Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 2

message: Recent edit by IP qualifies that the phrase coalition of the willing was only used by opponents of the war. This is false. The President used the term continuously throughout the first two years of the war. I will revert later unless there is objection. -asx- 11:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: already reverted. I don't know what this edit was from, probably not someone with all his senses at the moment. Rama 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  hehe, thanks. . . ;)  -asx- 19:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coalition of the Willing — Origin of phrase

message: See this footnote for details.  Arabic names do not work the way Western names do, and Saddam is probably the best contraction, Saddam Hussein is also ok, but "Hussein" or "Mr. Hussein" is simply wrong, the correct version would be "Mr. al-Majid" - if you want absolutely nobody to understand who you're talking about, that is.  More details: .  ObsidianOrder 11:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the former dictator of Iraq is "Saddam", not "Hussein" 

message: Under this heading is notation about Korea; however it does not mention which Korea we are talking about. I think that it is safe to assume its South Korea, but assumption and fact are two seperate things. Someone needs to clarify.
:  Rama 08:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries supporting and opposing the war 

message: JamesMLane added the term conquest as a description of the action. He stated that if the term liberation was to be here then so was conquest. I believe the article is already POV simply with the title of invasion, which is POV and others have also had a problem with the title alone. Why add more POV when the effort of adding liberation was an attempt to balance things out...now the addition simply makes it seem more left leaning of an article than it already is. See our own article for a definition of Conquest in which it clearly stated that: "A conquest is the act of conquering a foreign land, usually for its assimilation into a larger federation or empire". I sure don't want Iraq to be the 51st state and I am sure the other member states that participated in the "invasion" have no interest in assimilating Iraq either. If folks don't like the fact that the war occurred that is fine, but this is not the place to discuss the pros and cons...furthermore, the article continues to suffer under a neutrality and now I see an accuracy tag due in no small part to the lack of effort on some editors parts to even attempt to be neutral.--MONGO 07:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conquest of Iraq" 

message: I am not sure that I understand this part: 
: although it was prompted by Iraq's repeated breaches of Security Council resolutions regarding Iraqi disarmament inter alia
could it be explained ? Rama 20:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  prompted by repeated breaches 

message: After copy/paste moves turned this into a mess I'm hoping now that I've fixed it all.  The current article name (2003 Invasion of Iraq) should not be changed without a lot of discussion - there are too many incoming links that would need to be fixed, and too many POVs to take into consideration.  Personally any use of "U.S." in the title would be offensive against all the other countries that have lost troops in the war.  Further, I don't know why "invasion" is being used as a proper noun in the current title.
2003 invasion of Iraq/history will have its history merged into this one, but that cannot happen until the block compression issue is fixed. violet/riga (t) 10:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move mess

message: "Liberation" and "conquest" should be mentioned, because each summarizes a significant POV about the war.  If we've reached stability on mentioning them both, though, what about moving them down?  I don't think they need to be mentioned in the lead section.  The elaboration of the grounds for support of and opposition to the war should come in the body of the article.  I confess I was the one who added "conquest", but that's only because someone else had added "liberation". JamesMLane 05:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Liberation...but that was because I had a beef with the title of the article having "invasion" in it...which I considered POV....so my attempts to add balance were countered by your addition...it isn't that big a deal....we can dump all of the titles if we could agree to one NPOV title...As you have mentioned in another article...this one will probably remain with a neutrality tag on it as long as there is still a "war" going on....at some point the issue of the action will subside...some...maybe...I hope.--MONGO 06:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In lead section?

message: ;2003 invasion of Iraq (current) (or derivative thereof)
#Jmabel | Talk 03:52, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
#JamesMLane 04:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: vote

message: So, while the above discussion and vote are in progress, someone else has come along and done a unilateral move -- this time to a title that hasn't even been proposed in the poll but is fairly close to an alternative that's clearly trailing.  The user doing the move apparently hasn't even commented here.  The move can't be reversed because the former page has an edit history.  I'm leaving a message on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard asking that the move be undone pending completion of the poll. JamesMLane 03:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. violet/riga (t) 08:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another unilateral move

message: For those supporting "invasion" in the title, should "invasion" be capitalized?
;2003 Invasion of Iraq (yes)
#
#
#
;2003 invasion of Iraq (no)
#Kevin Baastalk: new 08:32, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
#violet/riga (t) 08:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: accessory vote

message: Can we call an end to all this random moving now?  Timwi just came along and moved it to 2003 invasion of Iraq and managed to separate this talk page too.  I hope everyone is happy with what we've ended up with. violet/riga (t) 21:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: End

message: Could someone please explain why the neutrality of this article is disputed? the_strategy_freak 23:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: The rationale list starts "the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were to:", but includes "secure Iraq's oil fields and resources". That doesn't seem like something Rumsfeld would list as a "goal of the invasion," even if he later made it an objective of the operation. Can this be confirmed anywhere? "goals of the invasion" might not be the best label, either. Themissinglint 21:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rational 

message: What's it going to take to get the PNPOV tag removed?  Who's got the beef?  What is the beef?  Can we come to some sort of accomodation where we can all accept the article as factual and unbiased?  What's it going to take?  --JonGwynne 05:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be taken off. I think there are enough people to keep an eye on this to put a tag up when its called for. Kevin Baastalk: new 19:24, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
----
"Many staff and supporters within the Bush administration had other, more ambitious goals for the war as well. Many propagated the claim that the war could act as a catalyst for democracy and peace in the Middle East, and that once Iraq became democratic and prosperous other nations would quickly follow suit, and thus the social environment that allowed terrorism to flourish would be eliminated. However, for diplomatic, bureaucratic reasons these goals were played down in favor of justifications that Iraq represented a specific threat to the United States and to international law. Little evidence was presented actually linking the government of Iraq to al-Qaeda (see below)."
Surely it is fairly widely believed that the most important goal, among these "other, more ambitious goals", was to provide stability for a pipeline south from the Black Sea related fields? I mean, isn't that why the Taleban was negotiating in Washington until the Bush Administration told them they'd invade if they didn't come to terms -- before the "9/11" attacks? Now, its unknown whether this goal was Bush' primary goal, but as far as "other, more ambitious goals", it seems an obvious "other" and obviously "ambitious" goal :)
-------
Individuals should be given the right of "assumption of innocence" on Wikipedia. You do not have enough evidence to back these claims up, and to be frank, it is proposals like this that make me very leery of ending the PNPOV. Also, how the hell do the Taliban tie into Iraq?--Brandon Warzybok 20:27, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
-------
"SFOD-D, SAS, SASR, Navy SEALs and Combat Controllers played vital roles--their missions however were never documented in any way. "
Removed the above text from the Opening Attack section.  Undocumented "facts" should never be in the Wikipedia.  Until the above statement can be verified by an authorative source, it should be left out.  I've also edited the last paragraph of that section for grammar and remove any hard to verify "facts".  Comatose51 21:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bold Question

message: After reading just the second paragraph (regarding the UN), I have to say the facts are clearly one sided.  Isn't it true that the "Oil for Food" scandal would/has clearly influenced the members on the Security Council?  That the Members on the Security Council had very large economic interests in Iraq and would loose them if there was a war, and now the clearly vocal SG of the UN now being implicated in influence in the "Oil for Food" scandal.  These facts would clearly give the reader a better understanding of a possible reason why the UN acted the way it did.
The last and final resolution did warn Iraq of possible military solutions, if it did not comply.  
One could clearly argue whether this is relevant or not, but just declaring that the Security Council was against the war without the above mentioned is avoiding reality.
-------
I stand corrected this whole passage leaves out many important facts.  It also includes many unsubstantiated facts, such as Iraqi civilian deaths, that just go beyond the pale.
This passage clearly needs a complete top to bottom rewrite.
:i agree that the part you cite isn't neutral, but i strongly disagree with the characterization of its leaning as "left". anyway, it looks like you're new here at wikipedia. that's no reason you can't jump in and be bold. go to it, and good luck. (you'll need it. heh heh.) SaltyPig 14:10, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
*I agree with you completelly. I'm glad you mentioned this on the talk page ahead of time as somebody who does lean a little left of center would certainly change your edits. This article needs to be rewritten.--EatAlbertaBeef 01:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, pick out a chunk that is the worst example of the POV you're objecting to, and either fix it, or, if you want to increase the odds that it will survive for a while, hammer out a suggested alternative here on the talk page. -- John Callender 16:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaning a little left of neutral 

message: I have a copy of the Financial Times article from lexis/nexis if you want to see the full text.  I also linked another article there.  In general I think it is bad form to simply delete things that don't have links.  If you suspect forgery, get yourself a library card and go look it up yourself.  But don't just assume forgery -- that seems a huge violation of the "assume good faith" norm on wikipedia.  Otherwise we can never have citations from books or other non-internet resources.  In any case, I think the purported links between al Qaeda and Saddam are pretty thoroughly debunked in this article; the article on the invasion should not become a source of misinformation that is refuted elsewhere.--csloat 00:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shahab is a liar (TDC's edits & my rv) 

message: "The Czech government still stands by its assessment that Al-Ani had indeed met with Atta in Prague. [42]"
I've read the link given, and I see nothing about the Czech government insisting that the meeting actually happened.  The closest it comes to affirming the meeting is asserting uncertainty: "This meeting is simply not proven one way or the other."  --Mr. Billion 19:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the Czech government stands 

message: This page is too long to be practical.  Anyone object to archiving those sections that haven't had activity since, say, May 2005 (to pick an arbitrary cutoff)? - PhilipR 16:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an archive 

message: Someone put this page on requested-page-moves to rename it as "liberation of iraq".  I see nothing on the talk page justifying such a move or indicating a vote is in progress.  Obviously that title is flamingly POV and would lose any vote, and it's telling that the person who put up the notice didn't bother to defend it or start a voting page here.  Can we just delete the tag from here and from WP:Requested moves? Or do we now have to go through a vote on this now?  Also I would note that Liberation of Iraq currently redirects to a different page, so such a move should be announced and discussed on that page too.--csloat 03:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just drop a note on the "Requested moves" page. Rama 07:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moronic page move request 

message: This is one of my favourite kind of news stories at the moment:
*http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7938792
It's propaganda with a thinly veiled purpose but it gets a giggle out of me everytime some U.S. invader complains about Arab's meddling in Arab affairs. —Christiaan 09:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that Iranians are not Arabs either...they are Persians...even a large number of ethnic Syrians are of Turkish extract...besides, the story isn't anything new..the U.S. and the other forces there to liberate Iraq from the oppressors known as the Baath Party have long held the belief (based on facts) that persons hostile to democracy have been attempting to enter Iraq from a neighboring country...instead, we should have just stayed out of there, I mean, who cares if they live under Saddam, right?--MONGO 05:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saddam's regime were notorious meddlers in Iraqi affairs.  The overall meddling index in the lives of the individual Iraqi's is probably way down due to coalition assistance.--Silverback 06:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I agree 100%.--MONGO 12:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I should have said Muslim, which pushes the point home even clearer. Here you have a prodominantly white Christian and Jewish executive which has just invaded a prodominantly brown Muslim country and is now complaining that their Muslim brothers in neighbouring countries are "meddling". I'm not surprised the hilarity in this seems to evade you. —Christiaan 15:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "brown"?  Iraqi's are caucasian. "Muslim brothers"?  al Zarqari's (presumably wahabi) organization is trying to start a sectarian war with the shia. "attempt to privatize Iraqi oil fields"?  It would have been much easier for the coalition to have just secured the unpopulated oil fields and left the people to their own devices if oil was the goal.  And there certainly would have been no moral prohibition against taking it, after all, Saddam had gotten it by force too.  --Silverback 07:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: caucasian? try telling that to U.S. military pawns who refer to them as sandniggers. —Christiaan 15:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Meddling

message: Silverback, you removed
:"in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687(notably point 22);"
with the comment
:"rv, this text does not make the case claimed for it, obviously congress was judging Saddam's behavior, if he complied with the UN that in itself would be regime change, the lack of a treaty is decisiv"
Would you mind extrapolate a little bit, I am not quite sure that I follow you... Sorry if I am slow to grasp the meaning :p Rama 17:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for yout input. The argument here, as I understand it, is that the statement by the USA that only the removal of Saddam Hussein will permit the lifting of the sanctions does not match the UN resolution 687; indeed, in the resolution, a set of conditions is defined for the lifting of the sanctions, which nowhere demands a change of government. I suppose that the argument developed here means that no other resolution of the UN demanded the departure of Saddam Hussein, and that as such, the ultimatum made by the USA was not in a continuation of the UN process. On this particular point, the UN resolution leave very little room for interpretation, it does not make mention of a change of power. Rama 23:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The references did not seem logically connected to any argument that this law violated international law. The provisions cited relied upon the security council to lift sanctions.  Since the US has a veto on the council, if the US says the sanctions will only be lifted under certain conditions such as regime change, it obviously has the means within the article you cite to make sure those conditions are met, or at least the sanctions stay on the books. The US has a veto on the findings of fact. The behavior of other members on the security council demonstrate they feel no obligation to be intellectually honest in the evaluation of the facts. The US of course would have had to have done much more to prevent the cheating on the sanctions by several of the parties that voted for them.  How could the law passed by congress, be in anyway a violation of those provisions of the sanctions, it seems quite within them.  Now if the law unilaterally lifted the sanctions, or authorized the US government to cheat on them, then it would be a violation under those provisions, just as the cheating by other security council members was.--Silverback 10:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Seems like an arguable interpretation.  I'm not comfortable with the statement as a fact that the Act was in violation of of Resolution 687, and I'd like to see some reasonable reference to a legal argument being made for this if I'd even want it included as a notable opinion. It looks to me like it's probably a bit of original research as suggested. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  perhaps a bit of sur-interpretation at least. The current formulation in the article in now "in contrast with...", which is less problematic on this respect, if I understand the issue correctly. Rama 12:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution 687 

message: In the United States and Unitd Kingdom, it seems to me that "Iraq War" is the predominant name for this war. Is anyone aware of how this war referred to outside of these countries? In Iraq especially.119 00:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Iraqi Kurds, and Shia's refer to it as the great liberation.--MONGO 08:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that be The Great Liberation? LOL. —Christiaan 09:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And your grammar is perfect...such as the use of "your" when you meant "you're" in this comment.....[]. Yes, it is a liberation for the majority of the population in Iraq...--MONGO 16:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohh, ya got me Mongo, hope you feel better now? —Christiaan 20:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You messed up, again...it's MONGO, not Mongo...--MONGO 20:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Mongo, I'll try not to do it again. —Christiaan 20:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of war

message: Following articles and more should be merged. They all talk about the same material. Some are just POV oriented. This is NOT your political playground. I will be moving material around. I need HELP. I dont care what your problems are regarding the matter. I am not happy with the Invasion Personaly, however this does not mean we can start political debates. Everyone has their views regarding the thing. I dont want to hear it. Please focus on merging thse 10s of articles litterting wikipedia. If you are Pro Bush Anti bush pro america anti america, or what ever you are last thing you want is the other Parties views be published. We can merge these articles into 2-4 articles. I am listing the articles that should be merged:
--Cool Cat My Talk 11:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with u that there is a lot of repatition, but i disagree that all these pages can be merged into one with out significant loss of information. The Global protests against war on Iraq for instance were/are a significant historical event in their own right (epsciallt feb 15th, the anervercery of which was featured on the main page anvercercy bit). Please discuse stuff before u start doing anything to drastic.--JK the unwise 14:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to take some attention. We need to merge anti-pro iraq war and official foverment view into one article. Ill be creating an article under my user page to show you guys what I am doing. IF you havent noticed I did not touch the articles. Wikipedia is very slow at the moment however. Opinions and facts should definately be seperate. Article should not need a  tag when we are done. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll help. 119 00:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see significant duplication.  If you look at Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq you'll see that it's essentially an umbrella page, listing several related articles with a capsule description of the scope of each one.  You say, "Everyone has their views regarding the thing. I dont want to hear it."  Which people hold which views, and what reasons they advance, and how they acted on those views, are all encyclopedic facts.  If you don't want to hear it, don't read the articles.  Reporting POVs is not POV.  Any POV problems with a specific article should be addressed by editing that article, not by merging. JamesMLane 04:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Perhaps this 2003 Invasion of Iraq article should become a subpage of a wider "U.S.-Iraq War" or similar article which covers the lead-up, invasion, and occupation (Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005? 119 00:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for an overview article?

message: MONGO, you say that 
:U.S. and U.K. argued for 8 weeks with France about the terminology of "serious consequences"
This picture is very innexact. Neither France, nor Russia, not China, nor the USA, nor the UK, said that the  "serious consequences" meant an automatic approval for a war. Official from the USA and UK specifically stated the opposite, as is said in this very article:
:The language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences", which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to depose the government. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers", no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council
Since no resolution was specifically passed afterward,which autorised an aggression against Iraq, the sentence "It began without the explicit backing of the United Nations Security Council" is perfectly accurate, and is a better rendering than "The matter caused heated debate in the Security Council, and there is great disagreement about whether the phrase 'serious consequences'(SC resoultion 1441) was an authorization for war or not." If you can provide specific statements made by officials of any member of the Security Council which say, in the context of the UN, that Resolution 1441 autorises war, you are welcome to contribute them. However, in the absance of such references, the latter version is much less accurate than the first one. Rama 09:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rama...you are so wrong...there was a big debate on this issue...perhaps changing the wording is fine but altering the message is not...nothing in the edit I made says that the UN security council did agree that the terminology for "serious consequences" gave explicit backing for an act of war..the phrase does, however attempt to show that there has been an ongoing debate about the terminology essentially outside of the confines of the UN by governments etc....regardless...the wiki article itself on the resolution discusses the arguments between primarily France/Russia and the U.S./U.K. on this wording...UN Security Council Resolution 1441--MONGO 09:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you have misread the article. it says that there were 8 weeks of discussion about what would be in the resolution, before it was passed. Not 8 weeks of discussions as to what interpretation should be given to the resolution, once it was passed. The version which you promote is very misleading. Rama 09:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me look at it..I will work to make it NPOV--MONGO 09:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your dedication, but I think that the original version is the best that I have seen for now. If you like, you might want to linkify the original version to the relevant article, and add comments on further developments there. But retrospective attempts by people who are not even government officials to a posteriori justify something does not belong to the lead section of this article. Rama 09:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then...my last edit before the child reverted was fair and neutral...--MONGO 10:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious consequences 2

message: Can someone please explain the reversions that keep happening on this page?  I'm reading through them and some seem to be questions of bias, whereas much of it seems to be about basic facts and figures.  The latter should be easily confirmed.  Can we do this?  I don't think the revert war is productive from either side.  --csloat 20:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming Late to the Edit War 

message: MONGO, I'm willing to believe you've stated your basic points twice, but as an only occasional visitor to this page without a lot of time on my hands I can't find them. But I have a suggestion: instead of just restating your own view, it would probably be more useful if you would try to state, in the most neutral language possible, what you see as the points of disagreement. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
:At the top of the section preceeding this one...it is most clear.--MONGO 06:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, actually you should restate 

