Talk:Iraq War/Archive 12

message: There is a lengthy paragraph in the intro to the criticisms section that describes the views of Professor Chip Pitts. This seems like undue weight,  especially because Pitts is talking about much broader issues than what this section is about.  This section is about criticisms of the prosecution of the war.  Pitts is talking about U.S. foreign policy in general.  I woudl like to remove this paragraph, but want to propose doing so before I make the change. I think I have removed it before and someone put it back in, so I welcome their thoughts on why it belongs.  Cheers --Mackabean 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section: Professor Chip Pitts 

message: I've added a bibliography botty section. Ricks' 'Fiasco' and Gordon's 'Cobra II' look like the most up-to-date and comprehensive books on the conflict so far, but feel free to add. Colin4C 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: This is bizarre.  Does a summary of it belong in the article? 75.35.79.57 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suddenly calling all opposing forces "al-Qaida" 

message: The so-called topically-related imagery on this page is pathetic. It does not feature the war's victims in one single photograph, yet there are at least 5 tame, unrevealing photos of American forces.Nwe 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about that gallery of images at the end.--Timeshifter 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Problems have been corrected. --Timeshifter 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topically Related Imagery 

message: In the latest Firefox browser, and in the Microsoft Internet Explorer v7.x browser, it says
"Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
at the top of the browser when I am viewing this talk page. Does anybody know why? And how do we fix it?
Here is some linkbar code followed by the linkbars:


Maybe the history and log links can help figure this out. --Timeshifter 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) 

message: Shouldn't these be mentioned somewhere? According to Veterans Affairs documents there have been 192,000 claims for disability by returned veterans. 110,000 were accepted, 21,000 rejected, 17,000 ruled as unrelated to war service and 44,000 still pending as of January 2007. That's a discrepancy of almost 140,000 in the number of injured compared to the info box. Wayne 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disability Claims 

message: In the section "Calls for withdrawal from Iraq," there's a typo. "hile" for "while". D. Winchell 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Typo 

message: According to my 'original research' (i.e. ability to count) the Iraq War has lasted longer than the First World War, in which, incidently, Iraq was involved. In general terms it might be worth keeping tabs on duration of war, compared to other conflicts. Colin4C 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say that e.g. the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004 was bloodier than the initial invasion and that things seem to ratcheting up in a major way lately. Iraq is certainly a guerilla war if not necessarily a conventional one. Colin4C 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be worth while to include a comparison of insuries and deaths between the different wars.  Perhaps these comparisons should be a separate article though.--Kumioko 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW1 

message: One of the most controversial aspects of the Iraq War is the intelligence that was used to justify it.  Please add the following paragraphs in a section discussing the intelligence that led up to the Iraq War.
[text added to article ←BenB4 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that needs to be added. I can't believe it wasn't in there. ←BenB4 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not add it yourselves? Then again, this article is already reaching Biblical size; you may want to rethink it. -- VegitaU 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and it is huge, but this stuff is more central than some of what we already had.  I'll refactor as soon as I track down the supposed UAVs off the Eastern Seaboard which belongs in there too. ←BenB4 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add a discussion of the intelligence leading up to the war 

message: An editor has just changed some wording in the article from 'protests against war in Iraq' to 'protests against the war in Iraq'. I think that the latter wording is incorrect because the protests started before the war began. What do people here think? Colin4C 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People were protesting the war in Iraq, i.e. the invasion by U.S. forces, which is - as far as I know - referred to as the war. If they wanted to protest war in Iraq they would've been rallying against the Kurdish conflict, the invasion of Kuwait leading to the First Gulf War (at that time), and whatever else there's going on there. Generally people don't care enough to actively protest a war that doesn't involve their nation somehow, although globalism is changing this. Nonetheless, the U.S. being a superpower, its citizens don't really have to care about other less important nations warring. But I'm starting to rant here, so I'll stop, and also, I don't see how 'the war' implies present times more than simply 'war'. Jack the Stripper 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we were protesting about war in Iraq. I had been protesting against the oppression of the Kurds, I was present at anti-war demos for the first time around calling for the Iraqis to get out of Kuwait and the UK to stay out of the war either way, and the majority of anti-war protesters appear to have protested against war in, on, and around Iraq. I would, however, argue that better wording would be "protests against the invasion of Iraq by the coalition". ~AnarchoPaddy --86.20.233.149 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Jack the Stripper 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say, 'Pro-Iraq' or 'pro-Saddam' protests.--86.29.242.195 13:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crunch!--86.29.242.195 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Crunch indeed! --86.29.244.15 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protests against war in Iraq 

message: I think the I.P. Numbers on this page may be meat or sock puppets.--Atlanic wave2. 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I.P.numbers 

message: In the section International opinion of the War on Terrorism It is said that "In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia."
What are these majorities? Government Majorities? News polls? Credible sources? Or taken after bias reporting? Please indicate the nature of the "majoraties".
As far as I can tell, polls and have elections have indicated that- Turkey is concerend about El-Queada; France, Germany and Russia suport Iraq; Japan and India want a diplomaic resalution to the despute; the U.S.A. wants to give up and leave, while the U.K., Australia, Poland and Denmark want to stay in Iraq to compeat the job!  --Comander E.I. Davis2 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong majorities 

message: The Topically Related Imagery section at the end of the article serves informative purpose. It merely takes up space. I have not encountered such a section in any other article and since we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile, it is really of no use to anyone. Nwe 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile" - i disagree. Any photos/diagrams etc that aid Shushnig? understanding of the issue should be allowed to be on wikipedia, under a suitable subtitle or sub article.Chendy 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean there don't seem to be any good images that have been licenced by the copyright holder.Nwe 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are image galleries in wikipedia articles. I have seen them. The question is how many images should there be in the image gallery here. We can't fit anymore images in the right and left side columns. I tried a few days ago. I had to alternate sides in order for there not to be blank white spaces in the 2 browsers I checked (latest Firefox and latest MS Internet Explorer v7.x). I assume all the images are allowed in this wikipedia article, or someone would soon delete them. --Timeshifter 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this rag-bag of images serves no particularly useful purpose in the article. Colin4C 10:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the proper place for an 'image dump' of Iraq war related images is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War. Otherwise we should integrate appropriate images with appropriate text in the body of the article. Makes sense? Colin4C 10:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you cite other articles with similar image galleries? I still don't see the point of including images just because they exist, without immediate relation to the content. I know it's a great thing when it is established that the wikipedia actually has the rights to use an image, but that is no reason to go overboard with the sheer thrill of it...Colin4C 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "sheer thrill of it". Please ease up on the hyperbole. It is uncivil, and does not assume good faith. Offhand, here is a page with a photo gallery in it: Mexican general election 2006 controversies. Photos are just another form of sourced info useful to encyclopedias. Let us move on, please. --Timeshifter 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture gallery you cite in the Mexican instance is explicitly and thematically related to content in the text about a political rally. It is not a rag-bag of vaguely related images. As for incivility and bad faith, I have not directed any personal comments at any editor here, I am merely discussing the issue and I assume the good faith of anyone who has added pictures to the gallery or who created the gallery itself, even if I disagree with it on the grounds I have mentioned before. Colin4C 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose Removal of "Topically Related Imagery" 

message: Why they still on the combatant list. I thought they pulled out?--Kingforaday1620 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.K. 

message: I increased the size of the sub-headings to make the chronology of each separate year of the war more explicit. If you had a book about any war the years or blocks of years, would be given seperate chapter headings. Look also at accounts of wars in other wikipedia articles, such as Vietnam War, Second Sino-Japanese War etc. The previous format I felt was confusing. What do people here think? Colin4C 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I undid that, because the top-level header is "timeline."  You are absolutely right about how book chapters are ordered, but I assure you this is normal for encyclopedia sections. ←BenB4 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So have the editors of the wikipedia Vietnam War and Second Sino-Japanese War articles got it wrong? And why should all the events of a long war be crammed under one heading of 'timeline'? The present heading format is somewhat confusing IMHO. By the way, I have made many contributions to both the wikipedia and hard-copy encyclopedias (for Cambridge University Press etc) so am not a complete ignoramus! Colin4C 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and changed my mind.  I'll put it back the way you had it. ←BenB4 20:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I did it, but I have to say I really, really don't like it.  Before there was a clean break between hsitory and the topics which transcend moments in time (superhistorical?) Now there's not.  Unless someone agrees with you in 24 hours that this way is better, I'm going to put it back. ←BenB4 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything happens in time. There is nothing transcendental or superhistorical unless you believe in Christian theology or the philosophy of Hegel - which is not what this article is about. History consists of events happening in time at certain places to certain people. Abstracting transcendental themes from the events of history gets us into philosophical (and political) heavy water. History is contingent. The abstractions are based on the contingent history not the other way around. Colin4C 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean, for example, is that the following sections like "Criticism" apply to all the periods on the timeline.  Having slept on it I can live with it this way.  The numbers line up nicely. ←BenB4 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub Headings 

message: For several months now, Kofi Annan's opinion on the illegality of the war has been in the first section of events leading up to the war.  I thought it was there to meet WP:NPOV by balancing the American opinions that the war was legal.  However, it has just been moved to the Criticism section.  Is that the right place for it?  ←BenB4 15:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back.  There needs to be some assertion that the war wasn't legal (which is probably held by several times the population of the U.S. in addition to Annan) up were the assertion of legality is made, and not several sections later. ←BenB4 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annan's assessment 

message: I find this snippet from the article interesting:
:On August 16, 2007 Reuters, the news agency, reported that Wikipedia software had discovered that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had been editing the Wikipedia article on the Iraq War. CIA spokesman George Little denied that the CIA was officially performing the deliberate editing. The FBI never responded to the accusations. Colin4C 12:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The government has been editing this page.
However, having said that, I would not be opposed to having a note to that effect at the end of the page. (For one thing, though, it would have to specify which government.) What do others think? ←BenB4 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that whoever wrote the comment above yours Ben, should sign his name. Colin4C 16:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ed.conf.) Huh? ←BenB4 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I see someone already added a section at the end, so I'll put this reference on it.  Does anyone know whether the CIA and FBI edits were biased, and if so in which direction? ←BenB4 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit too self referential. We are trying to get the page shorter, remember. Is this truly important enough to the course of the war to appear? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means wikipedia editors are possibly implicated in White House propaganda. Wikipedia itself is possibly implicated - putting your head in the sand about this and imagining that wikipedia is not implicated in what goes on in the real world is very naive indeed. And as for self-reference - aren't the tags constantly put on wikipedia articles questioning the neutrality of articles etc self-referential? Therefore it seems that self-referentiality IS allowed on the wikipedia.  Colin4C 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:SELF. The info can be put in this article or other related articles. It just can not be self-referential. It has to be in the typical WP:NPOV way of "who says what." From reliable sources. Whether it is important enough to be in this main Iraq War article is debatable. The info could be in other wikipedia articles. I think it may merit its own wikipedia article. --Timeshifter 22:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA and FBI 

message: To use a very crude method of determining success on the stability scene in Baghdad, the assertion that the level of violence in Baghdad has returned to pre-surge levels recently doesn't hold water.  IIRC, before the surge began there were well over a thousand bodies being found in Baghdad every month, which dropped to something like three hundred during February/March, climbed back to around eight hundred in May and has dropped back to five hundred recently.  This is well documented.  Fighting has also shifted elsewhere lately, for example to Diyala province, as a direct result of insurgents fleeing the crackdown in Baghdad.
Is victory at hand?  Hell no.  It will take a great deal more fighting and bloodshed before anything approaching stability returns to Iraq.  The recent round of fighting has helped the security situation however and we should present this clearly instead of trying to undermine it.  I don't care whether you're right, left, up or down, good news from Iraq is good news for everyone. Kensai Max 06:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting those numbers?  The LA Times says civilian deaths (for the whole of Iraq) are essentially flat (graph.) ←BenB4 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surge Assessment 

message: I hear that there are several feature films due to be released with an Iraq war theme. Probably best to put these in a separate Iraq war in popular culture article I guess, unless somebody can think of a better idea...Colin4C 11:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we don't need Hollywood cluttering up another 20 kilobytes.  I've been holding off on adding all kinds of apparently significant developments because I know they are all going to be dwarfed by what Petraeus decides to say in response to congressional questions in ten days time.  That should warrant at least another three paragraphs, after the administration responds.  ←BenB4 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War in Popular Culture 

message: The title of this sub-section is both untrue and POV. It is untrue because the biggest battle of the war was the Second Battle of Fallujah in November of 2004 which had over 1000 casualities. It is POV because it dovetails with President Bush's propagandist and untrue 'Mission Accomplished' claim. This latter assertion is palpably untrue in the light of President Bush's latest speech (August 2007) comparing the Iraq war to the Vietnam war. Therefore  I will change it. Any objections? Colin4C 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be better to change it to 'Transition to assymetric warfare' or something?  There seems to be a definite point at which the warfare shifted.  Despite Bush and others claims to the contrary, this war is very unlike Vietnam.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than engage in original research as to the nature of the war maybe a better sub-heading would be 'Mission Accomplished?'. This would allude to Bush's major speech on the issue and the feeling at the time that the war was over, but wouldn't prejudge the issue of whether or not the mission was or wasn't accomplished or whether the war was or wasn't over. 'Mission Accomplished' is POV. 'Mission Not Accomplished' is POV. 'Mission Accomplished?' with a question mark is NPOV. Colin4C 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As thats typically a way of attributing a statement to someone, its also misleading. How about "Bush: 'End of major combat operations'," as this would be correctly attributing a statement he made to him.  And "Mission Accomplished?" is not typical format for an Encyclopedia. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think Mission accomplished is inappropriate. Jogurney 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  ←BenB4 01:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'End of major combat operations' 

message: Someone please review this continued insertion of http://www.nowarforisrael.com/ in the external links.  There is no "About us" or any other indicator of the size of legitimacy of the site's base.  However, WHOIS says it's David Duke's site. ←BenB4 14:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Duke's anti-"Jewish Supremacist Warmongers" site 

message: Since the Georgian force is the third largest coalition force in Iraq, , shouldn't they be listed in the 'combatants' list as its own entity, instead of under 'other'?  Inless there hasn't been confirmation of the troops yet, then i would understand.Ravenmasterq 21:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution of Georgian Forces 

message: I removed the reference to the "inherent capability" of UAVs as a CBW delivery system, because a fleet of Saddam's size, which was known accurately at the time, would have not even be able to begin to mount an attack against the Eastern seaboard as was claimed. ←BenB4 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a long NYT article with all the details but I'm having trouble finding it. ←BenB4 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Knight-Ridder; it has excerpts from the before-and-after-declassification of the reports at the end. ←BenB4 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "inherent capability" of UAVs 

message: I'm wondering why the ORB and Lancet studies are posted first, and there's no realistic up-to-date total until the bottom.  It seems a bit POV to me.  I'm saying this because the Iraq Body Count project said Lancet was not very realistic.  This is a group dedicated to ending the war by counting the innocent civilians killed, and they don't think a huge number like that is possible.  That tells you something isn't right.  Isaac Pankonin 05:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You reordered the estimates. That is fine by me. Wikipedia just puts out the info in the WP:NPOV way of who says what. Then the readers make up their own minds. --Timeshifter 10:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I cited an example of a group that has incentive for raising the figure.  You didn't comment on that.  Isaac Pankonin 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I added pertinent information regarding Congressional Opposition to Iraq War under the "Opposition to Iraq War" section of this article.
Recently, a certain Admin has overstepped his bounds by blanketly deleting my addition to the Iraq War Opposition.  Here is what I added:
--Begin--
The opposition to the war in Congress was spearheaded by Texas Congressman Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul). In order to prevent Congress from yielding its constitutional authority to declare war to the executive branch, which does not constitutionally hold that power, Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 giving Congress the opportunity to declare war on Iraq, rather than merely "authorizing" the president to deploy forces without a declaration of war. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war. As one of six Republicans to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, Paul inspired the founding of a group called the National Peace Lobby Project to promote a resolution he and Oregon representative Peter DeFazio sponsored to repeal the war authorization in February 2003. His column "35 Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq" http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm was translated and published in German, French, Russian, Italian, and Swiss publications before the Iraq War began. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm
--End--
The admin who deleted this portion offered no meaningful explanation as to why he thinks this bit of history is not significant.  Keep in mind, this cannot have anything to do with political advertisement since it happened back in 2002, which was before the 2004 Presidential elections, in which he did not even run for President.  I did not mention anything that indicates his current campaign or anything that could be construed as political advertisement. 
What I am proposing is to put the significant historical facts out there so that all of the relevant history can be seen, not what is convenient for majority opinions.  If a Congressional led opposition to the Iraq War is not significant, then anyone deleting this addition needs to offer a thorgouh explanation.
Here are the only points the admin offered for the deletion followed by my comments:
--Begin--
Admin:  In the scope of the overall article, and the course of the war and the buildup to the war, Ron Paul's actual individual actions and contributions are not notable enough to mention. 
Comment: How does Congressional opposition by Ron Paul, 6 other Republicans, and some Democrats constitute individual actions and contributions.  Keep in mind Ron Paul represents a large constiuency in Texas.  In combination with the 6 other Republicans and several Democrats, we are talking about a large portion of people.  This oppositon by definition is *not* individual.  As a result, your remarks are thoughtless.
Admin: In terms of his presidential campaign, adding Ron's contribution to major causes to unrelated Wikipedia articles when we don't already make appropriate mention of other candidates' actions is political advertising.
Comment: Keep in mind, this cannot have anything to do with political advertisement since it happened back in 2002, which was before the 2004 Presidential elections, in which he did not even run for President.  I did not mention anything that indicates his current campaign or anything that could be construed as political advertisement. 
Admin: We don't have the space, nor would it be morally appropriate, for us to allow every candidate to insert a position statement into every issue article related to their campaigns. This is an encyclopedia. 
Comment: This is absurd and thoughtless.  See my previous comment.
--End--
The bottom line:  Admins or anyone else need to explain themselves with ponderance before deleting historical information.  I have been offered no thoughtful or respectful response, only a blanket deletion twice now.  Admins should not forget they are providing a service here and are here to serve the community.  As such, the burden of explaining lies chiefly upon their shoulders.  If an admin is not comfortable with this, then they need to reconsider their Admin role.
I motion to include the info I tried to add twice now above.  Any recommendations on rewording this pertinent historical information would be appreciated.
:The problem is that the only legislation we've covered is the authorization to use force.  Why should we include a bill that failed?  There have been at least a dozen, including one yesterday about giving troops the same time at home as deployed.  This article really is pressed for space, up around 140 KB, after we trimed it down to 110 KB a few months ago.  Is there a source that says Paul's bill is more important than the other failed bills? ←BenB4 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AUMF was challenged using this exact same logic in the court case Doe v. Bush.  It was dismissed.  End of story.  Congress hasn't declared war since WW2.  Isaac Pankonin 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are many wikipedia articles on the Iraq War. Some of them probably cover the history of Congressional opposition in detail. If not, then start one. I see no problem with it. It is certainly notable. There is not enough room, though, in the Iraq War article to cover it fairly and in detail. --Timeshifter 07:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Timeshifter and BenB4. The only legislation that should be covered in the Iraq war article is legislation directly relevant to the war. There is not the space, nor really the need, to cover "proposed" legislation relating to the war. If you feel the need to cover this subject, I would suggest creating a separate article with a wiki link to it from here. Publicus 15:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to Iraq War 

message: User:Ipankonin added this whitehouse.gov source claiming that Iraq sheltered terrorists.  I'm not buying that fighters in the Iran-Iraq war are pertinent, and the information given on Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal seems at odds with the existing sources in our articles on them.  Nidal, for example, didn't enter Iraq until between the Pan Am 103 bombing and 2001, and was not on good terms with Iraqi government, which apparently caused him to commit suicide while trying to arrest him in 2002.  I love my country, but a claim that the Iraqi government supported him (with "training, logistical assistance, and financial aid") is going to need a better source than whitehouse.gov. 
Also, I fear that "shelters" as used in that source may very well mean, "allows to live in." ←BenB4 08:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fix it later.  Many of the sources I cited above in the last section also mention this.  I'm done editing for now.  Isaac Pankonin 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed it to "sponsored".  That was the word used in the 9/11 commission testimony.  I also added more refs.  Let me know what you think.  Isaac Pankonin 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitehouse.gov on [[Abu Abbas]] and [[Abu Nidal]] 

message: Should we use euphemisms such as 'lost' rather than 'killed'? Isn't that just weasel words like Hitler calling the killing of the Jews 'The Final Solution' rather than 'Genocide'. Whose interests do we serve by using misleading and euphemistic terminology? Are we politicians? Colin4C 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right to avoid them, but any story about war is drenched in euphemisms like "collateral damage." Funny how we get that and for nonviolent things get metaphors like "edit war."  That is irony. ←BenB4 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, funny but tangental.  You don't want me to go off on the congressional sedition going on right now.  Let's stick to the article, shall we?  Isaac Pankonin 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euphemisms 

message: WLRoss: You're mistaken.  He provided funds to suicide bomber families, as quoted:
*"The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars."
*Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000.
*Iraq under Saddam supported international terrorist organizations to bolster Iraq's revolutionary credentials, ensure his own role as Great Arab leader, and intimidate rival governments. In examining the history, methods, and patterns of behavior of Saddam Husayn in supporting international terrorism, some "truths" stand out. Beginning in the early 1970s, Saddam provided safe haven, training, arms, and other forms of assistance to Palestinian and Arab extremists. Baghdad hosted the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and the Hawari faction of the PLO. In addition, Baghdad created the Arab Liberation Front (ALF) as its personal surrogate in the wars against Israel. Although the ALF conducted no terrorist operations, Saddam used it in the 1970s and resurrected it again in the current Palestinian intifada as a means to recruit Palestinians and, in 2001, to win praise for offering $25,000 to the family of each Palestinian "martyred" in an Israeli attack.
*<redacted> saying that Iraq paid a total of $10-15 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. <redacted> Throughout the 1990s, open sources also showed that Saddam Hussein was a vocal advocate of martyrdom operations against Israel. The CIA provided two reports translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service as examples of his statements in support of the Palestinians, one of which described speeches in which Saddam urged the Arab nation to rise up against Israel and the U.S., and another which included Palestinian students thanking him for erecting a statue in honor of a Palestinian suicide bomber.  Page 15 (or 318 according to the document).
So I'm re-reverting.  Thanks! Isaac Pankonin 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly an example: Imagine that a family member murdered someone and the government fined you for letting them live with you before the act. You now have no money so you get welfare from the Salvation Army. Do you honestly think this aid implies that the Salvos supports murderers?Another couple of points. What relevance is it that Saddam helped anyone? It was not a factor for the Iraq War. The US and Israel both financed or gave assistance to Palestinian and Arab extremists in the 70's and to some of the same ones Saddam did. The US still supports some terrorist organisations today so should we put that in too? Put it in the Saddam article as it really doesn't belong here. Wayne 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but it does.  We're talking about international terrorism, and that doesn't start or stop with Qaeda.  If the invasion stopped some terrorism, it would definately be relevant.  Apparently the 9/11 commission thought his support for families was relevant, since they included it in their report.  WMD were in fact found, but not the stockpiles we were looking for.  There have been various chemical warheads exploded in Iraq as part of IED's that the insurgents probably thought were explosives.  I can get sources if you wish.  They are probably already in the article.  Isaac Pankonin 09:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. International terrorism for the purposes of the Iraq War rationale did start with al Qaeda, specifically with the 9-11 attacks. Saddam's various levels of support for militant Palestinian groups from the 1970s is not relevant to the Bush administration's rationale for war. What is only relevant was the perceived connections between al Qaeda and Saddam, which is why it was so important to have stories about 9-11 terrorists meeting Iraqi intelligence. Publicus 15:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is as follows: 1) He gave money to families of suicide bombers, and 2) suicide bombers are terrorists.  I don't think either of those points are disputed.  There's a reason the GWOT is not specifically called the "War on al Qaeda".  I agree that it wasn't stated as a rationale.  That's not the point.  It's part of the answer to the question, "What does the war in Iraq have to do with the war on terrorism?"  That's what the section is about.  Isaac Pankonin 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While neither of those points are disputed linking them for cause and effect is OR. Another problem is that giving money to families has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The only terrorism in Iraq prior to invasion was al-Zarqawi's which was based in the no fly zone where Saddam had no control. What Saddam did 30 years ago is not relevant in regards to the invasion. "What does the war in Iraq have to do with the war on terrorism?" It has fuelled a major increase in terrorism worldwide. In Iraq itself the only terrorism is by AQI which constitutes 2% of the attacks and is rather insignificant.  Yes WMD were in fact found but they were all ones Saddam had declared to the UN. As far as undeclared WMD are concerned there were zero. I have never heard of chemical warheads used as IED's. I'd put it in the same basket as the IED's allegedly made in Iran. IE: Propaganda. Wayne 06:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not talking about WMD or AQI.  You're stating a conclusion, and that's not what we should be doing.  We need to present all the reliably sourced facts and let the reader decide.  That's what NPOV is all about.  Please allow the article to be neutral.  That's all I'm asking.  Your opinion is not really relevant.  Isaac Pankonin 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't include facts not related to the war in Iraq as that makes it POV by infering that Iraq deserved to be invaded. Wayne 05:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to you to decide whether or not Iraq deserved to be invaded.  It's up to the reader to decide, and we serve our purpose by presenting all the facts and letting them do so, not by skewing it to one side or another.  Isaac Pankonin 23:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for suicide bombers in Palestine