Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)/Archive 2

message: Before I started editing today, this article wasn't neutral but took the point of view of the rebels or gueriilas, i.e., the opponents of the Allawi regime. Wikipedia should not assume that this POV is objective truth.
So I added some coalition POV to balance it, and in order to do so I had to change the article title. 
Regime change is happening -- both sides I mentioned agree on this. Whether the coalition are "occupiers" or not depends on POV. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV balance

message: After careful perusal of this article, and the discussion of it, I've written a new, somewhat shorter, but I believe more neutral article on Post Saddam Iraq.  I hope you all enjoy reading it, commenting on it, and editing it in the usual manner - have fun!
--Xinoph 23:27, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
----
=== Shi'ite population ===
Based on what sources did the writer conclude that the majority of the population is Shi'ite.?  ----?????
Is this really in dispute? I don't know where the writer got it, but the CIA World Factbook states: 
:Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
Dpbsmith 17:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article 

message: Based on what sources did the writer conclude that the majority of the population is Shi'ite.?  ----?????
Is this really in dispute? I don't know where the writer got it, but the CIA World Factbook states: 
:Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
Dpbsmith 17:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'ite population 

message: I deleted the entire portion of an anonymous user's post because it had been copied and pasted from http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=March&x=20040315181634sjhtrop0.8252527&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html . Kingturtle 23:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  my last edit 

message: There have been frequent claims made, by both U.S. government officials and others, that Hussein had contacts with officials in al-Qaeda, the organization considered by many to be responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.  This has not been independently confirmed.
Historically Hussein did support Palestinian causes; however, this seems to have largely been in the form financial support for the families of suicide bombers.  This was part of Hussein's attempts to become a pan-Arab leader.
Western military officials also frequently identify Iraqi militants as terrorists, although others may consider them to be freedom fighters.  As always, the application and use of this label depends on one's point of view and specific circumstances - defining these terms in a neutral way is difficult.
:I don't expect this to help much, but at least as a starting point and just for the record we should note the dictionary definition (AHD4):
::Terrorism, n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. 
:Dpbsmith 01:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: Check out this Iraqi opinion poll I just added. Opinion poll of Iraqis 2004-04-28 Pretty interesting stuff. Sam Spade 04:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These polls are interesting; I'm not sure what to think of them.  I was pleasantly surprised to see that they've been doing interviews door-to-door instead of via phone polls as they've done in countries like Venezuela, which produces a badly skewed poll in favor of the opinions of the wealthy.  However, some of the data coming back is still just strange.  For example, one poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, and others, came back with 44% of Iraqis saying that they are Sunnis, and 33% Shiites.  That is opposite what we know Iraq's religious breakdown to be, however.  An article in the guardian speculates that the problem is that people are choosing answers that they think pollsters want to hear, or answers that are prestigious .  But really, I have no clue what is causing this... Some people have suggested that pollsters are refusing to go to areas where security is bad (Fallujah, Sadr City, etc), and are consequently staying in the wealthier, more stable areas.  Who knows what is real.... --Rei
Having been a pollster myself, I will heartilly agree that it is far from a perfect source of information, even in the best of circumstances. That being said, it is also a window into what people are thinking, and is much better than just randomly shooting our mouths off (as is often done on the wiki) about how "most ABC's believe XYZ" despite the lack of anything outside of original research to verify it w. Anyhow, take it for what its worth, which is what 3,500 Iraqis told the interviewer in answer to those questions :) Sam Spade 19:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion poll 

message: I am not sure whether it is a good idea to move that section to a separate article. What do others think? I think that kind of decision should not be taken without discussion. It is strange to read that some countries retreated their troops when the article did not mention at all that they had troops there before. And at least there needs to be a link to the article. Get-back-world-respect 14:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your title is ok and the splitting of the article is reasonable. You should only care for a link to the new article and check which information is needed here to make it coherent. I think the part about specific countries that retreated their forces could also move, as long as this article mentions shortly that such things happened. Get-back-world-respect 21:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Get-back-world-respect. It felt like the section was just ripped out without any accompanying edits. Except for the article getting too long, i would have preferred the list on the main article. We probably need a brief summary, with a link to Multinational force in Iraq -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:22, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

text: No problem. Yes, the servers were terrible recently, and I didn't edit much either. Made me feel like I have a 28.8 modem. But things seem to be better now. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Multinational force in Iraq

message: Hello. I've noticed the use of the word "insurgent" throughout the article, though I haven't made any edits yet. This is a loaded word which implies that the Iraqi resistance is against a legitimately established government and, despite the preponderance of this term in the Western media and the general acceptance of such a view, is neither objective nor insignificant. I believe a different word would be more suitable. Suggestions and discussion are welcome. Simonides 03:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Insurgent is a value-neutral term that does not imply either legitimacy or illegitimacy. If you want it replaced with a term that would imply illegitimacy, this would actually go against NPOV. 172 08:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How can insurgent be a "value-neutral term"? That goes against the definition of insurgent, which means rebellion against lawful authority, the point being that it implies the current authority is lawful (I just noticed that the Wikipedia article itself says this about the word "insurgent": The term is inherently political and is difficult to use without taking a political position.) Further, I did not say I want the word replaced with something that implies "illegitimacy" - only that a different term, such as "opponent" or "guerilla" would be suitable. -- Simonides 02:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word "insurgent" is not NPOV 

message: Before I started editing today, this article wasn't neutral but took the point of view of the rebels or gueriilas, i.e., the opponents of the Allawi regime. Wikipedia should not assume that this POV is objective truth.
So I added some coalition POV to balance it, and in order to do so I had to change the article title. 
Regime change is happening -- both sides I mentioned agree on this. Whether the coalition are "occupiers" or not depends on POV. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV balance

message: There is an occupation when: 
#There is an international armed conflict
#A foreign military force has made an incursion on enemy territory
#This force is exerting any form of control over the population of that territory.
When does occupation end?
Occupation ends whenever one of the conditions of occupation is no longer met. 
1. The international armed conflict has ended. 
:An agreement has been signed between the parties at conflict bringing to an end the armed conflict. In general, such agreement will involve the withdrawal of the occupying forces. There may be situations, however, where the former occupier will maintain a military presence in the country, with the agreement of the legitimate government under a security arrangement (e.g. U.S. military presence in Japan and Germany). The legality of such agreement and the legitimacy of the national authorities signing it are subject to international recognition, whereby members of the international community re-establish diplomatic and political relations with the national government. In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation.
2. Foreign military forces have withdrawn from enemy territory or are no longer exerting control over the population of that territory.
:In case of an on-going conflict, the withdrawal of the forces also brings an end of the applicability of the law of occupation. It implies, however, that the enemy power has regained control over its population and territory. The mere withdrawal of troops from certain conquered places does not end or suspend the application of IHL rules if it leaves a vacuum of authority. The control of the territory and the legal duties involved remain in effect until the front lines have stabilized. Evidently, in the course of a military campaign where front lines can move back and forth many times and responsibility over the territory and population is unclear, the implementation of such rules can become impractical. However, in the case of the collapse of enemy forces, as in Iraq, the law of occupation applies to territories and populations entering into contact with invading forces, and remains applicable regardless of further tactical deployment of troops. In other words, there is no vacuum of authority or responsibility once troops have moved into a given territory. Obligations for the maintenance of law and order as well as all other obligations pertaining to occupying powers are applicable to the coalition forces as soon as they drive Iraqi forces out of civilian areas. 
In both cases: 
:- The hand-over of administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the occupying power of its obligation;
:- The set-up of government structures by opposition groups with the continuing military presence of coalition forces does not fulfil the conditions for the end of the occupation. If changes to the Constitution are required, it can only be amended under its own provisions and procedures or, in exceptional cases, under applicable international law and procedures. Agreements concluded by the U.S. or the U.K. with local authorities of the occupied territory or changes introduced by coalition forces to Iraqi institutions or to the government of Iraq cannot deprive protected persons from the protection offered by IHL (see Article 47 of Fourth Geneva Convention);
:- In all cases, the law of occupation applies until one year after the general close of military operations, and even beyond that date, basic rules continue to apply if the occupying power exercises the functions of government in the territory (see Article 6 (3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention). In addition, Protocol I contemplates the extension of the full application of occupation law until the termination of occupation. 
GuloGuloGulo 20:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
I think this boils down to the occupation ending only when enough international recognition of the new Iraqi govermnent occurs. And that will depend on the outcome of the scheduled January 2005 elections -- not enough countries recognize the interim government. And the elections in Iraq depend, I daresay, on the outcome of the November 2004 elections in America. (There's a reason the guerrillas are stepping up their attempts to thwart Allawi & Bush's plans for Iraqi elections.) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Iraq now has its own Government, recognized by most of the world as the official government. Most of Iraq is at peace and is slowly emerging from the misery of Saddam, Uday and Qusay. Terrorism continues to be a problem with every nutbag, psychopath and misfit arriving in Iraq with plans to blow up law enforcement officials, kindergartens and other soft targets. The occupation has ended. The new era is dawning, don't believe the liberal media, the darkness has ended, tyranny is over, the Coalition continues to support the new Government. This is no occupation, it was liberation and is now the beginning of a new day. ReithySockPuppet 20:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most of Iraq is at peace" I guess if you didn't read the "liberal media" and just watched Bush's stump speeches you might think this. I mean come on, Iyad Allawi can't even go outside the Green Zone without getting attacked  . Regardless, Iraq's "own government" is appointed, not democratically elected. As Uncle Ed pointed out, we will have to wait till Jan. I don't know what you mean by the US elections affecting it however, as both the candidates policies are pretty much the same regarding Iraq, albeit Kerry pushing for a more multilateral approach. Yet both want to achieve the same ends, a stable democratic Iraq. In addition, the increase in attacks is more linked to Ramadan than to U.S. elections, as the State Department has reported (DefenseLINK.mil). - Dejitarob 23:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation defined by International Humanitarian Law

message: My paragraph on causes for war was censured becauses I suggested (in order to contribute to the iraqi resistance page) The cause of Iraqi resistance should be included.
In the Enclycopedia Bratinnaca when the french resistance is decribed the cause occupies one third of the article.
This following is what the Vandal deleter took  umbrage at. This he does not want YOU to see. He has taken on himself to be a  self appointed policeman for this discussion AND while he keeps his own views for all to see HE deletes those of others he disgrees with so YOU the reader cannot see them or know about them.
I dont remember my previous post exactly but I wished to point out why some Iraqi people hate US forces and cause them to resist. These in my opinion are (and I may be wrong please correct me) 
  (A)Illegal War
  (B) Bombing
  (c) Supply of Chemical weapons to saddam by USA in 1980s
  (D)Support USA for invasion of Iran 1n 1982 which caused a million Iraqi lives
  (E)Tourture at abu Gharib prison
  (E)100,000 Iraqis killed (BBC News Service)
  (F) Massacre at the initial demonstartion at Fulljah at a school
This led many Iraqi people to see the USA as a force for evil
Some supporters of the US occupation seemed uncomfortable with the above. If you wish to disagree then express your opinion "Mr Censor", you are free to do BUT do not remove the views of others (this is a discussion page) let readers see both sides and decide. Do not insist on allowing people to only read WHAT YOU think they should -let this discussion be democratic however radical the view. Use YOUR BRAINS dear chap, to convince people of your side of the arguement not the erase button please.. By doing so so are giving Wikipedia a bad name in order to protect your own political intrest. This is a forum for many nationalities they sometime have a view that differs from the US viewpoint. Express your views by all means but do not delete a counter argument in a cowardly manner 
Happy editing but do not delete the opinions of others in the discussion page how can we have a discussion otherwise.
Lalit shastri
:Calling anyone a "half-brained twit" is not the best way to influence people. Maurreen 06:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This discussion was censored/parts deleted by some half brained twit above 

message: The article is about 43 kb. Any thoughts on slimming it down? Maurreen 06:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: This page is listed on RfC. Is any dispute still active? Maurreen 23:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC?

message: Last night I reverted material about the war and material that is POV, in my view. This article is about the occupation and past the recommended length limit. Other than maybe about a paragraph, I think material about anything before the occupation itself belongs in a different article. Maurreen 17:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasion and article length

message: In my view, one or more anonymous users are adding questionable edits. Should we get the page protected, or will the anonymous people at least attribute their material? Maurreen 18:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection?

message: A disagreement between users does not belong in a to-do box. When you are ready for a discussion without personal criticism, just let me know. All that is relevant is the article. Maurreen 07:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodall or whoever

message: This page is listed on RfC. Is any dispute still active? Maurreen 23:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC?

message: Last night I reverted material about the war and material that is POV, in my view. This article is about the occupation and past the recommended length limit. Other than maybe about a paragraph, I think material about anything before the occupation itself belongs in a different article. Maurreen 17:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested in hearing from anyone else, so this isn't just between me and Goodall. Maurreen 07:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of simplicity, I suggest trying to compromise with one or more separate sections, such as "War," "Invasion" or "Iraqi perspective." Maurreen 00:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasion and article length

message: In my view, one or more anonymous users are adding questionable edits. Should we get the page protected, or will the anonymous people at least attribute their material? Maurreen 18:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection?

message: A disagreement between users does not belong in a to-do box. When you are ready for a discussion without personal criticism, just let me know. All that is relevant is the article. Maurreen 07:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodall or whoever

message: The external links section is a mess.  Many links are narrow, dated, and biased to the left.  (I don't disagree with many of these links, but they are still biased.)  I tried to at least improve it by generalizing and consolidating links and removing dated links.  Some links were traced back to more original sources.  For example, there is a remarkable volunteer page that tracks coalition casualities in Iraq and that is better than the CNN and Washington Post pages.
The separate section on Amnesty International suffers from the same problems and I may work on that too.
--Greg Kuperberg 16:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: Shouldn't this be in the article?
Iraqi Public Opinion:
* Only 33 percent of Iraqis think they're better off now than before the war, as a Gallup poll discovered.
* Just 36 percent believe the interim government shares their values.
* 94 percent say Baghdad is more dangerous than it was before the war.
* 66.6 believe the US occupation could start a civil war.
* 80 percent want the US to leave directly after the January elections. "
[http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2028 http://www.thenation.com
--Jawed 19:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a moot point now, the U.S. occupation is over and there way no civil war.  The poll would help to identify and capture anti-democratic forces, if the poll takers were bugged or CIA agents. --Silverback 13:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi civilian opinion - should US stay or leave? 

message: wikipedia is an encyclopedia which stands on its own merit. we should not have all these footnotes within the body of the text. please consider removing as many as possible. if need be, place them in the TALK area or under the list of External links. Kingturtle 09:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  too may damn footnotes 

message: Given continuing dispute, both on this talk page and and in the world at large, as to whether the occupation of Iraq is continuing or has ended, I think we can do with a completely neutral, descriptive title and discuss the issue in the article (where amazingly the dispute as to current status is not mentioned at all), rather than just arguing about it on the talk page, where it cannot enlighten the casual reader.  So I propose Post-Invasion Iraq, 2003-2004, which makes no judgement at all on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claimed 'handover of power'.  Also I cast my vote with Conflict in Iraq, 2003-2004 as the title for an overarching article.--Pharos 03:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV title