Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1

message: I've rectified the incorrect assertion that Al-Jazeera was recently formed. Also re-worded some of the stuff relating to hypocrisy and Israel, to improve the prose style -- Cabalamat 15:51, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Jazeera isn't new

message: Although President Bush declared the war over May 1, 2003, the U.S. State Department is still calling the action "Operation Iraqi Freedom." With that said, should 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq really be separate? 
When trying to keep track of casualties on United States casualties of war, I have 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq as separate entities. However, casuality announcements from the State Department do not separate the phases of this war. The numbers reported in  reflect total numbers of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 
Why does wikipedia make a distinction between the two phases when the State Department does not? Kingturtle 04:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Iraqi Freedom 

message: I haven't read all the talk page information on the current Iraq war, but in the beginning of this article is this phrase:
"The U.S. name for the military campaign was Operation Enduring Freedom. The US military operations in this war were conducted under the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Operation Enduring Freedom redirects to the ongoing US war in Afghanistan. Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to this article (2003 invasion of Iraq). With this in mind, A) Are these redirects correct? and B) If so, shouldn't Operation Enduring Freedom be removed from this article? Either way, I think the quoted phrase above should be reworded as it is confusing, but I'm not sure how to reword it because I'm not sure of the answers to the 2 questions I posed here. --Flockmeal 04:29, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
:The name is due to an edit by 68.105.250.163 dating from Sep 28, 2003 and is a mistake. Operation Enduring Freedom refers to the US campaign in Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom refers to the US campaign in Iraq. That is to say, the redirects are correct. --Gabbe 11:03, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
::I've removed the "Enduring Freedom" line. Gentgeen 16:22, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enduring Freedom? 

message: Okay, so the buck-propping theory is beyond WP's pale. Well, an expanded version is here. Can someone tell me what makes Shrub's explanation plausible but this not? - Kwantus 23:15, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. What makes this theory implausible is that since day 1 this administration has been fairly unsubtly trying to depreciate the dollar against foreign currencies in an effort to raise employment and get a recovery in manufacturing. After watching them practically beg China to raise the yuan, do you think they'd cry if the Euro went to $1.40 or higher, making European exports less competitive and coincidentally giving France and Germany a spike in unemployment? - willhsmit 23:15, 12 July 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory plausibility

message: Need help for this please. Check Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Sandbox for more information. --Maio 16:26, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
:The invasion is over; Iraq has already been invaded. Now is the occupation... --Jiang 03:00, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's taxobox summary 

message: I removed the section about the French press due to the fact that much of it was lifted straight from other websites.  For example, from what the poster posted:
" Hertoghe, a 44-year-old Belgian, said reporters reflected the emotional high in France more than realities on the battlefield, becoming caught up in France's central role in leading the opposition to the war at the United Nations."
From a mirror of an old Yahoo article:
"Hertoghe, a 44-year-old Belgian, said reporters reflected the emotional high in France more than realities on the battlefield, becoming caught up in France's central role in leading the opposition to the war at the United Nations."
It's actually a lot worse than that - the majority of the edit was ripped.  Rei
: Yes, and that is why I changed it. As a new wiki, I have not yet familiarized myslf with all the rules. TDCTDC 20:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed edit about the French press - copyright 

message: It would be nice if our March 21 selected anniversaries page could have a line about the start of the Iraq War. But that isn't going to happen so long as there are dispute notices on this page. Unless there is a strong objection, I'm going to remove them in 24 hours. We really do need a policy on when to put these things on pages - there should be a consensus to do so (or at least two concurring people). But since they are added unilaterally, they can be removed unilaterally. --mav 23:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute notices 

message: The New York Times wrote: "operations from at least three air bases (...) Between 250 and 300 Air Force planes staged from Saudi Arabia (...) The Saudis provided tens of millions of dollars in discounted oil, gas and fuel for American forces.", why does 69.138.236.221 turn this into "Saudi Arabia provided airbases and tens of millions of dollars in supplies, including jet fuel, for over 300 American aircraft that flew missions over Iraq."? Get-back-world-respect 10:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi Arabian support

message: Just as a matter of interest has any one noticed that all we hear is that the Iraqis have been freed from Saddam's terror. But no one has actually asked the Iraqis whether or not they're happy?
:WTF? I asked them yesterday. They said yes, they are very happy. Graft 01:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd. I talked to them yesterday, too, and they mentioned that actually they were a little peeved about a city of 350,000 people being flattened and about its former inhabitants having to get identity cards from a foreign army in order to re-enter. They also seemed a little testy about the whole tens-of-thousands-of-dead civilians thing. But maybe they just had a bad day. Things like that wouldn't bother folks with clean consciences like you and me, right? BrandonYusufToropov 11:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has any one noticed 

message: Is the phrase "U.S. invasion of Iraq" misleading or not? This question depends on the nature of the coalition and reasons for the invasion. The nature of the coalition is discussed at coalition of the willing.
:if you think "U.S. invasion of Iraq" is on the right track, then I would argue that it does not go far enough. "U.S. conquering of Iraq" or "U.S. toppling Baathist Iraq" or "US-Iraq war" or "U.S. liberation of Iraq" is more normal. Nobody refers to WWII as "U.S. invasion of France".  
:: I quote from Battle of Normandy: "The Battle of Normandy was fought in 1944 between the German forces occupying Western Europe and the invading Allies". I rest my case. Rama 20:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of Coalition/Invasion 

message: How do you think should we include the following article? Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care  17:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental Health Problems after Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan 

message: Sarge Baldy added a NPOV disclaimer without comment. Is the neutrality still disputed? If so, what parts are in dispute? If none, we should remove the disclaimer. Quadell (talk) 16:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
:Since there don't seem to be any updates on this even after a week, I'll remove the dispute notice. -- Schnee 10:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV disclaimer 

message: TDC, this article you gave as a reference is crap. It's full of nonsense. For example, Roland 2 missiles made in the past few months by a French-German partnership? The Roland 2 was developed in the early 80s, and was obseleted by the Roland 3 developed in 1988. It went out of production in 1993. Totally impossible for it to have been recently manufactured. Find a better source that does some actual fact-checking, or else I'm striking that sentence. Graft 15:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  France and Iraq 

message: someone just cut a lot of material on terrorist connections.  while everyone but dick cheney now admits there was no operational al qaeda connection, i thought there were acknowledged connections with palestinian terrorists.  shouldn't these be mentioned, as they were the technical basis for the terrorism allegations?  or have they been discredited?  Wolfman 02:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Iraq certainly did have connections with Palestinian terrorism, but had severed them by 2003 - except for Saddam Hussein's financial compensation to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The other stuff was all nonsense, and in fact very few people ever tried to claim that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11 - it wasn't really used as a pretext for the war.--XmarkX 10:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saddam had connections with al Qaeda, e.g., the conconclusion of PIPA is "Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.” --Silverback 14:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PIPA? Haha, sponsored by Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford & Co. A little conflict of interest don't you think. That a PIPA document mentions in passing that there is "some evidence" of, ohhhh, "contact", while presenting evidence that their respondents are very stupid really isn't an example of good evidence Silverback. Anything's worth throwing in the mix though ay? Something has gotta stick sooner or later!!! —Christiaan 15:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was fun to use them as a source given their liberal bias, although they downplay the extent of Iraqi support for al Qaeda and their non-peer reviewed "study" was poorly done.  8-)  --Silverback 15:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Liberal" bias, "conservative" bias. It's all the same Silverback. Some of us know it as "big business" bia. Christiaan 17:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry to crash this party, but the PIPA report Silverback is referring to is called Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War. It's a 2003 poll of the US public's perceptions on matters pertaining to Iraq. I might be missing something here, but how does a result from a public poll tell us anything about the actual connections the Hussein regime had? confused=Plek 02:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't (it mentions "some evidence" in passing), that was the point I was making when I referred to their respondents. —Christiaan 09:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrorist connections 

message: Where can this go? Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph of Bush and Blair at Camp David 

message: Based on my and Fpahl's discussions, I think there is a contribution to be made organizing the facts that would be used in a just war analysis.--Silverback 19:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example of an illegal and unjust war? Alberuni 11:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No as one of the most moral wars in US history, since conscription wasn't used and civilian infrastructure wasn't targeted (unlike Gulf War I and Kosovo), most of allies were fairly moral (unlike stalin), goals noble, etc. See the archive of my and Fpahl's discussion.  --Silverback 15:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Silverback - I had to laugh as well when I read this. As for conscription, you just need to wait until after the elections for the draft to be reintroduced in the States. From what you write it's quite obvious that you think the Iraq war is over.... I'm afraid - it's just beginning. - pir 02:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Pir, if having to laugh is a source of information to you, you should retrain your intuition.  It is a bias that distorts reality. Yes, it is meant to shock you that I claim to and believe I can defend the latest gulf war as more moral than most any in US history.  As to the draft, you may be right if Kerry wins.  He is a nationalist with the hubris to beleive he knows what is best for others.  Look at his "100 Day Plan to Change America", he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school.  He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service.  His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not ...".  The look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft.  Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968.  Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age.  While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area.  You have been duped by scare mongering.  I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him.  Bush is more predictible than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe for personal reasons.  Note that he chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty".  Now perhaps you think that is admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also.--Silverback 06:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Hahahaha. You must be joking. Your American imperialist POV is not shared by most of the world. If war is ever justified, it justified only as a last resort and for self-defense against aggression or invasion. Iraq was not threatening the USA. The USA was not forced to attack Iraq in self-defense. Iraq was the victim of a concerted campaign of US lies and aggression. More than 12,000 civilians (so far) have been slaughtered by Americans using high tech weapons on civilian areas with callous and heinous disregard for human life. Many thousands more innocent Iraqi civilians have been maimed, injured, incarcerated, tortured and humiliated by American "liberation" forces. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq represents a blatant series of war crimes. That anyone could consider this sordid chapter in US history as a moral example of "just war" is a sad example of brainwash. Alberuni 15:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you didn't look at the archived discussion.  You forget how many lives the sanctions were cost.  So the war is justified on a net-lives-saved basis also.  Why not protest the US "War on Drugs" instead, it is far more unjust.--Silverback 15:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Iraq sanctions regime was imposed by the US, with a UN fig leaf, and enforced by siege conducted largely by the US military. The imposition of "No-Fly Zones" and continual bombardment of Iraq over the past 13 years were also acts of war conducted by the US against Iraq and those crimes were not even carried out with a UN fig leaf. To spuriously compare the human costs of US war crimes before the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq with the human costs of the war crimes committed by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in order to minimize the atrocities committed by the US represents a failure of logical reasoning. It's akin to a murderer claiming that breaking into the house of his victim is not as bad as murder so he shouldn't be charged with breaking and entering. Read the definition of Just war and think again about why the US invasion of Iraq does not qualify. Hint: "War can only be waged for a just cause, such as self-defense against an armed attack." Alberuni 20:43, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I already read just war theory and contributed to the page, and I disagree with it.  It is a sad commentary that it is the best thing Christianity could come up with after 2000 years, Christain pacifism is far more inspiring.  I see no reason why the standards for taking innocent life in war, should be higher than in peacetime, when net lives saved is the standard.  Your limited standard for war leaves dictators in power.  The US had every bit as much right to rule Iraq as Saddam, which is of course, none.  The US just had more power and a world of good intentions, which is more than can be said for Saddam and the UN fig leafs he bribed. Perhaps we should compare the 2nd Gulf war with the 1st one, which slaughtered over 100 thousand innocent Iraqi conscripts in the bunkers.  That is what happens when the UN is considered to qualify as a legitimate authority under just war doctrine.  I think a comparison section, even applying just war theory, on the page would show this latest Gulf war in a remarkably good light, which is probably why it will be vehemently opposed.--Silverback 23:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion probably will be opposed because Wikipedia is not the place to promote your POV. Aside from that, the invasion of Iraq was an act of unprovoked military aggression, a war crime. You see it as a noble act of self-sacrifice by big-hearted, well-intentioned civilized Americans bringing freedom and democracy to a world you think you own. Most of the rest of the world sees the US invasion as a high-tech slaughter of thousands of civilians by arrogant, oil-hungry American imperialists. Neither POV has a place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia endeavors to present facts, not opinion. Alberuni 23:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Saddam's treatment of Iraqi's, harboring of terrorists, rewarding of the families of terrorist bombers, attempt to assassinate an ex-president, failure to comply with sanctions, and firing upon places implementing the no fly zone were "provocation" enough.  The attempt to bring freedom to an Iraqi people that you think Saddam owned is noble.--Silverback 01:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Alberuni's point is valid, though.  Judgements of right or wrong, moral or immoral, have no place in an encyclopedia seeking as factual a stance as possible.  It doesn't matter how skillfully you may be able to defend your opinion that this is a just war, it would still be your opinion, which has no place in the wiki.--Blackguard 04:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps there should be sections comparing the invasion and the means by which it was fought to other wars 

message: This looks a little odd.
* Although Iraq was known to have pursued an active nuclear weapons development program previously, as well tried to procure materials and equipment for their manufacture, these weapons and material have yet to be discovered. This casts doubt on some of the accusations against Iraq, despite previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons, and that Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production. However, some believe that the weapons were moved into Syria and Lebanon.
Firstly it is my impression that the only nuclear weapon development program "previously" pursued was some time ago--before 1991.
Secondly, the situation has gone beyond "doubt on the accusations". They've been discounted by every person and agency that has been given the task of looking for those weapons.  The most that can be said, according to the US's own inspectors, appears to be that Saddam Hussein, like nearly every head of state in the world, had the intent to obtain weapons of mass destruction.--Minority Report 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Really now, "nearly every head of state"'?--Silverback 02:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm surprised that you question this; I almost omitted the word "nearly".  New countries join the nuclear club regularly, some in violation of the Non-proliferation treaty to which they are signatories.  All major victor nations of the Second World War obtained nuclear weapons inside the decade, and most have hydrogen bombs.  Yes, I think we can state that it's the intent of nearly every head of state to obtain nuclear weapons. --Minority Report 03:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, which european union countries besides those that already have them (France and Britain) do you think are seeking nuclear weapons or even would bother with them if offered them on a platter?  Which countries in north or south america?  There might be Islamic countries with a militant bent that would like to have them, but most third world countries can barely keep their social fabric together and can't afford to even think about nukes.  The only democracies that might be tempted are those that are threatened by existing nukes, such as S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc.--Silverback 09:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What nonsense.  Britain, France and the USA obtained nuclear weapons when they were democracies.  And as you admit yourself, democracies may have good reason to obtain nuclear weapons.  India is the most recent pertinent example.  Israel also, though it has never been threatened by existing nuclear weapons, obtained them and even spread them to the odious apartheid RSA.  You're living in cloud cuckoo land matey.
Thirdly, the claim that there were "previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons" seems a little far-fetched.  Has a UN agency ever claimed that it was likely that Iraq had usable nuclear weapon technology?
Fourthly, on the claim: "Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production"
This was not the case in March, 2003--at least according to El Baradei.
Finally, some people may think that Iraq shipped the WMDs out to Syria and whatnot, but it might be nice if we could muster some evidence for this opinion.  I mean, some people think there are little green men from Mars, but their opinion amounts to doodly squat without some justification. --Minority Report 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: That line serves to illustrate the possibilities.  Absense of proof is not the same as proof of absense.  Given that the total access of an occupying force can't provide much reassurance that some of the chemical and biological weapons don't remain, a few months of inspections wouldn't make much difference. --Silverback 02:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't prove a negative. I've changed the line "However, some believe that the weapons were moved into Syria and Lebanon." to read "Some believe, based on the circumstances, that the weapons were originally present in Iraq but were moved into a sympathetic country (or countries). However, there is no hard evidence supporting this theory." --Ben 19:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wording is acceptable, thanx.  Yes, the inspectors would never have been able to prove a negative, but Saddam could have opened up "his" weapons programs and country in such a way that credibility and trust could be engendered.--Silverback 01:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the present wording.  Although I have reservations about giving credence to what I consider to be crackpot theories, I think the reader can make that evaluation --Minority Report 03:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: There is something about this in The UN Security Council and the Iraq war. It is true that some info is not very evident in this article, notably the rationals which led to the war. I had seen an article about it in the past, but couldn't find it... comments anyone ? Rama 16:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular view

message: I think this article should include information from and reference to the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, part 1 of 2, which was released July 9, 2004. One of the main conclusions of that report is:
*"Most of the major key judgements in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularily in the analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."
I think it is just as important to include this report as it is Duefler's report. --Ben 18:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate Committee on Intelligence Report

message: I largely rewrote the last paragragh in "Weapons of Mass Destruction", replacing:
:However, the facts also remain that the sanctions could not be kept in place indefinitely, and that Saddam's ongoing efforts to sway certain UN Security Council members with oil bribes were almost certain to, in the absence of American intervention, result in the dropping of the sanctions by 2006.
because it a) does not mention the humanitarian crisis that prompted fresh approaches to the sanctions, b) projects a date for the raising of the sanctions, which can only be conjecture (as would the reasoning for them being raised) and c) implies that US intervention was the only solution to prevent the raising of the sanctions, even though other alternatives like directed sanctions had been tabled by other parties.  As it sat, this passage implied that the US was the only ethical actor in a corrupted system, which isn't particularly a NPOV.  I also added links showing international discussion of the sanctions and showing evidence of the Oil for Food bribery.  Suggestions are welcome.--Blackguard 10:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Sanctions Usefulness 

message: I think you found the right balance [Quadell].  Footnotes do the trick on the small chart, and on the other page, having the qualifications in the chart itself, because footnotes would be too far away.  --thanx, --Silverback 23:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualty charts on both pages look good 

message: I notice that the summary box gives the end of the invasion as April 15, 2003.  Why is this date used and not, say, President Bush's May 1st announcement? --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 17:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 15

message: I looked at this edit, which is described thus: "(Causes of the Invasion - removed POV irrelevant material)"
The removed sections are as follows:
1. Removal of section describing the context of Kay's explanations of the pre-war US perceptions in the media.
: either Iraq did or did not have WMD programs, the Kay report and the Duelfer report both conclude that Iraq did have WMD development programs, but was not producing WMD's. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
2. Removal of  section describing Kay's political donations, which clearly provides context for his current stance.
: Kay's personal and private activities and political leanings belongs in the David Kay article, not this one, it is a not too subtle insertion of POV and is designed to question Kay's objectivity. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
3. Removal of mention of Rumsfeld's meeting with, and praise of, Saddam Hussein as Reagan's special envoy. 
: Once again, Rumsfeld's meeting with Hussein is not relevant, or that is to say it is of no more relevance than Hugo Chavez's or Jacques Chirac's meeting with Hussein and the position they took on the war. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
These omissions are factual in nature and not obviously counter to NPOV.  Accordingly I am reverting this edit for now, pending discussion of its rationale.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: significant in that it points to the embarrassing compromises made when one embraces enemies of one's enemies (Iran), certainly Roosevelts meetings with Stalin, etc. should also be mentioned in those articles, and are of far more significance.  The policy significance of the meeting was not significant.  Embraces and complements are common in diplomatic circles.--Silverback 00:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:TDC|TDC]]'s edit  06:17, 17 Dec 2004 

message: Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN, made it plain that in the view of he UK government, 1441 was not war-enabling:
: We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities. Jeremy Greenstock, 8 November, 2002, addressing the UN Security Council.
I was told the US ambassador at the time said something similar.  I'll try to track it down if it's true. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UK ambassador to the UN: "the matter would return to the [UN Security] Council" 

message: I found it.  
"It is a resolution that sets out two stages, that if there are reports that Iraq is not complying then that matter will come back to the council for consideration." John Negroponte, US State Department communique, November 6, 2002.
So it wasn't just the other members of the security council.  All of them agreed that the Council itself would have the last word, should it decide that Iraq was still in breach of its obligations (which Blix and El Baradei were not  reporting in any case). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "not reporting", Blix stated that there were still issues. What is the "last word", the security council did get to consider it, and Iraq still was not in compliance, that is why some wanted the US threat maintained on the border so that inspections would continue, and the U.S. and U.K. decided they needed to act before the full heat of summer.--Silverback 04:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: This information about what the U.S. and U.K. ambassadors said contemporaneously is very interesting and should be included in the article.  Do you have hyperlinks to an online source for either?  Failing that, can you provide a fuller cite for a printed source?  The simple "US State Department communique", with a date, wouldn't enable most readers to find the document easily. JamesMLane 02:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: John Negroponte, US ambassador to the UN, "no hidden trigger"

message: Is his power a "veto"? a peer reviewed formal proof?  What?  How does he exercise his power, does he do it by answering a question in an interview?  Does he have to issue a formal statement the meets certain standards and has gotten certain approvals?  Does he also have powers as a "judge" to determine matters of international law?--Silverback 17:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please document the source of Kofi Anan's "formal invalidation" power. 

message: Please see Manual of Style#Usage and spelling regarding spelling. Of particular interest, If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. This article is predominantly written in International English. —Christiaan - ☎ 02:09, 18 Jan 2005
* Actually, it was written in American English, but the Guerilla English trolls have been visiting the site, intentionally "provoking conflict by changing to another". Kaz 02:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S./International spelling 

message: I've asked for the article to be unprotected because the discussion about unsupported statements seems to have reached a conclusion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: unprotect

message: The article notes "Continuing hostilities in that country under military and civil occupation, which is due to end after elections from January 28th to January 30th, 2005"
Presumably, the continuing hostilities aren't scheduled to end between January 28th and January 30th?  The paragraph refers to the date of elections, but reads as if the hostilities themselves have been "scheduled to end" -- although with the propoganda war as it is, I might just believe that interpretation ;)
Ojw 00:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to: This term is also used to refer to the continuing hostilities during the Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005. By the way, the entire opening section is badly in need of some copyedit action, I think. Right now it's a jumble of factoids, strewn about in no apparent logical or temporal order. How about rewriting it so the opening becomes a good summary of the article? --Plek 00:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintentional humour? 

message: #Oppose.  It strikes many people as having a pejorative connotation, and is almost always used with reference to a leader or government that the speaker dislikes (for whatever reason).  How is the reader worse off if "regime" is changed to "government", which is certainly accurate?  Would any information be lost?  It would be reasonable to note at some point that one of Bush's stated justifications for the invasion was that Saddam's government was undemocratic or dictatorial or repressive or authoritarian or whatever term Bush used.  Then the point has been conveyed and it doesn't need to be brought up, by implication, every time reference is made to the government of Iraq before the invasion. JamesMLane 19:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: #Favor. Please see the discussion on talk:Regime. No authoritative sources label it as perjorative, there is a secondary definition in one source that says it sometimes implies an "oppressive" government. This may be why it is sometimes viewed as pejorative when applied to governments you like, but this is being properly applied to Saddam's regime.--Silverback 21:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, Saddam Hussein also achieved the highest level of life in the whole history of Iraq (see infant mortality, bumber of beds per capita, etc.); these numbers, the best of the region (far higher than Saudi Arabia, notably) drop significantly after the first Gulf War, with the embargo. In spite of this, there are numerous arguments which indicate that he was overally not a good leader. This is the kind of subtilities which I think would be better adressed by a full-grade artcile than by vague, constant and tendencious qualificatives. Rama 16:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think that anyone isn't calm about it, it sounds like a very friendly a reasonable discussion -- note the similarity of the views discussed here. Your politic opinions are yours. The point is not whether the government of Saddam Hussein can be qualified of a regime, the discussion here is whether it would be wise to constantly use this term to refer to the governments of the Saddam Hussein era. The invasion of Iraq was in contradiction with the Security Council of the UN, yet it would be unwise and tendencious to constantly say "illegal invasion"; in the same way, the nature of the governance of Saddam Hussein has to be clearly and scientifically discussed somewhere, but the conclusions of this discussions must not be forced into the mind of the reader. Rama 16:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In favor

message: You changed "No operational links between the Saddam Hussein government and Al-Qaida were found" to "Operational links between the Saddam Hussein government and Al-Qaida remain disputed, lacking clear new evidence"
Unless you can provide evidence of operational links between Saddam Hussein's governement and Al Quaida, the original text is not wrong. Links have not been found. Only a handful of people would even contend that the issue is disputed. The claim wasn't even made until the eve of the war, and then it was only the US president and close associates who conjured up this link between previously disparate parties.  Why do you give this claim the "true until proven false" standard?
You changed "Installation of Allawi government" to "Creation of Iraq Interim Governing Council" 
Do you have any argument that somebody other than the United States government was involved in the "installation" of Mr Allawi?  What is the objection to this article's original statement?  How is the new statement any less POV (the stated reason for your changes)
:What evidence is there that the United States installed Allawi?  It was my understanding that there was a UN envoy, working with the governing council and other key leaders of ethnic groups to agree on an interim leader and plan.  As part of this process, after some candidates did not want the job, the council selected Allawi who was willing to take it and the UN envoy blessed the plan.  I hadn't realized that the article stated the US installed Allawi, I don't think there is any evidence for that.  Although he was not the US choice, he has proven to be a good leader.--Silverback 15:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: J.J.'s edits 

message: I removed the word "disputed" because I just want to make sure this isn't a bit of original research.  In which journal has the study been disputed? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Disputed" Lancet study

message: TDC, make good use of your browser's "Find in page" function: see the section Countries supporting and opposing the war. Your edit is really to trivial to fight over, and this article is ridiculous in its repetitiveness irregardless, so I don't mean to belabor the point. Anyway... Graft 07:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for Saddam in Arab World