message: I think both parties have been incorrect on no-fly zones.  It was my perception that the zones were not established until after international outrage about the Shiites and Kurds being massacred (BTW - "genocide" is inaccurate - Shiites are still a majority there, and there are still plenty of Kurds.  That is not to discount the overwhelming brutality of the attacks - hundreds of thousands, I believe, were killed - but just to use the term "genocide" properly).  After doing some research, it turns out the first zones were established not to protect the Kurds but to protect US forces (who were planning on staying there).  The second set of zones did not get established in the south until 1992, after a fight over UNSCOM -- a Pentagon official said "The purpose of establishing a no-fly zone - and I would emphasise it's a no-fly zone, not a security zone - is to ensure the safety of coalition aircraft monitoring compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; Paul Wolfowitz even said that there would be no no-flyzone to the south if it wasn't for the confrontation over UNSCOM -- so the zone was basically a way to punish the Iraqis over weapons inspections.  So unless somebody wants to explain all this (perhaps in the no fly zone entry), perhaps we should stick with the version of this page that doesn't mention the rationale for the zones, which was hardly to protect Kurds and Shiites (or at least, is a lot more complicated than what is stated).  The quotes above come from the following sources --  and  --csloat 01:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up the term genocide before you render a verdict of it's meaning "there are still plenty of Kurds"...that is a pretty disgusting thing to say....furthermore, do a bit more research and you'll find that the no fly zones were partially an effort to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shias found primarily in the south. Additionally, so what if the zones were imposed as a way to ensure Saddam abided by un resolutuions and weapons inspections...shouldn't he have to follow international law too...or is the U.S. the only country that has to do this?--MONGO 12:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Interesting.  If you want I'll leave that part to your discretion, but it sounds like it might be too complex for a soundbite explanation.  Maybe just mention the zones here without a reason and add more at Iraqi no-fly zones.  ObsidianOrder 02:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it's too complex to mention here; perhaps I will add it to the specific page; in the meantime I'll plan to remove the reason from here (unless you already did it)...  --csloat 02:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and congratulations to everybody (particularly ObsidianOrder and csloat), I think that we are sorting lots of things out, here. Rama 08:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-Fly Zones 

message: People keep changing the casualty figures but the changes don't make sense.  The most recent was an "update" but I noticed in the update there were fewer U.S. dead than in the older version.  Did some U.S. soldiers come back to life in the intervening weeks?  Is anyone checking sources to see that these figures remain accurate? --csloat 19:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figures? 

message: I am a little bit uncomfortable with this. It is obviously quite some specific view of the matter which could have labeled the whole matter "Liberation of Iraq". I don't mean to say that it doesn't exist, but on the other hand, should we not then also mention namings like "Crusade against Islame" or such ? that'd get cumbersome...
MONGO, you say "rv. I disagree...the Kurds and the Shites certainly feel liberated from Saddam and they make up almost 70 percent of the population there..."; it might be true, but what of the population of Faludja then, for instance ? Rama 05:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dagen , do you have any sources to back you claims that Saddam Hussein was  gang-raping and had a bad body odour ? Rama 06:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rape maybe, maybe not...but as I mentioned earlier....290 plus mass grave sites with at least 300,000 mostly Iraqi people buried there is enough to substantiate that "coalition of the willing" actions there are certainly a liberation. Saddam probably didn't smell too good after he got pulled out his little hole...he looked like a rat--MONGO 11:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny you should mention this "hole" story, since we have a testimony by one of the soldiers who contributed to the capture of Saddam Hussein who happens to cast serious doubts as to its authenticity. My point is that one should be cautious not to jump to conclusions and re-construct the argumentation afterward. This is what already happened for the "Weapons of Mass Destructions" and for the "terror links". In this particular point, I have some concerns that Dagen's arguments are more extracted from an a priori iconography than from objective considerations, and the very curious presence of "bodily odours" in his list of recriminations is an example of what I think weakens his argumentation. Rama 13:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should provide a completely fact based report on that issue or not make it....good luck--MONGO 11:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is in Saddam Hussein, "In March of 2005 a former U.S. Marine who reportedly took part in the operation that apprehended Saddam alleged that the capture of Saddam was fictionalized by the U.S. military to make it look like he was found in a hole.  The Marine further alleged that Saddam was actually found in a house and fired at the Marines with a pistol.  ". Rama 11:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No facts there...there is no proof that Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh even exists or if he did that he was at the location when Saddam was captured...you are presenting a conspiracy theory that is so preposterous it defies reasoning.--MONGO 11:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said "we have a testimony by one of the soldiers who contributed to the capture of Saddam Hussein who happens to cast serious doubts as to its authenticity". You asked me to prove it. I provided a reference to the testimony. What more do you want ? Rama 12:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rama, there is no proof that this guy was even a soldier...in the most polite manner I can, I see no proof here...his witness to said event does not provide me with serious doubts....I want the guy to prove he was either in the military or if he was, that the was even at the location when Saddam was captured...besides, he claims he was a marine...the marines were not involved in the operation...army rangers and army special forces units were.--MONGO 12:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean to prove that the story of Saddam Hussein in the hole is wrong. I say (and prove) that there is some controverrsy around it. In the context of the theatrical arrival of George Bush on an aircraft carrier dressed as a fighter pilote, it is not unconcievable that this could have been "sexed up" too. I merely notice that it has become very quickly popular in the "Saddam Hussein is a rat" iconography, and that some discussion has arisen around it. Rama 12:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  I checked the capture story.  It came  directly from UPI's Lebanon desk, and made it to the wire before the US-based bureau checked it.  They say they've been doing the best to kill it since the Marine Corps can find no trace of the purported ex-Marine Sergeant who was interviewed in Lebanon and made these claims. It's a fake about a fake. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe not in the circles you wander in, but most of the folks I know certainly think it was a liberation.--MONGO 11:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Nope...the wording said "alternatively" which means that to some, or to a fair number...I am of that fair number and some others commenting here are also...perhaps the bulk of the world considers it to be an invasion, so the use of that word occupies the title for the article...but others also call it the second gulf war, third gulf war...etc...there is no reason that it cannot also be alternatively known as the liberation of Iraq...--MONGO 11:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't mind "alternatively" at all, but we need more qualification.  "Sometimes referred to by its advocates as The Liberation of Iraq", perhaps. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine.--MONGO 12:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "alternatively" but I think Tony's suggestion is good also.  I would like to point out that "Invasion of Iraq", while factual, does also have POV connotations.  The word "invasion" sounds negative, even if one believes the aims are noble.  Johntex 15:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument there. But in an effort to reach a concensus, the current wording fits in with the event best. I doubt the invasion was done for noble purposes...it was done to ensure that Saddam was removed from power due to his neverending failures to fully comply with UN resolutions...all the other issues were secondary.--MONGO 04:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberation of Iraq

message: Is there any reasons why this article is using screen grabs from CNN to illustrate the visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln? I've found some PD Navy images:
* George W. Bush
* His jet landing
* Mission Accomplished
* White House pics
Is there any objection to using some of these pics instead of the CNN grabs? Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
: this would seem very sensible to me, indeed (long live Commons !). Rama 08:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds okay. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All but the last one are unviewable via my server so perhaps others should be brought to a vote on this first.--MONGO 10:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of George W. Bush at USS Abraham Lincoln 

message: A number of times I've seen this: someone states that the inspectors said there were still "issues".  It seems that this is sometimes used as some kind of justification for the invasion--which is absurd.  Of course there were still issues--the search for WMDs was expected to take months.  Maybe I've misunderstood.  What is the special significance, if any, of there still remaining "issues" to be resolved at the time of the invasion. And if these issues still remained, why did the US and the UK insist on pre-empting the inspection proces that was engaged in resolving them? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the U.S. and the U.K. decided that no matter how through or committed the UNSCOM inspectors may have been, there was always the chance they could overlook things or that, as in the past, Saddam would be more obstructionist than proactive and abiding. Furthermore, it was a post 9/11 world. Here is some food for fodder...--MONGO 11:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues