change anything to make it like that, I just noticed it as I stumbled across) Swatjester 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That information is inaccurate. While the other list of countries against the war is accurate, saying the "majority" of the NAM members are against is inaccurate as the majority have not even made official statements either way. Swatjester 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, THAT's why it looked weird to me. Can we fix that? Swatjester 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
While reading the article, I happened to notice that Zargaqi's connections to Al-Queda were reffered to as only beggining with his public pledge of allegiance to Bin-Laden. A brief analysis of his autobiography makes it quite clear that he was well-aquainted with Bin-Laden, as well as the larger community of fundamentalist Islamic militants, by as early as 1991, and that these connections continued during his relocation of operations to Iraq, as evidenced by his operations in the Ansar al-Islam camp in Northern Iraq, which has been alleged by intelligence agencies and local witnesses to have connections to Al-Queda, a likely claim given the organization's ubiquitous ties to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.
Sources supporting this are numerous, two I used are here: http://www.worldhistory.com/zarqawi.htm http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm
On another note, while I understand and deeply respect the open-ended philosophy of Wikipedia, I think the issues involved in the Iraq war are too contentious at present to be alterable by anyone who visits the site. I would advocate that on certain topics where are large amount of suspect information and language is routinely slated for editing, (such as is obvious here) that the general editors of the encyclopedia consider temporarily closing the topic and determining among themselves the best information, perhaps only accepting submissions for further alteration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.231.17.182 ( talk • contribs) .
Where should I put information about the Lincoln Group? -- Gbleem 20:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed: In the siege of Fallujah, any person suspected of being an enemy combatant was to be targeted - at any age, with the regualar guidlines being someone over the age of 16. This information and more can be seen in the documentary - "Fallujah - the hidden massacre"' ... from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm JDR 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I remove the following sentance: Unfortunately, the emergence of a theocracy after a civil war still seems a very real possibility. The sentence was found in a paragraph detailing what the supporters of the war were saying, so not only was the above phrased in a non encyclapedic way it also was located in the wrong section. Deathawk 04:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the paragraph stating that the U.S. used posion gas against civilians in Fallujah. The military used white phosphourous gas as smoke screens which is perfectly legal. This can be found at [1] IndieJones 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
White phosphorus is not a gaseous grenade. It is an incendiary grenade. The whole "poison gas" thing is media propoganda, from people who have probably never used a phosphorus grenade before. Phosphorus grenades are used in 3 situations: To ignite sensitive, non-metallic material for destruction, to mark an area with smoke, and as an anti-personell weapon. People believe mistakenly that it is a chemical weapon because it burns people. In fact, it is a thermal weapon, and the burns are thermally/fire delivered. Oh, and I've been to Fallujah: If anyone used poison gas there, we'd know because hundreds or possibly thousands of people would have died from it.
Anyway, I agree with the other people on the talk page saying there is WAY too much POV in this article. Swatjester 21:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Doldrums Doldrums talk removed documented from "largest documented worldwide protest" - are there larger undocumented protests? ... A problem is that each generation and news media coverage thinks it is seeing the largest protests ever, the largest humanitarian disaster ever, and so forth. Should there be some link to some history of protests, as a proportion of the population of the day, to show how protests against the war in Iraq compare to protests aganst the war in Vietnam, against having nuclear weapons, in favor of Civil Rights, and other topics? User:AlMac| (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Last November, up to 200,000 people protested in Trafalgar Square when US President George W. Bush was in London for a state visit. Ahead of the Iraq war in February 2003, police estimated that one million people descended on the capital to protest the looming invasion, while organisers said the figure was nearer two million. " [2]
More info on the size of the Feb15 protests can be found at February 15, 2003 anti-war protest. While it is true that there is some contention about whether the individual protests were the biggest ever for the countries they were held in, I have not read any serious assertion that on sum (i.e. world wide) this was not the biggest protest in history. There are lots of ref's to commentators who talk about these being the biggest ever protests on the page.-- JK the unwise 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is there not a "Disputed" header at the top of this topic page? Practically everything in here is skewed to one point of view or the other and it's hard to decipher what is fact from fiction. The same applies for the 'Invasion of Iraq' topic as well.
You can dispute the article by putting {{POV}} at the top of the article.You must also explain your problem with the article here on talk. keith 03:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
First sentence of article: The Iraq War or War in Iraq1,2 is both an informal and a formal American term
What is the source for this being a _formal_ name? Derex 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember anything about the war in iraq being about democracy (the last point in that list) back when the Bush Administration was touting it; I'm pretty sure that came later. Anyone have a source on that? Disavian 14:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' might be a giveaway there... but maybe it isn't. Just my thinking. (t.z0n3)
George W. Bush's original reason to go to Iraq was to protect American interests by upholding their security. But since no proof of WMD's was found, the war's motto has now become "bringing the light of democracy into the Middle East". This is in my opinion, just the correct political way to justify what America is doing in Iraq. Perhaps this is a noble cause, because in the long run, a self elected Iraqi government is a lot better than Saddam's one party rule. However, I seriously doubt that was the original reason to go to Iraq. After all there's a lot other non-democratic countries in the world, whose idealogies may be opposed to the US.
Just ot point out , the suggestion that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida was not really used in the UK as justification for the war. I get the impression that this was used in the US, and presented as fact by certain media outlets (notably Fox News), but as far as I can remember, no major media outlet in the UK actually presented this idea as fact- or even gave it any real airtime at all. The first i heard of it were reports on the way the US media were covering the build up to the war in Iraq.
The Blair administration's main justification for going to war was that if Iraq had WMD, these could be sold/ given to terrorists.
As we now know, there were never any WMD in Iraq and there certainly never was an al-Qaida link, but I thought it was important to point out that the mainstream media in Britain and the rest of Europe, whether countries supporting or opposed to the invasion, did not follow this story.
Im putting a POV sign on this article. My problems with this are that we must agree that the "no-fly-zones" prior to the march 2003 war were in fact according to UN standards ILLEGAL, and that the note about the largest demonstrations EVER were simply deleted and not modified. I dont have the time to give you the references but i remember a figure of millions of people from the whole world, were out demonstrating against that war. 131.130.138.156 Sanchez 14:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not be unilateral. The largest demonstrations part was deleted because it could not be verified and cited. And we "MUST" not agree about anything, regarding the no fly zones. They were perfectly legal as part of the terms of Iraqs cease-fire after the Gulf War. Do not be so demanding, it won't help you get your way here.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That's called content forking, and isn't allowed here. This is an encyclopedia, we only make one article here from a neutral POV of things here. We don't make different versions of articles with different POV's to satisfy both sides, please see WP:NPOV for details. As for citing, nobody should ever cite wikipedia as a source on any article......everyone should know that.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
13:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ooops...I actually didn't mean to revert the POV tag back out, I clicked on the wrong thing in popups. I'll go ahead and put it back up.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
13:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The following text was added to the top of the page - while someplace for it should be found, it's certainly not at the top of this article.
— QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
News coverage that includes video recordings of actual events are not "talk" issues. They are objective, tangible recordings and are, by definition, history. (History is a recording of the past.) Talk is about opinions. Facts, including videos that capture historical events, should be on the article's page.
You can discuss the ramifications of a video on the talk page all you want, but the video itself is a historical record and should be on the article page. In this way, videos are no different than a digitial picture of the U.S. Constitution. --
First off, according to the NPR link, they are teenagers, not children. Big difference, considering in Iraq teenagers are often involved in gang violence, sometimes even against the soldiers. Furthermore, the teenagers were throwing rocks and makeshift grenades at the soldiers, again according to the NPR link. So if we're going to be talking about showing all the facts, we need to actually DO so.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Second, the video is still an allegation according to the NPR interview, it has not yet been confirmed. I'm not saying don't put it out at all, I'm just saying wait until Tony Blair's investigation completes it's findings and proves it before putting it up. If you do put it up before then it will need to have an "allegedly" before it.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
> Swatjester, justify the removing of the link to the article http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10561. The article text clearly is neutral point of view. Is there something you object to in the article, other than it was written by Muslims? Furthermore, if anything we should be adding more articles and external links, not just removing the ones you don't like. If you think an external link has point of view, then add another external link with a different point of view. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia and should have external links that show all points of views.
I'll give you an hour to justify the removal before adding it back. I know your watching this article like a hawk, as am I.
- M
You're right too, there should be more links added....but we don't need more than one or two on any active topic. The NPR link and the article said the same things, but which one looks more Nonbiased? NPR does in a heartbeat.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I think there needs to be a link to the video from a different site. a) the current video link goes to an error page, direct linking not allowed. b) the current link goes to a page entitled "8 american soldiers brutally beat iraqi children" which is clearly incorrect as they're obviously british soldiers. I'm sure someone here can find a better video link, if not then I will. Oh and on another note....ironically CNN has no news coverage on their website about the video. Nor does fox news. nor does abc news
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say " http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"
The allegations by Bassem Shaker, 27, and Tariq Abdul-Razzak, 14, were presented to the media at the office of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the coalition forces."
A 27 year old doesn't seem like a child to me. Furthermore: "Mr Shaker said British troops fired volleys of rubber bullets at the protesters in a bid to disperse them.
Witnesses and officials at the time said British troops and Iraqi police had fired at armed, stone-throwing protesters, killing six people and wounding 11."
[b]"Assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades"[/b]
The article makes NO mention of children whatsoever. So before you all let your emotions run wild over this: a) they weren't children. b) they had hand grenades. c) they lied about their demonstrators being killed. None of this excuses the abuse. BUT we all need to approach this with a clear head.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(Stop deleting my comments on this talk page. This is considered vandalism)
As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say " http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"
I'm not going to argue with you any further. Please donot take this personally, but I do not think you can view this with an open mind.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
SWAT, being able to throw a grenade and shoot a gun is not a rite of passage to adulthood. The United States Government (indirectly, through the CIA) trained child soldiers in El Salvador to fight against the FMLN. Were these forcibly conscripted children (who were as young as nine) adults? I appreciate that a United States soldier such as yourself is participating with wikipedia; however, I currently can't see how this article has a NPOV. -- SeanMcG 08:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You can all misrepresent my opinion all you want, but I'm only defending that the ones in their teens should be considered adults. It's ludicrous to claim that an 8 year old is an adult. But the fact is in much of the non-western world, you are a man at the age of 16. In Judaism, the passage to manhood begins at 13. In African countries it can begin in the 14-16 period. That is ADULT whether our western customs like it or not. The world is not centered upon our American beliefs, and it's high time that we started accepting that in ALL situations, not just the ones we deem acceptable. (Oh, it's ok to shout that we're spreading our american imperialism with our viewpoints on democracy, and religion, but god forbid we kill or beat armed teenagers with hand grenades and suddenly we should be demanding a US-centered viewpoint.)
Now I only came back here by request. I'm absolutely sickened by the brainwashed vehemence and anti-US hatred expressed by so many so called "liberals" on Wikipedia. So I'm going to stay out of here again, and any further questions about it can take place on my User Talk (click my name in my signature). Cheers.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
09:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd further like to clarify one thing you point out in your example Sean: The CIA's clandestine operations are not the dictated policy of the Department of Defense, nor necessarily that of the President. As is mentioned in a link from the article here on the National Clandestine Service, the CIA's Directorate of Operations is required to conduct an estimated several tens of thousands of activities that would be considered by a host country as "illegal" yearly. Their agents are placed in great danger on a daily basis, and as such, their activities cannot be directly supervised by the DDO. I don't say this to defend individual agents, or justify past actions, just a warning against the habit of painting the "big bad government" with a wide brush..... So many people here like nothing better than to bash our government, bash our military, but yet make no effort whatsoever to understand it, to gain knowledge of it, or even to join it and effect change from the inside. It sickens me. When I was fresh back in the states from my deployment, and coming to terms with my PTSD, I nearly took my own life after being spit upon and called a baby-killer by some brainwashed hippy who, upon questioning from one of my friends, knew nothing about the military, did not know me, didn't know the basic concepts of civics and american government. Unfortuantely that's the view that I get from many people who claim to be "liberals" or "anti-war" on wikipedia, indeed on the internet as a whole.
I find that the only way to win, is to not play the game at all. If you want further enlightenment, you can talk to me on my talk page, but as for this I'm going to stay stress-free (as much as possible) and keep away from here.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
09:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The "declaration of war" blurb in the second paragraph is a hypothetical "example" of the controversy which only serves to obfucsate getting to the real controversy over the definitive usage of the term Iraq War (which itself is rather limited). To my knowledge there is no debate about referring to the Iraq War as a "war" due to a lack of formal Congressional declaration. Some still claim that the Vietnam War should be referred to as a "military action", but even that usage is so limited that it makes any debate "settled." Because there is no application to the current conflict, its usage is unnecessarily hypothetical and is therefore out of place, out of context, and out of order. - Ste| vertigo 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
A section should be added that correctly illustrates the costs of this war. This article seems to be assuming the position that most western media takes: to whitewash over the distruction and civillian casualties that have been produced by this war. The section should include abuses and atrocities committed by both sides, of course...Any ideas? Amibidhrohi 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't this template included on this page? – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Numerous human rights abuses, most notably those at the Abu Ghraib prison led to widespread criticism of the occupying forces." Is it correct to say "numerous?" Yes there were abuses, but nothing accepted as standard procedure as far as we know right? We could say, "A series of abuses" or something like that. Rmt2m 13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Eagle a m n helped with the translation of this article. I copy it from my talk page to allow everyone to benefit from it. Thank you very much, Eagle a m n ! AlIAS 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I wouldn't consider the article being featured in the Arabic Wikipedia a definite sign of any extra information or even better representation of facts. The Arabic Wikipedia has much lower standards than most other versions. In other words, the English version which is basically written based on media information looks more neutral in my opinion. Having said that, I will describe the Arabic article and let you decide if you would like to use any of the information.
Let me know if you would like anything else in the article translated. - Eagle a m n 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
TwoThirty notes the following on his talk page: The important differences between the Arabic article and the English article are:
Eagle does not have the authority to represent the Arabic section of Wikipedia, he is representing his own opinion, we in Arabic Wikipedia who participated in the article will translate it as soon as we can, Eagle have minor editions in the Arabic article of Iraq invasion which was deleted later because it was biased in nature. Again eagle is only representing himself and he is not the writer of the article. Classic 971 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
while Eagle just wanted to put his own opinion in teh arabic article without discussing it in the discussion page , other editors like Classis_971 did professional work by adding a work supported with refrences ... What eagle considered silly about the iraqi Oil , is really mentioned here
[7] ... maybe we havn,t that high standards for featured articles ..but at least we work honestly and avoiding any POV --
Chaos
17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
-From Chaos' link:
"During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades."
Sounds a little skewed to me. And to think this comes from a UN site. And to think that the US government has taken to working outside such a 'neutral' body. Rob 11:01, 8MAY2006 (UTC)
Have there been UFO sightings during the Iraq War?, if so here are the sources I'd found.
http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=598 http://www.rense.com/general37/filers41603.htm http://www.ufodigest.com/newsletter/2003/2003-04-17.html http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/baghdad.htm http://ufocasebook.com/iraq040304.html
Storm05 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not the appropriate article to ask about UFO sightings. Nothing in the article mentions anything about UFO's having any influence whatsoever on any events related to the Iraq War. DarthJesus 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Likewise we should add some sources describing Bigfoot aiding the insurgents. I know I guy whose sister's friend read about it The Star. I'll see if I can find the link.
The official DoD policy in refrence to the Iraq War is to refer to it as Operation Iraqi Freedom, with a numeral after that to denote which "phase" (apologize already for an ambigious military term). I've been busted out too many times myself for calling it the Iraqi War! Gottalove the Military. Sinnabar 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The following information is related to parts of the article, but I am not sure if it fits here: Insurgencies, frequent terrorist attacks and sectarian violence lead to harsh criticism of US Iraq policy. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. After the Al Askari shrine bombing in February 2006 the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad warned that sectarian violence spread might lead to a civil war in post-invasion Iraq and possibly even the neighbouring countries. [13] De mortuis... 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Its kinda amusing actually. The US ousts out a dictatorship government and then replaces it with a so-called democratic government that would most likely be a puppet government that wins every election and favours the US.
By invading Iraq, the US really can't pull out of it now. If it tries to get out, the whole damn country will definitely collapse into a civil war.
Oh yeah, by the way, where are those WMDs that Bush kept talking about?
Thats all on my mind now.
AllStarZ 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This section is for the discussion of editing the page in question, not a soapbox for people's politics. Please keep posts relevant.
NeoFreak 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)NeoFreak
Why can't we just kiss and make up? What is it that seperates us from the Middle Eastern World? Is it because our differences? Aren't we similar? Don't we hate each other equally? If so why? I think this is deeply rooted in our relations with the Iraq War and it deserves thought.
Here is a quote: "The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?"
----Pablo Casals
I hope that means something to you.
Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.
----Guy de Maupassant
Think on that one too. Oh, and what ever happened to diplomacy? What happened to reason? Just thought you mightlike to think about it.
-- Peter bergquist 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. This is the area of Foreign relations where things get muddled. First of all, did we really "free" or are we "freeing" the Iraqi people? They are in a state of civil disorder much worse than under the rule of their previous dictator, Suddam Hussien( Iraq War). Sure he was a terrible guy, but that doesn't justify the occupation and terrorization of a country's people. Surely the extension of the first Gulf war (headed off by Bush senior) into the "War on Terror", is a mockery within itself. It is not the Iraqis who are terrorizing us it we who are terrorizing them. Is it not? We invaded Iraq. First we were set to find WMDs that the President reported to have "thought" they had them and that we should go "get 'em." Of course there was no evidence found to back this "theory" up. Then, it became an operative to catch members of the Al Qeada( Iraq War). That was settled, but did really have to do much Iraq? At any rate it left the people in a worse situation again. Now it is the idea that we are going to "free" the Iraqis and give them Democracy. Absolutely outrageous! Who are we to say "our" ways are best( Nationalism)? So, when you say that this has nothing to do with nationlistic values and imperialistic ambitions, think again. There is much to gain from this war economically in the U.S.( Iraq War), despite its high cost of life. Do you really think that the 21st century is immune to Nationalistic poison that you spoke of? Peter bergquist 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dissent and Deliverance
I think that it would be valuable to hear from someone from Iraq, preferably a citizen of Iraq and a U.S. soldier. This would really be the POV I would like to hear, but I know it would be difficult or unlikely for this to happen. I don't know enough about what the people in Iraq think, and it was wrong of me to judge so. However, it would be interesting to hear these POV of an Iraqi citizen and U.S. soldier. Sorry for any misunderstandings or bad judgements in my previous article.--Existential Thinker 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The place where we differ in the understanding of the Iraq War is its purpose If we are really set out to bringing democracy and reconstructing Iraq then why did Bush start bombing Iraq again? He referred to the "air strike" intiative in Iraq as "Political maneuvers." The Bush Administration is quite infamous for their fancy euphenisms and parliamentary rhetoric used to confuse a great deal of the fooled populus in America. It seems strange that we are trying to help a country with reconstruction while bombing more cities in that country. I fail to comprehend the logic of our Administration. Another suprising thing is the lack of evidence the Bush Administration has provided to back up their ideas or theories. In reference to IEDs in Iraq and our trouble dealing with them in the battle field, the President said they contained components from Iran. Although they said they had no evidence to back this up in the conference at The Defense of Democracy. Our strange strageties that we are using fit under a quote from Ed Helm (from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart)regarding our recontruction efforts, "we're not good at infrastructure, we're good at un-frastructure."-- 67.138.36.33 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me make it clear then. We have been occupying Iraq since the Gulf War, and you are right by stating my misquote (regarding Bush and the "again"). I meant to say the U.S. in general. Although, I was alluding to the original air strikes in the beginning of the war. I have no clue where you got the idea the this war is a "just" war. The lack of initial evidence in the invasion of Iraq was astounding. The fact that there was a cruel dictator does not justify our actions. The mere fact that we invaded without the proper U.N. authority, since the invasion was in direct violation of U.N. charter. This was a grave error by the current Adminsitration, therefore making the Iraq war a perfect example of imperialistic action and enterprise. There is no way one can crawl from this hole, and the U.S. is trapped in it. That's my POV.--Existential Thinker 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC) The only way one can justify our invasion of Iraq is if that individual sides with imperialism.--Existential Thinker 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Under what terms is the U.N. a fascist organization? They are not an oppresive or dictatorial government system. They are an international regulator in the actions and decisions of countries. Claiming the U.N. to be a fascist group is not only false, but the intentions are obviously to blacken their name. They probably had good reason to advise the U.S. that invading Iraq (without any evidence on their claims, what so ever) was unwise. In hindsight it is quite apparent that we stuck or selves in a thick quagmire in the beginning. The claims made to the U.N. is certainly your strategy in justifying the invasion. In your response, "you will realize that all your talk about plans before the war is just irrelevant noise." I thought it interesting that you made such a statement. This means we went to war on irrelevant noise, does it not? What does that make every million (exaggeration) reason that the Administration calimed after the war was started, about what the reason for our actions were. No, I'm afraid not, the Bush administration completed the invasion under the terms of what now is said to be democracy, even though its true ambtion were entirely imperialism. The dictator that was removed was our own doing, and the war we debate today is the job Bush senior couldn't finish, and his son is now finishing. Thus, is the Bush legacy and their grab for power in this world that has corrupted the people and the government. The government leaders that can be observed in the U.S., in my opinion, are completely moronic and incapable of any intelligent governmenting observable in the history of mankind. They deserve to be displaced from their seats of power before this war becomes a global affair, for it could be the end of us all.-- Existential Thinker 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
First, the U.N. is not a national program it is international; second, it is not autocratic because there are many representatives from countries all over the world (who each have a say in what is decided internationally). The U.N. has establishments all over the world, therefore making them an international program. The fact that the U.N. is not only one nation but many, making it impossible to fall under nationalistic terms. That is the complete irony of the situation. If anything the term fascism falls much more closely to defining the U.S.-- Existential Thinker 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Folks, this article is very POV. I am opposed to the war and I think most reasonable people, when provided with accurate, neutral information also oppose it. Passages like
The more exclusive definitions of the "Iraq War" term...rest on rationalizations that tend to disagree, in various opinions, with direct or meaningful comparisons with other conflicts, though these are largely found in stated (or perceived) goals by the Coalition for the invasion and occupation. A better metric to determine precisely who the war is being waged upon should compare the number of unarmed civilian Iraqi deaths by the various combatants with the number of armed civilians and Iraqi soldiers killed in the war....
can't be in here. This is biased, uncited original research. The topic here is "rationalization", but this is trying to declare "who the war is being waged upon". Who came up with this "better metric" and why is it used at all in this paragraph?
The chemical weapons stuff is way over hyped. People were burned to death -- horrible yes. Chemical weapons -- no. The grenades utilize chemicals, just like every sort of grenade utilizes chemicals, just like every sort of bullet and bomb use chemicals (just like humvees and helicopters use chemicals). Merely using chemicals does not make a weapon a chemical weapon. Killing is a morally abhorrent thing, but keep the bias out. For anyone with a soul it would be bad enough to just say that people were burned to death by phospohorous grenades.
Justforasecond 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is nearly useless and unreadable. WAAAYYY too much POV, uncited sources, poor grammer, and generally just really crappy writing. Regardless of whether someone is opposed to the war or supports it--putting all these points and counter-points in an article just make the article more confusing and unreadable--not to mention a poor reference. Please stop adding things about how bad or good something is based on your pro/anti-war position and focus on adding actual relevant facts--let the historians sort out who was right or wrong. Publicus 13:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I am sorry for my extremist POVs, and if I affended you I hope you will forgive me. As you can tell from my articles I am at best an amateur writer, not to mention a minor. I understand all that the public domain in this discussion page has made several comments on my contributions, stating that I should drop my "biased" POVs. Maybe I have been unfair in doing so. I will work hard at being a little more balanced in my POV and support my articles with more data. I am working towards becoming a better Wikipedian and writer, fore I am new to Wikipedia. I thank you for your suggestions and comments and I hope you can give me some tips and pointers. However, I'll have you know that I am strong in my belief of what I think is right or wrong. I see these values on either side of the current war in Iraq. It is hard to weigh the rights and wrongs of each side, as you know. I am not trying to judge people for their actions and form irrational conclusions, for it would be wrong of me to do so. No, I am here to rationally distinguish certain wrongs on each side and back it up with some evidence. I have reason for my action. If this discussion page is more concerned with who is using POV or showing too much opinion in their articles, than getting to the bottom of things in a reasonable manner, then I will have nothing to do with it. POV or opinion is a right that we hold, and should be exercised, it makes us unique as indivduals. Facts are facts and that's a fact. However, how you interpret that fact is POV, and that is partof the beauty and intelligence that is valued in discourse. It is a value, I think that has been left to rot in our society. That is my POV on POVs.-- Existential Thinker 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Existential Thinker, I understand that POV can be a difficult thing to deal with especially on something like a war. But keep in mind, you can always create references to an infinite number of related articles on any subject. However, there needs to be at least one starting point that everyone can agree on from which to link these other articles. The main goal (especially with this article) is to present all the relevant facts and information and then link articles on relevant points. Publicus 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The removal of quotes wasn't discussed here. The deletion of large sections without good reasons is called blanking. I see no good reason stated here, so please do not blank the quotes again. -- OrbitOne Talk| Babel 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Bush quotes to the Iraq disarmament crisis. There was no analysis of the quotes within this article they were simply a list of quotes. Since all of the quotes deal with a time period before the war and contain language rationalizing the war, I feel they are a better fit to a specific article dealing with the runup to the war--rather than a general article discussing all aspects of the war. Publicus 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Publicus and Justforasecond that the article needs a lot of work but I think the major problem isn't POV, it's that the article starts off with long-winded, pedantic asides on terminology and rationales. We shouldn't be calling "Iraq war" an informal term, it is simply the standard term routinely used by journalists to refer to the fighting which started with the 2003 invasion and continues to this day. There isn't really much of a difference between "Iraq war", "Iraq War", and "war in Iraq". The first alternative, with lower case "war", seems to be more common in news reports, so we should just use that and stick with it. Also, though we should briefly summarize President Bush's justifcations for the war, the long passages from his speeches are not necessary. Primarily this article should present the basic facts, the groups involved and the phases of the fighting, with links to other, more detailed articles on each of these. Brian Tvedt 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I like that intro too Mr. Tibbs--a lot cleaner. Sorry for the numerous edits wtout edit summary, a lot of them were just typos and moves within the article, housekeeping type stuff, etc. The article was just so unuseable, I guess I went a little edit-crazy-lol. Publicus 13:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a subtle POV all through parts of this article. Take for instance the caption "Unrepaired infrastructure and a risk of being killed either by U.S. occupiers or insurgents had made life difficult to average Iraqis." The use of weasel words and phrases like "killed by U.S. occupiers " shifts the tone of the article to be somewhat anti-war. -- 204.77.40.48 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is somewhat innacurate to have Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the top opponent. While they obviously were the opponent during the invasion itself, they are no longer being fought in the Iraq War. Rangeley 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It states in the opening paragraph that it wasnt originally said that the war was for humanitarian reasons and democracy. This is false. Iraq_War-_Rationale#The_two_points_of_view. Donald Rumsfeld gave these as the reasons prior to the invasion. Saying that they werent given as reasons does accurately represent a common anti war talking point, however it does not accurately represent reality, or NPOV. Rangeley 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Should something be added to the article about the Tony Blair\GWB meeting that said the war was planned in advance? I think the memo is linked as an external site, but shouldn't there be something about it in the article itself?
68.148.168.84 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"Instability and a massive amount of terrorist acts committed against civilians". I think that "instability" is debatable and so is the phrase "massive amount". 68.100.115.135 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)KevinPuj
The following facts you may or may not know:
Basically we created our own war, so if you say that there is any other reason, you are merely stating fabrication and pretense that the U.S. Administration planned. Obviously there is some other goal in mind when it comes to the Iraq War cause, I will not state my opinion on this subject since it is heatedly debated and argued with vehement passion by many. I don't wish to take part in that war. To justify our actions by "bringing democracy" to the Middle-east is by far the most illusive of all fabrications. Hello, wake up and smell the coffee, it's time for "Shock and Awe" (a cruel euphemism which translates to "air assault") for breakfast, then a little "Democracy" with your afternoon tea! I don't think it could be anymore crystal clear, but then comes the question, what are we doing in Iraq and why are we doing it? (links to factual references are to follow)-- Existential Thinker 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is good to understand both sides of the argument, and I'm glad you're playing your role so well, but always remember to question yourself before others. It is easier to put blame on others than to accept the blame and be shameful, that is true courage.-- Existential Thinker 03:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence of this article, which begins "Majority of the costs to Iraqi people consist of large amount of dead civilians..." is POV, and also does not belong under the heading "Financial costs of the Iraq war" It has little to do with the finacial costs of war, and placed under that heading only serves to elicit a reader response to the phrase "dead civilians." I'll try to find some sources about actual infrastructure damage and economic disruption. 71.132.24.187 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)bamonster
Oh, and the part about civilian casualties and financial loss, where did you come up with that? I think it comes as a given that civilian casualties are not a financial loss, I mean when has life been worth anything in material? Infrastructure, as well as oil lines (which are part of the infrastructure), has been the largest cost to Iraqi nation.-- Existential Thinker 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
"At the same time, we must remember that an investigations after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way." In other words, Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector, found such evidence. KevinPuj 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the caption because it was incorrect. White phosphorus is an incendiary, not a chemical weapon. TheKaplan 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, it looks like shit. Info that extensive doesn't belong in an infobox. Moreover, the war is ongoing, so "results" is not wholly accurate. Phrases like "unprecedented terrorism" is OR and POV. Serbs might beg to differ. I would reserve "results" for permanent changes, so things like the corporate management of resources and destruction/rebuilding of infrastructure don't belong. Please do present all sides in the article.....but this is an infobox! Point by point:
* Overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government.
* Civilian deaths of at least 100,000-300,000 and multiple times more of injured civilians
* Destruction of infrastructure (homes of entire cities, electricity, water, schools, medical care)
* Large instability, massive amount of random civilian deaths caused by Iraqi insurgency and the occupying forces, general worsening of security conditions
* Unprecedented terrorism.
* Election of a representative government. Full participation of minority Kurds and majority Shi'ites in governmental power while Sunnites lost significant power.
* The switching in the currecy used to sell Iraqi oil from Euros back to US Dollars
* Management of natural resources moved from the Iraq government to multinational corporations (mainly based in the U.S.)
* Termination of the U.N. Oil for Food programme
I'm removing the last three. -- Mmx1 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and wikified various things that Rmt2m's version left out, it made it a bit longer, but it's still shorter than the prior version. Please keep the wikilinks intact, as it makes things easier on the reader given the large amount of articles on this subject. Next thing on the agenda is we need a picture for that infobox like all the others have. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The major problem that I see with the articles on Iraq, the new Iraqi government, human rights abuses in Iraq, etc. is that the articles are more pro-war and anti-war editors trying to justify or criticize the war than editors documenting historically significant things about the war. These articles are not encyclopediac at all. Twenty years from now, most of this extremely specific information won't be useful to someone researching these events. They'll want to know what happened, rather than every single case for and against the war. This article needs major work. Thoughts? KevinPuj 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Twenty years from now they Will want to know exactly what led to this war and the political ramifications, just like people do with the Vietnam War today. However a Military Aspects of the Iraq War page could be made. In summary what happened Is "every single case for and against the war". This is particularly true of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq itself whose military aspect only lasted about a week but whose political, economic and strategic ramifications are being felt and escalating to this day. And Rmt2m it is not true that "any nation at war goes through instability..." there are numerous conflicts that were relatively clean such as Operation Just Cause (US invasion of Panama). But even in such conflicts the negative effects of the conflict must be documented, and cannot be white-washed. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You're simply pushing talking points. Why not list "Part of the Global Struggle Against Extremism?"
Placing "part of the war on terror" in the title is placing a POV of a heavily contested point. This is a war. Give it a name. Then, in the body of the article, discuss the history of war, and justifications for entering it.
Because it is generally accepted to have been an intentially falsified claim (read Paul O'Neill and other Bush Administration defectors). Of course, it is a historical fact that the Bush Administration claimed that the Iraq War was part of the WOT; but in that case this should be mentioned as such within the body of the article, along with references to former members of the Bush administration who have since come out saying that they wanted to invade Iraq from the start and that it had nothing to do with terrorism.
In other words, the "War on Terrorism" timeline doesn't belong in the References section, because it appears to give credibility to the Bush Administration's false and now wholly discredited claim. -- Borisknezevic 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Boris Knezevic
Someone vandalized the war on terror thing to remove it out. It isnt really POV, because whether or not you think it was started to fight terror (which was given as a reason for war), they are fighting terrorists now in it. 9-11, 4-11, and 7-7 are all included in the war on terror, and terrorist attacks happen nearly daily in the Iraq War, so yea, its part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 03:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So, by that rationale, any conflict that the US engages in could be part of the "war on terror", whether the government in question does have links to international terrorism or not..?
In other words, we can invade any country we like, destroy its military force, and when people in desperation turn to terrorist tactics to oppose the US military, we just say "we're fighting terrorism", and voila - the invasion is now justified, even if it wasn't in the first place. Brilliant - you know, that's how the Nazis justified severe treatment of local populations in the countries they occupied - by calling the resistance "terrorists", against whom all measures are justified...(In fact, I think that they were the first to popularize use of the term, in WWII.)
Sorry, that doesn't work. Try again.
-- Borisknezevic 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This same discussion is happening at Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#War_on_Terrorism -- Hermitage 09:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The "War on Terrorism" label is a partisan label, it is not objective. This article deals with a description of the ongoing Iraq War, POV labels are unhelpful. For example, no one calls World War II the "war on fascism" or the "war of European liberation." If you want to talk about how you think Iraq is part of a "war on terrorism" then create an article titled as such with a link to this article. Or create a subsection on this article under "rationales for war." Publicus 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a moral distinction between torturing and executing non-combatants and victims of collateral damage. Moreover, the named individuals were made into media spectacles and are notable enough to have articles of their own.
Secondly, what's Heavy? Compared to 0 or a car crash, it's heavy. The survivors of Iran-Iraq or Stalingrad might beg to differ.
-- Mmx1 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"Collateral damage" is when you drop a bomb to destroy a military installation, and it unavoidably kills civilians. When you shoot people at will (as US troops customarily do), that is not collateral damage. THAT, if you like, is when a conflict moves from "collateral damage" to "heavy" death toll. 30,000 is not collateral damage. 30,000 is heavy.
By your reasoning, we just need to kill more people, and we can reclassify past conflicts as "not heavy"...So if a nuclear war happens and, say, a billion people die - GREAT! Then we can say that WWII, and (to use your examples) Iran-Iraq War, Stalingrad, did not have "heavy" casualties, after all.
Heavy is anything more than necessary, and a lot of people think (more than you can imagine) that none of it was necessary.
-- Borisknezevic 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What makes the American civilians who were killed notable? Because they were made media spectacles? So what you're saying is essentially that the Wikipedia article should reflect the biased obsessions of American media, who extensively report "notable" American deaths while practically ignoring the damage of the war to Iraqis?
-- Borisknezevic 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but Al Jazeera also regularly airs images of Abu Gharib torture, Iraqi civilian deaths, etc. They show a lot of stuff resulting from American military action, and more often, that American (I didn't say Western, actually, and on purpose) media don't. That's the whole point. What you said is a credit to Al Jazeera, that's all. See, you have to think your arguments through before you make them. Otherwise, they just don't work.
Needless to say, nothing you have said in any way indicates why any of the relevant events should be included under "Human Rights Abuses".
As for the heavy casualties, since you need it spelled out, I'll spell it out for you. We're not talking about car accidents, but about war. For a car accident, yes, actually, four dead is a LOT. That's a heavy death toll for a car accident, but in a car accident that's not a matter of necessity. What are heavy casualties in war? "More than necessary" means more than necessary to achieve LEGITIMATE objectives. When you kill 100,000 people, 30,000 civilians (at least) those are heavy casualties. If you don't believe me, maybe you should go fight in a war and see for yourself instead of sitting at home and devaluing human life. At the moment, human life doesn't seem worth much to you, unless it's your own or that of nations you care about. 30,000 more than necessary is "heavy".
When you put someone's words into quotation marks, it would do you good to actually cite the correct words.
-- Borisknezevic 09:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You know, in a war, the primary question is who started it, not who did more damage to whom. The fact that the insurgency has killed more civilians is only a reflection of their military (in)capacity. They can't get to the Americans often enough. Given the American military and technological might, they shouldn't have killed any civilians, but they do, because they're all a bunch of trigger-happy, scared momma's boys who shoot at the first sign of danger. And they started the war, so yes, they carry the responsibility for all casualties, whoever causes them.
Ever hear generals talk about sustaining "heavy casualties" in combat? It's pretty standard talk, for your information.
But since you can't seem to do the math, I'll do it for you. 100,000 dead (civilian and military) is about one third of a percentage of the total Iraqi population. What's one third of a percentage of the American population? Well, just over 1 million people. Now say that there's a war and just over 1 million Americans die - you'd say that's not "heavy", huh? Tsk, tsk.
I was ready to let it go, but since you pushed the issue and made me think about it, I'm changing it back. It's not POV. If that's POV then everything is POV and nothing can ever be said about any war without POV.
As for your comments on Al Jazeera, you're still missing the point and I don't feel like repeating myself.
-- Borisknezevic 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The Vatican City has roughly 90 people living there. If one person were to be killed, thats well over a third of a percent, but would it be 'heavy?' To call it heavy is POV, as is this. Generals speaking of heavy casualties are also using a POV. Just use the number. Further, you cant blame it all on the side that began a war. You place the blame on the person/side that did the killing. Rangeley 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that the statistic for deaths should be used and qualitative words like "heavy" should be avoided. KevinPuj 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The Vatican City has 90 people living there? Gosh, you should have looked it up on Wikipedia before saying that. You've reduced it to one-tenth of its size. Just for reference, it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City.
Whether you like it or not, what the American army has caused in Iraq is equivalent to killing 1 million Americans. What you obviously fail to see is that your pretense to neutrality is actually a point of view, no less biased than calling the casualties "heavy".
Yes, those who start wars bear the moral burden and blame. Those who do the killing bear it too; but when you start a war, especially an unjust one for selfish reasons, you cannot wash your hands of the consequences.
-- Borisknezevic 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Boris. Replace Vatican City with Pitcairn Islands and there you go. Heavy is a POV, 100,000 is NPOV. And you know which one is welcome at Wikipedia. Rangeley 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You obviously no clue about the history of the Middle East, Rangeley, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. I don't really feel like giving you a history lesson, except to point out - have you asked yourself why Saddam wasn't removed when he was actually committing all these atrocities? (Now almost 20 years ago)...Why the first Bush administration turned a blind eye? Bush the elder said something to the effect, he may me a murderous dictator, but he is OUR dictator.
Yes he did - or someone in the administration did - look it up. They not only helped the Ba'ath to power, but funded Saddam throughout the Iran-Iraq war. That's pretty uncontroversial, for anyone who cares to be informed.
-- Borisknezevic 10:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, that brings into play issues you have no knowledge of and which I don't care to educate you about...
If it's not about oil, why Iraq and not North Korea, which satisfies all the criteria, AND actually is known and has been known for a while to possess nuclear weapons?
Oh, I see, so you attack a country that doesn't even have WMD, or links to international terrorism, to show how tough you are on WMD and terrorism?? So it's really not about principle, for in that case the US would be attacking North Korea too - it's simply about powerplay and realpolitik...Gosh, what was I thinking - of course we can't attack North Korea even though they actually have WMD and are an evil totalitarian country, because of the repercussions, military and political.
But that's the point anyway, isn't it? I mean who in their right mind would attack a country that actually has WMD?? If Iraq actually did, and we knew they did, or had powerful neighbours who do to protect them (like N Korea/China), who in their right mind would invade Iraq?
Or Saudi Arabia - a dictatorial, totally undemocratic, Islamofascist nation which supplied 19 of the 20 September 11 hijackers and clearly DOES have links to Al Qaeda - BUT is friendly with the US and happilly collaborates with the US in the oil business through private channels...?
Oh really? But Saddam of course did have ties to Al Qaeda, right? even though there was even less evidence that that to support the link. (if you can't read the subtext, it's as follows - there is more evidence linking SA to Al Qaeda than there is linking Iraq)
Jeez, you really gotta think your arguments through, man.
Osama bin Laden, by the way, does have links to the Royal Family, even though they claim to have disowned him...
Are you even aware that America and Britain have frequently overthrown popular, democratically elected governments in the middle east?
Fine. Let's say around the world, then, not just in the middle east, where there hasn't been that much democratic fervor lately anyway. Or, without even going that broadly, the Arab world. Take Algiers, for example - military dictatorship rules with Western backing for 30 years, democratic elections ten years ago or so, Islamic party wins, the militarists take back power in a bloody civil war with deaths in the hundreds of thousads, America and Europe hardly bat an eyelid.
The fact that Saddam was a dictator was just a convenient excuse to invade and kill thousands of people to protect Western oil interests.
An excuse they didn't have in Iran in 1953, when immediatelly following the Mossadegh government's announcement that they would nationalize the oil industry, American and British spies engineered the overthrow that brought the Shah to power. A year later, the new government signed a new oil deal with a consortium of American, British, Dutch, and French oil companies.
Mind you, Iran was not only democratic in the 1950s (before the West intervened), they were more progressive than many western nations were at the time. Islamo-fascism has gained ground since then, as a reaction to Western meddling in the region...extremism begets extremism. -- Borisknezevic 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Right - so that makes it justified? Moving toward the soviet camp in what way? So, that means democracy is okay, so long as people don't vote socialist governments that will ally with the Soviets? In that case, we can overthrow democractic government and impose our own dictators, to show them the RIGHT path. Oh but wait, why were we fighting the soviets in the first place? Didn't it have something to do with democracy? Gosh, what a stupid argument, CJK. To tell you the truth, it's pretty uncontroversial that the Americans and British got involved in Iran purely for economic reasons, and in fact immediately after the world court decided they had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter of the oil concession contract between the Iranian government and the Anglo-Iranian oil company, because it was not an 'international treaty' for their purposes, but a mere contract...that pissed off the British big time...
Oh, I see, because oil is expensive that means that can't have been the cause (of the Iraq war). Scuse me - who is getting hurt by high oil prices? The oil companies? Yeah, sure, I bet Bush's buddies are suffering a lot, what with oil costing so much, having to sell it so expensively and getting all those nice plum contracts...
It's not about prices, stupid, it's about who controls what and who is making money on it. It's about power - economic and political. As for prices, there is much more than the Iraq war affecting them.. And again, if you look beyond your tunnel vision, you might see there are people benefiting from high oil prices.
Sorry that you are so misinformed. I wish I could spare the time to tell more, but I really don't feel like it. Clearly you not only lack knowledge about the middle east, but you badly need a crash course in economics, too.
Saying that 100,000 isn't POV while "heavy" is is a bit like saying that calling what the Nazis did to the Jews, or the Serbs to the Bosnians, is not "Genocide". So, we have to stick to numbers - who's to say that 6 million, or 250,000 is Genocide? Who's to say that 10,000 (much less than Iraq, mind you) Kosovars constitutes a humanitarian crisis that calls for military intervention? You might find a kindred spirit there in Noam Chomsky, who denies that there was Genocide in Bosnia, or that Kosovo was justified. Of course, he would treat Iraq differently, because like you, he is a moral opportunist and will use whatever suits his agenda...
There is in some ways little difference between hard left and hard right - maybe you should think about buddying up! You might have some substantive political disagreements (say on whether the Iraq war was just or not) but you're both moral opportunists and both morally crooked in similar ways...
-- Borisknezevic 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If you cared to look it up, it's no conspiracy. What I said about Iran is pretty uncontroversial. And you will find the same pattern throughout the middle east.
-- Borisknezevic 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this is getting irrelevant fast. Its interesting that you question my knowledge on the middle east, because if you were right and I knew nothing, it would hold no bearing whatsoever on this POV issue. "Heavy" is a point of view, whether in the sense of weight, or in the sense of casualties. If I were to pick up a box filled with books, I might say that it was heavy. You might pick it up and say no, it is not heavy at all. As 'Heavy' is relative, it would be innapropriate to choose the view that it is heavy over the view that it is not heavy for the purposes of a neutral, factual encyclopedia such as this. You would instead put down that it was 50 pounds, as this is not relative, and is factual. Likewise, you would use the factual statistics for the purposes of this, and not a relative term like 'heavy,' or 'light.' Rangeley 01:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to other comments, not just yours, might have mixed up who was saying what...
-- Borisknezevic 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, it was directly below my last response, and began "You obviously no clue about the history of the Middle East, Rangeley," so yea. Rangeley 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Instead of just changing the grouping under "War on Terror" back and forth, let's discuss it here, please. KevinPuj 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I would point you to here where the debate is also taking place. Rangeley 21:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Lol, lets take it elsewhere guys. May the war on POV and editing continue...-- Existential Thinker 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
hmm The Haunted Angel 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ( The Haunted Angel 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
I'd propose removing the "War on Terror" grouping, adding a subsection explaining the contoversey (which occurs outside wikipedia as well) and linking to the appropriate articles in said subsection. We can get into the same huge debat on the 2003 iraq invasion page or we can just recognize that people disagree about whether or not Iraq is part of the War on Terror and explain the debate within the article. If people agree I'm happy to write it up. -- Jsn4 10:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, as the War on Terrorism article cites, the term of "war on terrorism" has been in existence for many years--Ronald Reagan used it in the 1980s when all those hijackings, etc were going on. So, putting the Iraq war into this "war on terrorism" label confuses rather than clears up the issue. It's obvious that the label is more of a rhetorical tool used by various leaders than an an actual "war." Again, I agree with Jsn4 on this--leave the label out and address the dispute elsewhere in the article--I've added a "war on terrorism" link to the prelude section, which someone should expand to address this dispute. Publicus 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What happened to this section? It appears blank on the page as of Apr 3, 2006...
This whole entry seem likes its from a liberal POV and it should be more nuetral.
This paragraph seems very pov to me: "According to opinion polls, the war was unpopular from its beginning in many Coalition countries. The war's unpopularity was reflected in widespread protests, including the largest worldwide protest in human history on February 15th, 2003 (eg., a day of Global protests against war in Iraq). The Iraq War was widely viewed by many critics as counterproductive. Many viewed the war as improper (being a moral and ethical violation) and illegal under international law. By the summer of 2005, there was an increase in the number of individuals in the United States that felt the same way."
A lot of uses of the word "Many", "Widely viewed", "many critics", etc. It claims "many" opinion polls, but does not cite them. It claims the largest world wide protest, but this is currently under factual debate and is inaccurate information. There is no compelling reason for anything but the last sentence to stay. Swatjester 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Headline text" header is showing on sections 4 and 5 of the ToC. How do I remove this (I didn't change anything to make it like that, I just noticed it as I stumbled across) Swatjester 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That information is inaccurate. While the other list of countries against the war is accurate, saying the "majority" of the NAM members are against is inaccurate as the majority have not even made official statements either way. Swatjester 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, THAT's why it looked weird to me. Can we fix that? Swatjester 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
While reading the article, I happened to notice that Zargaqi's connections to Al-Queda were reffered to as only beggining with his public pledge of allegiance to Bin-Laden. A brief analysis of his autobiography makes it quite clear that he was well-aquainted with Bin-Laden, as well as the larger community of fundamentalist Islamic militants, by as early as 1991, and that these connections continued during his relocation of operations to Iraq, as evidenced by his operations in the Ansar al-Islam camp in Northern Iraq, which has been alleged by intelligence agencies and local witnesses to have connections to Al-Queda, a likely claim given the organization's ubiquitous ties to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.
Sources supporting this are numerous, two I used are here: http://www.worldhistory.com/zarqawi.htm http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm
On another note, while I understand and deeply respect the open-ended philosophy of Wikipedia, I think the issues involved in the Iraq war are too contentious at present to be alterable by anyone who visits the site. I would advocate that on certain topics where are large amount of suspect information and language is routinely slated for editing, (such as is obvious here) that the general editors of the encyclopedia consider temporarily closing the topic and determining among themselves the best information, perhaps only accepting submissions for further alteration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.231.17.182 ( talk • contribs) .
Where should I put information about the Lincoln Group? -- Gbleem 20:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed: In the siege of Fallujah, any person suspected of being an enemy combatant was to be targeted - at any age, with the regualar guidlines being someone over the age of 16. This information and more can be seen in the documentary - "Fallujah - the hidden massacre"' ... from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm JDR 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I remove the following sentance: Unfortunately, the emergence of a theocracy after a civil war still seems a very real possibility. The sentence was found in a paragraph detailing what the supporters of the war were saying, so not only was the above phrased in a non encyclapedic way it also was located in the wrong section. Deathawk 04:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the paragraph stating that the U.S. used posion gas against civilians in Fallujah. The military used white phosphourous gas as smoke screens which is perfectly legal. This can be found at [1] IndieJones 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
White phosphorus is not a gaseous grenade. It is an incendiary grenade. The whole "poison gas" thing is media propoganda, from people who have probably never used a phosphorus grenade before. Phosphorus grenades are used in 3 situations: To ignite sensitive, non-metallic material for destruction, to mark an area with smoke, and as an anti-personell weapon. People believe mistakenly that it is a chemical weapon because it burns people. In fact, it is a thermal weapon, and the burns are thermally/fire delivered. Oh, and I've been to Fallujah: If anyone used poison gas there, we'd know because hundreds or possibly thousands of people would have died from it.
Anyway, I agree with the other people on the talk page saying there is WAY too much POV in this article. Swatjester 21:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Doldrums Doldrums talk removed documented from "largest documented worldwide protest" - are there larger undocumented protests? ... A problem is that each generation and news media coverage thinks it is seeing the largest protests ever, the largest humanitarian disaster ever, and so forth. Should there be some link to some history of protests, as a proportion of the population of the day, to show how protests against the war in Iraq compare to protests aganst the war in Vietnam, against having nuclear weapons, in favor of Civil Rights, and other topics? User:AlMac| (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Last November, up to 200,000 people protested in Trafalgar Square when US President George W. Bush was in London for a state visit. Ahead of the Iraq war in February 2003, police estimated that one million people descended on the capital to protest the looming invasion, while organisers said the figure was nearer two million. " [2]
More info on the size of the Feb15 protests can be found at February 15, 2003 anti-war protest. While it is true that there is some contention about whether the individual protests were the biggest ever for the countries they were held in, I have not read any serious assertion that on sum (i.e. world wide) this was not the biggest protest in history. There are lots of ref's to commentators who talk about these being the biggest ever protests on the page.-- JK the unwise 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is there not a "Disputed" header at the top of this topic page? Practically everything in here is skewed to one point of view or the other and it's hard to decipher what is fact from fiction. The same applies for the 'Invasion of Iraq' topic as well.
You can dispute the article by putting {{POV}} at the top of the article.You must also explain your problem with the article here on talk. keith 03:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
First sentence of article: The Iraq War or War in Iraq1,2 is both an informal and a formal American term
What is the source for this being a _formal_ name? Derex 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember anything about the war in iraq being about democracy (the last point in that list) back when the Bush Administration was touting it; I'm pretty sure that came later. Anyone have a source on that? Disavian 14:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' might be a giveaway there... but maybe it isn't. Just my thinking. (t.z0n3)
George W. Bush's original reason to go to Iraq was to protect American interests by upholding their security. But since no proof of WMD's was found, the war's motto has now become "bringing the light of democracy into the Middle East". This is in my opinion, just the correct political way to justify what America is doing in Iraq. Perhaps this is a noble cause, because in the long run, a self elected Iraqi government is a lot better than Saddam's one party rule. However, I seriously doubt that was the original reason to go to Iraq. After all there's a lot other non-democratic countries in the world, whose idealogies may be opposed to the US.
Just ot point out , the suggestion that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida was not really used in the UK as justification for the war. I get the impression that this was used in the US, and presented as fact by certain media outlets (notably Fox News), but as far as I can remember, no major media outlet in the UK actually presented this idea as fact- or even gave it any real airtime at all. The first i heard of it were reports on the way the US media were covering the build up to the war in Iraq.
The Blair administration's main justification for going to war was that if Iraq had WMD, these could be sold/ given to terrorists.
As we now know, there were never any WMD in Iraq and there certainly never was an al-Qaida link, but I thought it was important to point out that the mainstream media in Britain and the rest of Europe, whether countries supporting or opposed to the invasion, did not follow this story.
Im putting a POV sign on this article. My problems with this are that we must agree that the "no-fly-zones" prior to the march 2003 war were in fact according to UN standards ILLEGAL, and that the note about the largest demonstrations EVER were simply deleted and not modified. I dont have the time to give you the references but i remember a figure of millions of people from the whole world, were out demonstrating against that war. 131.130.138.156 Sanchez 14:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not be unilateral. The largest demonstrations part was deleted because it could not be verified and cited. And we "MUST" not agree about anything, regarding the no fly zones. They were perfectly legal as part of the terms of Iraqs cease-fire after the Gulf War. Do not be so demanding, it won't help you get your way here.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That's called content forking, and isn't allowed here. This is an encyclopedia, we only make one article here from a neutral POV of things here. We don't make different versions of articles with different POV's to satisfy both sides, please see WP:NPOV for details. As for citing, nobody should ever cite wikipedia as a source on any article......everyone should know that.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
13:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ooops...I actually didn't mean to revert the POV tag back out, I clicked on the wrong thing in popups. I'll go ahead and put it back up.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
13:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The following text was added to the top of the page - while someplace for it should be found, it's certainly not at the top of this article.
— QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
News coverage that includes video recordings of actual events are not "talk" issues. They are objective, tangible recordings and are, by definition, history. (History is a recording of the past.) Talk is about opinions. Facts, including videos that capture historical events, should be on the article's page.
You can discuss the ramifications of a video on the talk page all you want, but the video itself is a historical record and should be on the article page. In this way, videos are no different than a digitial picture of the U.S. Constitution. --
First off, according to the NPR link, they are teenagers, not children. Big difference, considering in Iraq teenagers are often involved in gang violence, sometimes even against the soldiers. Furthermore, the teenagers were throwing rocks and makeshift grenades at the soldiers, again according to the NPR link. So if we're going to be talking about showing all the facts, we need to actually DO so.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Second, the video is still an allegation according to the NPR interview, it has not yet been confirmed. I'm not saying don't put it out at all, I'm just saying wait until Tony Blair's investigation completes it's findings and proves it before putting it up. If you do put it up before then it will need to have an "allegedly" before it.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
> Swatjester, justify the removing of the link to the article http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10561. The article text clearly is neutral point of view. Is there something you object to in the article, other than it was written by Muslims? Furthermore, if anything we should be adding more articles and external links, not just removing the ones you don't like. If you think an external link has point of view, then add another external link with a different point of view. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia and should have external links that show all points of views.
I'll give you an hour to justify the removal before adding it back. I know your watching this article like a hawk, as am I.
- M
You're right too, there should be more links added....but we don't need more than one or two on any active topic. The NPR link and the article said the same things, but which one looks more Nonbiased? NPR does in a heartbeat.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I think there needs to be a link to the video from a different site. a) the current video link goes to an error page, direct linking not allowed. b) the current link goes to a page entitled "8 american soldiers brutally beat iraqi children" which is clearly incorrect as they're obviously british soldiers. I'm sure someone here can find a better video link, if not then I will. Oh and on another note....ironically CNN has no news coverage on their website about the video. Nor does fox news. nor does abc news
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say " http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"
The allegations by Bassem Shaker, 27, and Tariq Abdul-Razzak, 14, were presented to the media at the office of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the coalition forces."
A 27 year old doesn't seem like a child to me. Furthermore: "Mr Shaker said British troops fired volleys of rubber bullets at the protesters in a bid to disperse them.
Witnesses and officials at the time said British troops and Iraqi police had fired at armed, stone-throwing protesters, killing six people and wounding 11."
[b]"Assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades"[/b]
The article makes NO mention of children whatsoever. So before you all let your emotions run wild over this: a) they weren't children. b) they had hand grenades. c) they lied about their demonstrators being killed. None of this excuses the abuse. BUT we all need to approach this with a clear head.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(Stop deleting my comments on this talk page. This is considered vandalism)
As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say " http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"
I'm not going to argue with you any further. Please donot take this personally, but I do not think you can view this with an open mind.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
SWAT, being able to throw a grenade and shoot a gun is not a rite of passage to adulthood. The United States Government (indirectly, through the CIA) trained child soldiers in El Salvador to fight against the FMLN. Were these forcibly conscripted children (who were as young as nine) adults? I appreciate that a United States soldier such as yourself is participating with wikipedia; however, I currently can't see how this article has a NPOV. -- SeanMcG 08:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You can all misrepresent my opinion all you want, but I'm only defending that the ones in their teens should be considered adults. It's ludicrous to claim that an 8 year old is an adult. But the fact is in much of the non-western world, you are a man at the age of 16. In Judaism, the passage to manhood begins at 13. In African countries it can begin in the 14-16 period. That is ADULT whether our western customs like it or not. The world is not centered upon our American beliefs, and it's high time that we started accepting that in ALL situations, not just the ones we deem acceptable. (Oh, it's ok to shout that we're spreading our american imperialism with our viewpoints on democracy, and religion, but god forbid we kill or beat armed teenagers with hand grenades and suddenly we should be demanding a US-centered viewpoint.)
Now I only came back here by request. I'm absolutely sickened by the brainwashed vehemence and anti-US hatred expressed by so many so called "liberals" on Wikipedia. So I'm going to stay out of here again, and any further questions about it can take place on my User Talk (click my name in my signature). Cheers.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
09:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd further like to clarify one thing you point out in your example Sean: The CIA's clandestine operations are not the dictated policy of the Department of Defense, nor necessarily that of the President. As is mentioned in a link from the article here on the National Clandestine Service, the CIA's Directorate of Operations is required to conduct an estimated several tens of thousands of activities that would be considered by a host country as "illegal" yearly. Their agents are placed in great danger on a daily basis, and as such, their activities cannot be directly supervised by the DDO. I don't say this to defend individual agents, or justify past actions, just a warning against the habit of painting the "big bad government" with a wide brush..... So many people here like nothing better than to bash our government, bash our military, but yet make no effort whatsoever to understand it, to gain knowledge of it, or even to join it and effect change from the inside. It sickens me. When I was fresh back in the states from my deployment, and coming to terms with my PTSD, I nearly took my own life after being spit upon and called a baby-killer by some brainwashed hippy who, upon questioning from one of my friends, knew nothing about the military, did not know me, didn't know the basic concepts of civics and american government. Unfortuantely that's the view that I get from many people who claim to be "liberals" or "anti-war" on wikipedia, indeed on the internet as a whole.
I find that the only way to win, is to not play the game at all. If you want further enlightenment, you can talk to me on my talk page, but as for this I'm going to stay stress-free (as much as possible) and keep away from here.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
09:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The "declaration of war" blurb in the second paragraph is a hypothetical "example" of the controversy which only serves to obfucsate getting to the real controversy over the definitive usage of the term Iraq War (which itself is rather limited). To my knowledge there is no debate about referring to the Iraq War as a "war" due to a lack of formal Congressional declaration. Some still claim that the Vietnam War should be referred to as a "military action", but even that usage is so limited that it makes any debate "settled." Because there is no application to the current conflict, its usage is unnecessarily hypothetical and is therefore out of place, out of context, and out of order. - Ste| vertigo 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
A section should be added that correctly illustrates the costs of this war. This article seems to be assuming the position that most western media takes: to whitewash over the distruction and civillian casualties that have been produced by this war. The section should include abuses and atrocities committed by both sides, of course...Any ideas? Amibidhrohi 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't this template included on this page? – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Numerous human rights abuses, most notably those at the Abu Ghraib prison led to widespread criticism of the occupying forces." Is it correct to say "numerous?" Yes there were abuses, but nothing accepted as standard procedure as far as we know right? We could say, "A series of abuses" or something like that. Rmt2m 13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Eagle a m n helped with the translation of this article. I copy it from my talk page to allow everyone to benefit from it. Thank you very much, Eagle a m n ! AlIAS 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I wouldn't consider the article being featured in the Arabic Wikipedia a definite sign of any extra information or even better representation of facts. The Arabic Wikipedia has much lower standards than most other versions. In other words, the English version which is basically written based on media information looks more neutral in my opinion. Having said that, I will describe the Arabic article and let you decide if you would like to use any of the information.
Let me know if you would like anything else in the article translated. - Eagle a m n 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
TwoThirty notes the following on his talk page: The important differences between the Arabic article and the English article are:
Eagle does not have the authority to represent the Arabic section of Wikipedia, he is representing his own opinion, we in Arabic Wikipedia who participated in the article will translate it as soon as we can, Eagle have minor editions in the Arabic article of Iraq invasion which was deleted later because it was biased in nature. Again eagle is only representing himself and he is not the writer of the article. Classic 971 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
while Eagle just wanted to put his own opinion in teh arabic article without discussing it in the discussion page , other editors like Classis_971 did professional work by adding a work supported with refrences ... What eagle considered silly about the iraqi Oil , is really mentioned here
[7] ... maybe we havn,t that high standards for featured articles ..but at least we work honestly and avoiding any POV --
Chaos
17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
-From Chaos' link:
"During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades."
Sounds a little skewed to me. And to think this comes from a UN site. And to think that the US government has taken to working outside such a 'neutral' body. Rob 11:01, 8MAY2006 (UTC)
Have there been UFO sightings during the Iraq War?, if so here are the sources I'd found.
http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=598 http://www.rense.com/general37/filers41603.htm http://www.ufodigest.com/newsletter/2003/2003-04-17.html http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/baghdad.htm http://ufocasebook.com/iraq040304.html
Storm05 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not the appropriate article to ask about UFO sightings. Nothing in the article mentions anything about UFO's having any influence whatsoever on any events related to the Iraq War. DarthJesus 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Likewise we should add some sources describing Bigfoot aiding the insurgents. I know I guy whose sister's friend read about it The Star. I'll see if I can find the link.
The official DoD policy in refrence to the Iraq War is to refer to it as Operation Iraqi Freedom, with a numeral after that to denote which "phase" (apologize already for an ambigious military term). I've been busted out too many times myself for calling it the Iraqi War! Gottalove the Military. Sinnabar 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The following information is related to parts of the article, but I am not sure if it fits here: Insurgencies, frequent terrorist attacks and sectarian violence lead to harsh criticism of US Iraq policy. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. After the Al Askari shrine bombing in February 2006 the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad warned that sectarian violence spread might lead to a civil war in post-invasion Iraq and possibly even the neighbouring countries. [13] De mortuis... 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Its kinda amusing actually. The US ousts out a dictatorship government and then replaces it with a so-called democratic government that would most likely be a puppet government that wins every election and favours the US.
By invading Iraq, the US really can't pull out of it now. If it tries to get out, the whole damn country will definitely collapse into a civil war.
Oh yeah, by the way, where are those WMDs that Bush kept talking about?
Thats all on my mind now.
AllStarZ 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This section is for the discussion of editing the page in question, not a soapbox for people's politics. Please keep posts relevant.
NeoFreak 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)NeoFreak
Why can't we just kiss and make up? What is it that seperates us from the Middle Eastern World? Is it because our differences? Aren't we similar? Don't we hate each other equally? If so why? I think this is deeply rooted in our relations with the Iraq War and it deserves thought.
Here is a quote: "The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?"
----Pablo Casals
I hope that means something to you.
Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.
----Guy de Maupassant
Think on that one too. Oh, and what ever happened to diplomacy? What happened to reason? Just thought you mightlike to think about it.
-- Peter bergquist 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. This is the area of Foreign relations where things get muddled. First of all, did we really "free" or are we "freeing" the Iraqi people? They are in a state of civil disorder much worse than under the rule of their previous dictator, Suddam Hussien( Iraq War). Sure he was a terrible guy, but that doesn't justify the occupation and terrorization of a country's people. Surely the extension of the first Gulf war (headed off by Bush senior) into the "War on Terror", is a mockery within itself. It is not the Iraqis who are terrorizing us it we who are terrorizing them. Is it not? We invaded Iraq. First we were set to find WMDs that the President reported to have "thought" they had them and that we should go "get 'em." Of course there was no evidence found to back this "theory" up. Then, it became an operative to catch members of the Al Qeada( Iraq War). That was settled, but did really have to do much Iraq? At any rate it left the people in a worse situation again. Now it is the idea that we are going to "free" the Iraqis and give them Democracy. Absolutely outrageous! Who are we to say "our" ways are best( Nationalism)? So, when you say that this has nothing to do with nationlistic values and imperialistic ambitions, think again. There is much to gain from this war economically in the U.S.( Iraq War), despite its high cost of life. Do you really think that the 21st century is immune to Nationalistic poison that you spoke of? Peter bergquist 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dissent and Deliverance
I think that it would be valuable to hear from someone from Iraq, preferably a citizen of Iraq and a U.S. soldier. This would really be the POV I would like to hear, but I know it would be difficult or unlikely for this to happen. I don't know enough about what the people in Iraq think, and it was wrong of me to judge so. However, it would be interesting to hear these POV of an Iraqi citizen and U.S. soldier. Sorry for any misunderstandings or bad judgements in my previous article.--Existential Thinker 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The place where we differ in the understanding of the Iraq War is its purpose If we are really set out to bringing democracy and reconstructing Iraq then why did Bush start bombing Iraq again? He referred to the "air strike" intiative in Iraq as "Political maneuvers." The Bush Administration is quite infamous for their fancy euphenisms and parliamentary rhetoric used to confuse a great deal of the fooled populus in America. It seems strange that we are trying to help a country with reconstruction while bombing more cities in that country. I fail to comprehend the logic of our Administration. Another suprising thing is the lack of evidence the Bush Administration has provided to back up their ideas or theories. In reference to IEDs in Iraq and our trouble dealing with them in the battle field, the President said they contained components from Iran. Although they said they had no evidence to back this up in the conference at The Defense of Democracy. Our strange strageties that we are using fit under a quote from Ed Helm (from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart)regarding our recontruction efforts, "we're not good at infrastructure, we're good at un-frastructure."-- 67.138.36.33 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me make it clear then. We have been occupying Iraq since the Gulf War, and you are right by stating my misquote (regarding Bush and the "again"). I meant to say the U.S. in general. Although, I was alluding to the original air strikes in the beginning of the war. I have no clue where you got the idea the this war is a "just" war. The lack of initial evidence in the invasion of Iraq was astounding. The fact that there was a cruel dictator does not justify our actions. The mere fact that we invaded without the proper U.N. authority, since the invasion was in direct violation of U.N. charter. This was a grave error by the current Adminsitration, therefore making the Iraq war a perfect example of imperialistic action and enterprise. There is no way one can crawl from this hole, and the U.S. is trapped in it. That's my POV.--Existential Thinker 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC) The only way one can justify our invasion of Iraq is if that individual sides with imperialism.--Existential Thinker 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Under what terms is the U.N. a fascist organization? They are not an oppresive or dictatorial government system. They are an international regulator in the actions and decisions of countries. Claiming the U.N. to be a fascist group is not only false, but the intentions are obviously to blacken their name. They probably had good reason to advise the U.S. that invading Iraq (without any evidence on their claims, what so ever) was unwise. In hindsight it is quite apparent that we stuck or selves in a thick quagmire in the beginning. The claims made to the U.N. is certainly your strategy in justifying the invasion. In your response, "you will realize that all your talk about plans before the war is just irrelevant noise." I thought it interesting that you made such a statement. This means we went to war on irrelevant noise, does it not? What does that make every million (exaggeration) reason that the Administration calimed after the war was started, about what the reason for our actions were. No, I'm afraid not, the Bush administration completed the invasion under the terms of what now is said to be democracy, even though its true ambtion were entirely imperialism. The dictator that was removed was our own doing, and the war we debate today is the job Bush senior couldn't finish, and his son is now finishing. Thus, is the Bush legacy and their grab for power in this world that has corrupted the people and the government. The government leaders that can be observed in the U.S., in my opinion, are completely moronic and incapable of any intelligent governmenting observable in the history of mankind. They deserve to be displaced from their seats of power before this war becomes a global affair, for it could be the end of us all.-- Existential Thinker 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
First, the U.N. is not a national program it is international; second, it is not autocratic because there are many representatives from countries all over the world (who each have a say in what is decided internationally). The U.N. has establishments all over the world, therefore making them an international program. The fact that the U.N. is not only one nation but many, making it impossible to fall under nationalistic terms. That is the complete irony of the situation. If anything the term fascism falls much more closely to defining the U.S.-- Existential Thinker 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Folks, this article is very POV. I am opposed to the war and I think most reasonable people, when provided with accurate, neutral information also oppose it. Passages like
The more exclusive definitions of the "Iraq War" term...rest on rationalizations that tend to disagree, in various opinions, with direct or meaningful comparisons with other conflicts, though these are largely found in stated (or perceived) goals by the Coalition for the invasion and occupation. A better metric to determine precisely who the war is being waged upon should compare the number of unarmed civilian Iraqi deaths by the various combatants with the number of armed civilians and Iraqi soldiers killed in the war....
can't be in here. This is biased, uncited original research. The topic here is "rationalization", but this is trying to declare "who the war is being waged upon". Who came up with this "better metric" and why is it used at all in this paragraph?
The chemical weapons stuff is way over hyped. People were burned to death -- horrible yes. Chemical weapons -- no. The grenades utilize chemicals, just like every sort of grenade utilizes chemicals, just like every sort of bullet and bomb use chemicals (just like humvees and helicopters use chemicals). Merely using chemicals does not make a weapon a chemical weapon. Killing is a morally abhorrent thing, but keep the bias out. For anyone with a soul it would be bad enough to just say that people were burned to death by phospohorous grenades.
Justforasecond 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is nearly useless and unreadable. WAAAYYY too much POV, uncited sources, poor grammer, and generally just really crappy writing. Regardless of whether someone is opposed to the war or supports it--putting all these points and counter-points in an article just make the article more confusing and unreadable--not to mention a poor reference. Please stop adding things about how bad or good something is based on your pro/anti-war position and focus on adding actual relevant facts--let the historians sort out who was right or wrong. Publicus 13:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I am sorry for my extremist POVs, and if I affended you I hope you will forgive me. As you can tell from my articles I am at best an amateur writer, not to mention a minor. I understand all that the public domain in this discussion page has made several comments on my contributions, stating that I should drop my "biased" POVs. Maybe I have been unfair in doing so. I will work hard at being a little more balanced in my POV and support my articles with more data. I am working towards becoming a better Wikipedian and writer, fore I am new to Wikipedia. I thank you for your suggestions and comments and I hope you can give me some tips and pointers. However, I'll have you know that I am strong in my belief of what I think is right or wrong. I see these values on either side of the current war in Iraq. It is hard to weigh the rights and wrongs of each side, as you know. I am not trying to judge people for their actions and form irrational conclusions, for it would be wrong of me to do so. No, I am here to rationally distinguish certain wrongs on each side and back it up with some evidence. I have reason for my action. If this discussion page is more concerned with who is using POV or showing too much opinion in their articles, than getting to the bottom of things in a reasonable manner, then I will have nothing to do with it. POV or opinion is a right that we hold, and should be exercised, it makes us unique as indivduals. Facts are facts and that's a fact. However, how you interpret that fact is POV, and that is partof the beauty and intelligence that is valued in discourse. It is a value, I think that has been left to rot in our society. That is my POV on POVs.-- Existential Thinker 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Existential Thinker, I understand that POV can be a difficult thing to deal with especially on something like a war. But keep in mind, you can always create references to an infinite number of related articles on any subject. However, there needs to be at least one starting point that everyone can agree on from which to link these other articles. The main goal (especially with this article) is to present all the relevant facts and information and then link articles on relevant points. Publicus 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The removal of quotes wasn't discussed here. The deletion of large sections without good reasons is called blanking. I see no good reason stated here, so please do not blank the quotes again. -- OrbitOne Talk| Babel 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Bush quotes to the Iraq disarmament crisis. There was no analysis of the quotes within this article they were simply a list of quotes. Since all of the quotes deal with a time period before the war and contain language rationalizing the war, I feel they are a better fit to a specific article dealing with the runup to the war--rather than a general article discussing all aspects of the war. Publicus 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Publicus and Justforasecond that the article needs a lot of work but I think the major problem isn't POV, it's that the article starts off with long-winded, pedantic asides on terminology and rationales. We shouldn't be calling "Iraq war" an informal term, it is simply the standard term routinely used by journalists to refer to the fighting which started with the 2003 invasion and continues to this day. There isn't really much of a difference between "Iraq war", "Iraq War", and "war in Iraq". The first alternative, with lower case "war", seems to be more common in news reports, so we should just use that and stick with it. Also, though we should briefly summarize President Bush's justifcations for the war, the long passages from his speeches are not necessary. Primarily this article should present the basic facts, the groups involved and the phases of the fighting, with links to other, more detailed articles on each of these. Brian Tvedt 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I like that intro too Mr. Tibbs--a lot cleaner. Sorry for the numerous edits wtout edit summary, a lot of them were just typos and moves within the article, housekeeping type stuff, etc. The article was just so unuseable, I guess I went a little edit-crazy-lol. Publicus 13:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a subtle POV all through parts of this article. Take for instance the caption "Unrepaired infrastructure and a risk of being killed either by U.S. occupiers or insurgents had made life difficult to average Iraqis." The use of weasel words and phrases like "killed by U.S. occupiers " shifts the tone of the article to be somewhat anti-war. -- 204.77.40.48 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is somewhat innacurate to have Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the top opponent. While they obviously were the opponent during the invasion itself, they are no longer being fought in the Iraq War. Rangeley 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It states in the opening paragraph that it wasnt originally said that the war was for humanitarian reasons and democracy. This is false. Iraq_War-_Rationale#The_two_points_of_view. Donald Rumsfeld gave these as the reasons prior to the invasion. Saying that they werent given as reasons does accurately represent a common anti war talking point, however it does not accurately represent reality, or NPOV. Rangeley 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Should something be added to the article about the Tony Blair\GWB meeting that said the war was planned in advance? I think the memo is linked as an external site, but shouldn't there be something about it in the article itself?
68.148.168.84 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"Instability and a massive amount of terrorist acts committed against civilians". I think that "instability" is debatable and so is the phrase "massive amount". 68.100.115.135 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)KevinPuj
The following facts you may or may not know:
Basically we created our own war, so if you say that there is any other reason, you are merely stating fabrication and pretense that the U.S. Administration planned. Obviously there is some other goal in mind when it comes to the Iraq War cause, I will not state my opinion on this subject since it is heatedly debated and argued with vehement passion by many. I don't wish to take part in that war. To justify our actions by "bringing democracy" to the Middle-east is by far the most illusive of all fabrications. Hello, wake up and smell the coffee, it's time for "Shock and Awe" (a cruel euphemism which translates to "air assault") for breakfast, then a little "Democracy" with your afternoon tea! I don't think it could be anymore crystal clear, but then comes the question, what are we doing in Iraq and why are we doing it? (links to factual references are to follow)-- Existential Thinker 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is good to understand both sides of the argument, and I'm glad you're playing your role so well, but always remember to question yourself before others. It is easier to put blame on others than to accept the blame and be shameful, that is true courage.-- Existential Thinker 03:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence of this article, which begins "Majority of the costs to Iraqi people consist of large amount of dead civilians..." is POV, and also does not belong under the heading "Financial costs of the Iraq war" It has little to do with the finacial costs of war, and placed under that heading only serves to elicit a reader response to the phrase "dead civilians." I'll try to find some sources about actual infrastructure damage and economic disruption. 71.132.24.187 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)bamonster
Oh, and the part about civilian casualties and financial loss, where did you come up with that? I think it comes as a given that civilian casualties are not a financial loss, I mean when has life been worth anything in material? Infrastructure, as well as oil lines (which are part of the infrastructure), has been the largest cost to Iraqi nation.-- Existential Thinker 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
"At the same time, we must remember that an investigations after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way." In other words, Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector, found such evidence. KevinPuj 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the caption because it was incorrect. White phosphorus is an incendiary, not a chemical weapon. TheKaplan 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, it looks like shit. Info that extensive doesn't belong in an infobox. Moreover, the war is ongoing, so "results" is not wholly accurate. Phrases like "unprecedented terrorism" is OR and POV. Serbs might beg to differ. I would reserve "results" for permanent changes, so things like the corporate management of resources and destruction/rebuilding of infrastructure don't belong. Please do present all sides in the article.....but this is an infobox! Point by point:
* Overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government.
* Civilian deaths of at least 100,000-300,000 and multiple times more of injured civilians
* Destruction of infrastructure (homes of entire cities, electricity, water, schools, medical care)
* Large instability, massive amount of random civilian deaths caused by Iraqi insurgency and the occupying forces, general worsening of security conditions
* Unprecedented terrorism.
* Election of a representative government. Full participation of minority Kurds and majority Shi'ites in governmental power while Sunnites lost significant power.
* The switching in the currecy used to sell Iraqi oil from Euros back to US Dollars
* Management of natural resources moved from the Iraq government to multinational corporations (mainly based in the U.S.)
* Termination of the U.N. Oil for Food programme
I'm removing the last three. -- Mmx1 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and wikified various things that Rmt2m's version left out, it made it a bit longer, but it's still shorter than the prior version. Please keep the wikilinks intact, as it makes things easier on the reader given the large amount of articles on this subject. Next thing on the agenda is we need a picture for that infobox like all the others have. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The major problem that I see with the articles on Iraq, the new Iraqi government, human rights abuses in Iraq, etc. is that the articles are more pro-war and anti-war editors trying to justify or criticize the war than editors documenting historically significant things about the war. These articles are not encyclopediac at all. Twenty years from now, most of this extremely specific information won't be useful to someone researching these events. They'll want to know what happened, rather than every single case for and against the war. This article needs major work. Thoughts? KevinPuj 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Twenty years from now they Will want to know exactly what led to this war and the political ramifications, just like people do with the Vietnam War today. However a Military Aspects of the Iraq War page could be made. In summary what happened Is "every single case for and against the war". This is particularly true of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq itself whose military aspect only lasted about a week but whose political, economic and strategic ramifications are being felt and escalating to this day. And Rmt2m it is not true that "any nation at war goes through instability..." there are numerous conflicts that were relatively clean such as Operation Just Cause (US invasion of Panama). But even in such conflicts the negative effects of the conflict must be documented, and cannot be white-washed. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You're simply pushing talking points. Why not list "Part of the Global Struggle Against Extremism?"
Placing "part of the war on terror" in the title is placing a POV of a heavily contested point. This is a war. Give it a name. Then, in the body of the article, discuss the history of war, and justifications for entering it.
Because it is generally accepted to have been an intentially falsified claim (read Paul O'Neill and other Bush Administration defectors). Of course, it is a historical fact that the Bush Administration claimed that the Iraq War was part of the WOT; but in that case this should be mentioned as such within the body of the article, along with references to former members of the Bush administration who have since come out saying that they wanted to invade Iraq from the start and that it had nothing to do with terrorism.
In other words, the "War on Terrorism" timeline doesn't belong in the References section, because it appears to give credibility to the Bush Administration's false and now wholly discredited claim. -- Borisknezevic 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Boris Knezevic
Someone vandalized the war on terror thing to remove it out. It isnt really POV, because whether or not you think it was started to fight terror (which was given as a reason for war), they are fighting terrorists now in it. 9-11, 4-11, and 7-7 are all included in the war on terror, and terrorist attacks happen nearly daily in the Iraq War, so yea, its part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 03:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So, by that rationale, any conflict that the US engages in could be part of the "war on terror", whether the government in question does have links to international terrorism or not..?
In other words, we can invade any country we like, destroy its military force, and when people in desperation turn to terrorist tactics to oppose the US military, we just say "we're fighting terrorism", and voila - the invasion is now justified, even if it wasn't in the first place. Brilliant - you know, that's how the Nazis justified severe treatment of local populations in the countries they occupied - by calling the resistance "terrorists", against whom all measures are justified...(In fact, I think that they were the first to popularize use of the term, in WWII.)
Sorry, that doesn't work. Try again.
-- Borisknezevic 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This same discussion is happening at Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#War_on_Terrorism -- Hermitage 09:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The "War on Terrorism" label is a partisan label, it is not objective. This article deals with a description of the ongoing Iraq War, POV labels are unhelpful. For example, no one calls World War II the "war on fascism" or the "war of European liberation." If you want to talk about how you think Iraq is part of a "war on terrorism" then create an article titled as such with a link to this article. Or create a subsection on this article under "rationales for war." Publicus 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a moral distinction between torturing and executing non-combatants and victims of collateral damage. Moreover, the named individuals were made into media spectacles and are notable enough to have articles of their own.
Secondly, what's Heavy? Compared to 0 or a car crash, it's heavy. The survivors of Iran-Iraq or Stalingrad might beg to differ.
-- Mmx1 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"Collateral damage" is when you drop a bomb to destroy a military installation, and it unavoidably kills civilians. When you shoot people at will (as US troops customarily do), that is not collateral damage. THAT, if you like, is when a conflict moves from "collateral damage" to "heavy" death toll. 30,000 is not collateral damage. 30,000 is heavy.
By your reasoning, we just need to kill more people, and we can reclassify past conflicts as "not heavy"...So if a nuclear war happens and, say, a billion people die - GREAT! Then we can say that WWII, and (to use your examples) Iran-Iraq War, Stalingrad, did not have "heavy" casualties, after all.
Heavy is anything more than necessary, and a lot of people think (more than you can imagine) that none of it was necessary.
-- Borisknezevic 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What makes the American civilians who were killed notable? Because they were made media spectacles? So what you're saying is essentially that the Wikipedia article should reflect the biased obsessions of American media, who extensively report "notable" American deaths while practically ignoring the damage of the war to Iraqis?
-- Borisknezevic 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but Al Jazeera also regularly airs images of Abu Gharib torture, Iraqi civilian deaths, etc. They show a lot of stuff resulting from American military action, and more often, that American (I didn't say Western, actually, and on purpose) media don't. That's the whole point. What you said is a credit to Al Jazeera, that's all. See, you have to think your arguments through before you make them. Otherwise, they just don't work.
Needless to say, nothing you have said in any way indicates why any of the relevant events should be included under "Human Rights Abuses".
As for the heavy casualties, since you need it spelled out, I'll spell it out for you. We're not talking about car accidents, but about war. For a car accident, yes, actually, four dead is a LOT. That's a heavy death toll for a car accident, but in a car accident that's not a matter of necessity. What are heavy casualties in war? "More than necessary" means more than necessary to achieve LEGITIMATE objectives. When you kill 100,000 people, 30,000 civilians (at least) those are heavy casualties. If you don't believe me, maybe you should go fight in a war and see for yourself instead of sitting at home and devaluing human life. At the moment, human life doesn't seem worth much to you, unless it's your own or that of nations you care about. 30,000 more than necessary is "heavy".
When you put someone's words into quotation marks, it would do you good to actually cite the correct words.
-- Borisknezevic 09:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You know, in a war, the primary question is who started it, not who did more damage to whom. The fact that the insurgency has killed more civilians is only a reflection of their military (in)capacity. They can't get to the Americans often enough. Given the American military and technological might, they shouldn't have killed any civilians, but they do, because they're all a bunch of trigger-happy, scared momma's boys who shoot at the first sign of danger. And they started the war, so yes, they carry the responsibility for all casualties, whoever causes them.
Ever hear generals talk about sustaining "heavy casualties" in combat? It's pretty standard talk, for your information.
But since you can't seem to do the math, I'll do it for you. 100,000 dead (civilian and military) is about one third of a percentage of the total Iraqi population. What's one third of a percentage of the American population? Well, just over 1 million people. Now say that there's a war and just over 1 million Americans die - you'd say that's not "heavy", huh? Tsk, tsk.
I was ready to let it go, but since you pushed the issue and made me think about it, I'm changing it back. It's not POV. If that's POV then everything is POV and nothing can ever be said about any war without POV.
As for your comments on Al Jazeera, you're still missing the point and I don't feel like repeating myself.
-- Borisknezevic 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The Vatican City has roughly 90 people living there. If one person were to be killed, thats well over a third of a percent, but would it be 'heavy?' To call it heavy is POV, as is this. Generals speaking of heavy casualties are also using a POV. Just use the number. Further, you cant blame it all on the side that began a war. You place the blame on the person/side that did the killing. Rangeley 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that the statistic for deaths should be used and qualitative words like "heavy" should be avoided. KevinPuj 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The Vatican City has 90 people living there? Gosh, you should have looked it up on Wikipedia before saying that. You've reduced it to one-tenth of its size. Just for reference, it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City.
Whether you like it or not, what the American army has caused in Iraq is equivalent to killing 1 million Americans. What you obviously fail to see is that your pretense to neutrality is actually a point of view, no less biased than calling the casualties "heavy".
Yes, those who start wars bear the moral burden and blame. Those who do the killing bear it too; but when you start a war, especially an unjust one for selfish reasons, you cannot wash your hands of the consequences.
-- Borisknezevic 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Boris. Replace Vatican City with Pitcairn Islands and there you go. Heavy is a POV, 100,000 is NPOV. And you know which one is welcome at Wikipedia. Rangeley 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You obviously no clue about the history of the Middle East, Rangeley, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. I don't really feel like giving you a history lesson, except to point out - have you asked yourself why Saddam wasn't removed when he was actually committing all these atrocities? (Now almost 20 years ago)...Why the first Bush administration turned a blind eye? Bush the elder said something to the effect, he may me a murderous dictator, but he is OUR dictator.
Yes he did - or someone in the administration did - look it up. They not only helped the Ba'ath to power, but funded Saddam throughout the Iran-Iraq war. That's pretty uncontroversial, for anyone who cares to be informed.
-- Borisknezevic 10:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, that brings into play issues you have no knowledge of and which I don't care to educate you about...
If it's not about oil, why Iraq and not North Korea, which satisfies all the criteria, AND actually is known and has been known for a while to possess nuclear weapons?
Oh, I see, so you attack a country that doesn't even have WMD, or links to international terrorism, to show how tough you are on WMD and terrorism?? So it's really not about principle, for in that case the US would be attacking North Korea too - it's simply about powerplay and realpolitik...Gosh, what was I thinking - of course we can't attack North Korea even though they actually have WMD and are an evil totalitarian country, because of the repercussions, military and political.
But that's the point anyway, isn't it? I mean who in their right mind would attack a country that actually has WMD?? If Iraq actually did, and we knew they did, or had powerful neighbours who do to protect them (like N Korea/China), who in their right mind would invade Iraq?
Or Saudi Arabia - a dictatorial, totally undemocratic, Islamofascist nation which supplied 19 of the 20 September 11 hijackers and clearly DOES have links to Al Qaeda - BUT is friendly with the US and happilly collaborates with the US in the oil business through private channels...?
Oh really? But Saddam of course did have ties to Al Qaeda, right? even though there was even less evidence that that to support the link. (if you can't read the subtext, it's as follows - there is more evidence linking SA to Al Qaeda than there is linking Iraq)
Jeez, you really gotta think your arguments through, man.
Osama bin Laden, by the way, does have links to the Royal Family, even though they claim to have disowned him...
Are you even aware that America and Britain have frequently overthrown popular, democratically elected governments in the middle east?
Fine. Let's say around the world, then, not just in the middle east, where there hasn't been that much democratic fervor lately anyway. Or, without even going that broadly, the Arab world. Take Algiers, for example - military dictatorship rules with Western backing for 30 years, democratic elections ten years ago or so, Islamic party wins, the militarists take back power in a bloody civil war with deaths in the hundreds of thousads, America and Europe hardly bat an eyelid.
The fact that Saddam was a dictator was just a convenient excuse to invade and kill thousands of people to protect Western oil interests.
An excuse they didn't have in Iran in 1953, when immediatelly following the Mossadegh government's announcement that they would nationalize the oil industry, American and British spies engineered the overthrow that brought the Shah to power. A year later, the new government signed a new oil deal with a consortium of American, British, Dutch, and French oil companies.
Mind you, Iran was not only democratic in the 1950s (before the West intervened), they were more progressive than many western nations were at the time. Islamo-fascism has gained ground since then, as a reaction to Western meddling in the region...extremism begets extremism. -- Borisknezevic 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Right - so that makes it justified? Moving toward the soviet camp in what way? So, that means democracy is okay, so long as people don't vote socialist governments that will ally with the Soviets? In that case, we can overthrow democractic government and impose our own dictators, to show them the RIGHT path. Oh but wait, why were we fighting the soviets in the first place? Didn't it have something to do with democracy? Gosh, what a stupid argument, CJK. To tell you the truth, it's pretty uncontroversial that the Americans and British got involved in Iran purely for economic reasons, and in fact immediately after the world court decided they had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter of the oil concession contract between the Iranian government and the Anglo-Iranian oil company, because it was not an 'international treaty' for their purposes, but a mere contract...that pissed off the British big time...
Oh, I see, because oil is expensive that means that can't have been the cause (of the Iraq war). Scuse me - who is getting hurt by high oil prices? The oil companies? Yeah, sure, I bet Bush's buddies are suffering a lot, what with oil costing so much, having to sell it so expensively and getting all those nice plum contracts...
It's not about prices, stupid, it's about who controls what and who is making money on it. It's about power - economic and political. As for prices, there is much more than the Iraq war affecting them.. And again, if you look beyond your tunnel vision, you might see there are people benefiting from high oil prices.
Sorry that you are so misinformed. I wish I could spare the time to tell more, but I really don't feel like it. Clearly you not only lack knowledge about the middle east, but you badly need a crash course in economics, too.
Saying that 100,000 isn't POV while "heavy" is is a bit like saying that calling what the Nazis did to the Jews, or the Serbs to the Bosnians, is not "Genocide". So, we have to stick to numbers - who's to say that 6 million, or 250,000 is Genocide? Who's to say that 10,000 (much less than Iraq, mind you) Kosovars constitutes a humanitarian crisis that calls for military intervention? You might find a kindred spirit there in Noam Chomsky, who denies that there was Genocide in Bosnia, or that Kosovo was justified. Of course, he would treat Iraq differently, because like you, he is a moral opportunist and will use whatever suits his agenda...
There is in some ways little difference between hard left and hard right - maybe you should think about buddying up! You might have some substantive political disagreements (say on whether the Iraq war was just or not) but you're both moral opportunists and both morally crooked in similar ways...
-- Borisknezevic 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If you cared to look it up, it's no conspiracy. What I said about Iran is pretty uncontroversial. And you will find the same pattern throughout the middle east.
-- Borisknezevic 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this is getting irrelevant fast. Its interesting that you question my knowledge on the middle east, because if you were right and I knew nothing, it would hold no bearing whatsoever on this POV issue. "Heavy" is a point of view, whether in the sense of weight, or in the sense of casualties. If I were to pick up a box filled with books, I might say that it was heavy. You might pick it up and say no, it is not heavy at all. As 'Heavy' is relative, it would be innapropriate to choose the view that it is heavy over the view that it is not heavy for the purposes of a neutral, factual encyclopedia such as this. You would instead put down that it was 50 pounds, as this is not relative, and is factual. Likewise, you would use the factual statistics for the purposes of this, and not a relative term like 'heavy,' or 'light.' Rangeley 01:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to other comments, not just yours, might have mixed up who was saying what...
-- Borisknezevic 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, it was directly below my last response, and began "You obviously no clue about the history of the Middle East, Rangeley," so yea. Rangeley 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Instead of just changing the grouping under "War on Terror" back and forth, let's discuss it here, please. KevinPuj 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I would point you to here where the debate is also taking place. Rangeley 21:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Lol, lets take it elsewhere guys. May the war on POV and editing continue...-- Existential Thinker 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
hmm The Haunted Angel 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ( The Haunted Angel 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
I'd propose removing the "War on Terror" grouping, adding a subsection explaining the contoversey (which occurs outside wikipedia as well) and linking to the appropriate articles in said subsection. We can get into the same huge debat on the 2003 iraq invasion page or we can just recognize that people disagree about whether or not Iraq is part of the War on Terror and explain the debate within the article. If people agree I'm happy to write it up. -- Jsn4 10:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, as the War on Terrorism article cites, the term of "war on terrorism" has been in existence for many years--Ronald Reagan used it in the 1980s when all those hijackings, etc were going on. So, putting the Iraq war into this "war on terrorism" label confuses rather than clears up the issue. It's obvious that the label is more of a rhetorical tool used by various leaders than an an actual "war." Again, I agree with Jsn4 on this--leave the label out and address the dispute elsewhere in the article--I've added a "war on terrorism" link to the prelude section, which someone should expand to address this dispute. Publicus 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)