Talk:Iraq War/Archive 3

message: :There is a poll now, showing a clear majority against his position, however, instead of waiting for a consensus Rangeley reverted again in spite of the warning he has on his talk page. It was his 25th revert on this part of the "war on terror" issue only. Añoranza 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Majority isn't important.  The strength of the arguments is.  But who judges that? KevinPuj 10:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You ignore others' points with perseverance indeed. Some of your reverts violated the 3 Revert Rule - which by the way does not mean "please revert 2.99 times per day" - and you sometimes even summarized "rv vandalism". Please rethink whether wikipedia is the right place for such acts. Añoranza 16:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the edit war! 

message: #The US government has explicitly stated that it is such.  The original intent was to find WMDs and prevent terrorism on the United States.  The current intent is to root out the terrorists from Iraq.  The fact that it is explicitly called such, and is a fight against terrorists, and always has been, leads me to believe that it should be "Part of the War on Terrorism".  It doesn't necessarily have to be only those words; a statement such as "US Government includes it in the War on Terrorism would also be appropriate.KevinPuj 01:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who think the phrase "Part of the [[War on Terrorism]]" ''Should'' be used in the Infobox Caption 

message: # It is a non-neutral propaganda term not in use everywhere, especially not without inverted commas. The category and the template should be deleted. De mortuis... 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Open your mind.If you dont like the 'war on terror' policy, discuss it-- dont ban discussion of it.Mrdthree 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who think the phrase "Part of the [[War on Terrorism]]" should ''Not'' be used in the Infobox Caption

message: The images used in this article are mostly anti-war/pro-pacifist or allude to current anti-war/pro-pacifist rhetoric. Some are indeed neutral, but I count 2 that show progress in Iraq and 4 that suggest otherwise. If this isn't already obvious to you, then you're part of he problem. Haizum 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd. You don't censor an article so it reflects "both sides" in a political debate at the expense of its accuracy.--Jsn4 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think war pages should have images of the dead and the wounded. Añoranza 07:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jsn4, then we agree; add more pictures of the progress in Iraq, otherwise this article is being overwhelmed by negative imagery 'at the expense of its accuracy.' Haizum 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With progress you mean the tens of thousands of people killed or those who were converted to terrorism by the war? Añoranza 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By 'tens of thousands of people killed' you must mean that many times over before the war even started. And by 'progress' I mean positive steps in the face of many negative setbacks and instances. I can see the good, the bad, and the ugly; so why can you only see the bad and ugly? I love how this is being spun so that I become the one who wants to suppress information. Haizum 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't even believe we're having this discussion. Even in the US the belief that the War is going well is becoming a fringe opinion. The vast majority of information coming out of Iraq is negative- to not reflect that in the article is propaganda.--Jsn4 20:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tens of thousands were killed in this war, and there are new victims about every day. I find it kind of absurd to write in a discussion about a war article "we should have some nice pictures here." As a sidenote to the ignorant user above, there is a long list of arguments edited by many users about why the Hiroshima bombing was a war crime. Añoranza 16:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...all of which are fallacious because the United States did not initiate the global conflict of WWII, nor did it set the standard for Total War during. Haizum 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may disagree, but there are many and not only stupid people who say that it was an unnecessary attack on civilians and met the standards of a crime against humanity. Añoranza 00:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using an atomic weapon on civilians to start a war or during a war is different than using an atomic weapon on civilians to end a war. That should be obvious...unless of course you have an agenda. Haizum 00:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When people disagree with you it must be that they have an agenda, that is obvious. And if Saddam had nuked the US, UK, Australia, Poland and the other members of the coalition like Micronesia, it would not have been a crime against humanity because it would have been only to end a war of aggression. Sure, I see. Añoranza 07:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, if we had purposefully attacked civilian targets for the purpose of demoralization and halting wartime production, then they could have justifiably used nukes on US civilian targets. Of course there is no point in explaining to you how it works logically because you've already managed to equate WWII and the war in Iraq. Good job. Haizum 21:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not equate WWII and the war in Iraq, I used the comparison someone else had brought up. In fact, most law experts agree that both the Iraq war and WWII started with acts of aggression. Fact is also that many law experts see nuking civilians as a crime. A crime stays a crime no matter how evil the one is it is directed to. People who support a government that endorses torture, abductions and the death penalty on minors and mentally disabled may be unable to see this though. Añoranza 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A nuke is no different from a bullet. They are simply tools of destruction on a different scale. You can use nukes to attack civilian targets as you can napalm, cluster bombs, bullets, and rocks. In order to believe that a 'war crime' has been committed, one must also believe that crimes can be committed during war. I simply don't agree with that premise, and I don't believe that is a particularly radical position to take. That doen't mean I'd like to see nukes or poison gas used willy nilly, rather, the weapon should fit the conflict; and  throughout history that has generally been the case. During civil war, the rifle is the weapon of choice and the civil opposition is the target of choice; likewise, during a tooth and nail total war the most destructive weapons and tactics are used. If any crime could be committed, it would be that of escalating the degree of conflict to a state of Total War. Haizum 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A nuke is different from a bullet in that it cannot be used on a military target exclusively, it has effects on such a wide area that unnecessary harm is done. There are laws of war, and even if the US government ignores them in practice, they are still binding, and they were used in trials supported by the US, e.g. Nuremberg, Milosevic... By your logic the holocaust or Srebrenica were no crimes as they happened during wars. War itself is a crime in cases like Iraq: the crime of aggression. The ICJ decided about the use of nukes. The ICJ is the World Court the US decided to ignore when found guilty of supporting terrorism in Nicaragua. Añoranza 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a simple concept and yet you still manage to botch it. 1. Wrong: A nuke can be used in a specific area so long as that area is the same size or larger than that of the effects of a nuclear detonation. If the conflict calls for localized (city) destruction with area denial (suburbs), then a nuke would be the weapon of choice. The analogous full metal jacket bullet can have similar collateral effects; it can overpenetrate its target and strike an unintended (or intended secondary) target, and the lead content can poison the soil (which may or may not be desirable). Regardless, your whole premise falls apart as soon as civilians become a viable military target, which has happened time and time again. 2. Fallacy: Simply because there are laws on the books about war doesn't mean they are appropriate. There are laws against gay marriage, but that doesn't mean they are justifiable simply because they are 'law'. 3. Botched Logic: The Holocaust etc were not strategic or tactical acts of war, and according to Wikipedia, "unconnected in any way to military activity". If anything, they weakened Nazi Germany's war effort. They were not "war crimes," rather, mass murder ("Crime Against Humanity"); and murder is widely accepted as a crime. Obvious. Haizum 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the record, I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq in the time frame in which it occurred, and I did not agree with the invasion for some of the reasons given. There should have been an overhaul of the Iraqi government after the First Gulf War and Saddam's war of aggression against Kuwait and his own people. Unfortunately for you, you can't blame the United States for that blunder. Haizum 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter here who agreed with the invasion, and I have no time for all this. Civilians never are a legitimate target, and I already know that many people from countries that reelect war criminals do not care about legality of things. Your reasoning about the holocaust is entirely off topic, and for the umptienth time the only reason the analogy was brought up was to disprove that those who do something have the right to name it. Of course your ignore that again. Let's just agree to differ on who of us is stupid. Añoranza 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Civilians never are a legitimate target If you put that into a historical context (which is the most relevant), you couldn't be more wrong. Let me say that again, you couldn't be more wrong. Also, if you try to apply a standard to warfare such as, "we ought not target civilians, even when they present themselves to be a target" you are attempting idealize something which, in its pure form, is already ideal. You would be adding a rule to a game of no rules. So you are wrong there as well. I'm afraid you're going to find it difficult to argue against empiricism with emotive rhetoric. Regardless, you've already discredited yourself by resorting to multiple personal attacks. Haizum 17:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but if someone says he is beyond the law, by saying civilians can be a legitimate target and even more explicitly, at the same time evading several points where he was clearly disproven, how do you call that if not stupid? Añoranza 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "it's the law" as the basis for your argument is pathetic. You should be able to explain why civilians ought/shouldn't/aren't military targets even when they have been since the first sieges in history. I refuse to honor fallacious premises by responding to them. But I do have a treat for you anyways: The majority of kamikaze pilots in WWII were comprised of hastily trained university students; that is, civilians. I suppose you believe shooting attacking kamikaze pilots out of the sky was a war crime (attacking civilians right?), but if you don't, then you are surrending to my argument: civilians are not a military target until they become a military target (no more than a tree is not a military target until it becomes a military target). When civilians are not a military target, it is NOT because some law says otherwise or because feelings will be hurt, rather, they are not targets when there is no strategic or tactical gain to be had (just like a tree). However, if an enemy military needs trees (say rubber trees) and therefore needs the civilian sector to harvest the trees for military purposes, the trees and the civilians become a target of opportunity. Feel free to disagree, I'll gladly leave it up to every military strategist and historian to call you an idiot for me. Haizum 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh how evil am I, I used the law as a basis for an argument, indeed pathetic. Really strange that there is no law prohibiting people without a brain to waste the time of others in wikipedia discussions. I am sorry but if you do not even know what a civilian is, why do you think others should read what you write in a discussion about a war? Añoranza 13:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a civilian is a "noncombatant," then individuals who contribute to a war effort by any means are not civilians and not noncombatants; regardless of whatever milk toast law you want to cite. Haizum 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I think answering someone who claims that kamikaze pilots were civilians because they were only "hastily trained university students" is like feeding trolls. Añoranza 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until you prove otherwise, or provide a cogent rebuttal to the main argument, you lose. Haizum 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Debates with trolls can only have losers. Añoranza 09:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Debates with trolls can only have losers. = Giant white flag. Haizum 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even proud to have posted such incredibly idiotic stuff that others refuse to go on discussing with you? Añoranza 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I challenge you to point out a faulty premise and actually cogently explain why it is faulty, or point out a factual error and actually give the correct information. As it stands, you have failed to do that. If you can't show where I'm being chronically "foolish and stupid", according to Dictionary.com, then I really don't see how you can logically conclude that I'm an idiot. What's ironic is only an idiot would draw a conclusion without a premise; that's the opposite of cogent logic. Haizum 03:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop your kamikaze actions, "civilian". Añoranza 15:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crime Against Logic Haizum 01:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ultimately, this is a debate worthy of talking about at a political forum. I belong to one, and would love to debate you at it. However, Wikipedia is not this political forum, nor is it one at all. I brought up the atomic bombing as an example of an event for which only negative pictures arose from, and explained it as a case where something with an ultimately positive outcome cannot be represented in pictures. You may disagree that it ultimately saved lives, Añoranza, however I think atleast in principle we are in agreeance. It is not POV to show the outcome of the bombing and not the people it saved on mainland Japan, and it is not POV to show the destruction caused by war and not show all the people that would have died otherwise, or would not have had any shot at a future. Rangeley 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Relevant to that section (prelude to the war)? A member of the administration making the case for WMD to the U.N. I don't think you'd find a more relevant picture for that section. I'm open to suggestions, of course. --Mmx1 20:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above statement that the pictures of torture should have a warning on them. To the people who think there should be more "good" pictures of the US in Iraq... Pictures don't lie, they show us the truth, and honestly we deserve to see everthing that's going on there especially the bad since our fathers and brothers ect are out there. The bad pictures we are seeing are the reality of the war. We don't need war all censored up for us, so we can feel better oblivious to whats really going on there while we eat our pop tarts and watch re-runs of teh Rosie O'Donnel show. --Summer 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to sign your comments. As for the pictures I dont think we should hide anything, however there is a lack of positive images and only seems to be negative or neutral images, negative ones only of US. Perhaps we should put a picture of the aftermath of a car bomb showing disfigured corpses of civilians. Then it can state "freedom fighters blow up car bomb outside crowded market" to appease everyones NPOV habits. Sorry I am ranting, hiding information bad, showing only one perspective also bad. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - signed it now :)  and yes i completely agree zero, it would be nice to see both the good things being accomplished and bad so we can see both sides of the arguement equally - hence we can have a better understanding of the arguement to form more educated opinions and unbais understanding. It seems a lot of our reactions to the war has been based on what the media presents us. PS: srry for my rant too --Summer 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Bias

message: Let me start off by saying I'm not an anti-war/pro-pacifist, meaning that I recognize war as being a necessary evil, but I will not blindly support any war that puts US soldiers at risk without just cause. I don't normally contribute to wiki, but I recently read a thread in a firearms forum that may be of interest. One of the posters, claims to be in military intelligence (many of the members actually are in the military so it's not too unlikely) and provided some information on what's going on over there. I don't know how reliable this is, since it's posted on the an Internet forum, but it sounds very rational and plausible. Look for posts from the user "Rayman1" http://ak47.net/forums/topic.html?b=4&f=64&t=85587&page=2
I personally trust these people more than the mainstream media, so I hope this shines some light on what's going on. If we can somehow verify this, I don't know what you do to prove it's reliable, it should provides some answers for us folks that aren't over there.
::Um, did you read Cincinnatus's posts (a Marine O-4, FYI)? He basically debunked those posts. The situation in Iraq is far more complicated than "one guy is pulling all the strings, we should fear him"
::And no, it's not verifiable enough for wiki. I personally trust Cinci, but since I can't cite his posts as from a Major X, its no-go. We don't even know who the hell Rayman1 is. --Mmx1 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, got him confused with the other guy pulling unnamed sources (glockguy). Rayman's the one espousing the "Iranians pull all the strings" view. --Mmx1 07:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but unless you know the source or someone you trust vouches for it, Internet heresay's worse than no news. It only reconfirms your existing beliefs because you'll "find it reasonable". Of course you'll find reasonable items that are in line with yours. I trust Cinci because his status has been verified through a chain of Marines, even though I don't even know his real name. Random guy on the internet? I don't think so. --Mmx1 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What some soldiers are saying

message: This talk page badly needs to be archived. 230 KB. GofG |||  Contribs 14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support archiving I guess certain discussions can just be brought up again such as working to NPOV this article. --Zer0faults 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: I am having a bit of trouble understanding the change made to the second paragraph stating:
"After the failure to get a United Nations Security Council resolution supporting military action against Iraq"
Can anyone confirm a second resolution was ever voted on after Res 1141. I am seeing by a search that the next resolution voted on was "Security Council resolution 1443 (2002) [on extension of humanitarian programme for Iraq]" which had nothing to do with asking for war. You can see a listing of its resolutions relating to Iraq by going here and specifying your search criteria. Perhaps I missed something, can the user who added the changes please specify if you have a link to a resolution I may be missing. Thank you --Zer0faults 15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the US and UK already knew from the bugs they had placed in their fellow council members' offices - and as everyone could know from the press - the resolution had no chance to pass and was thus withdrawn. Añoranza 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That means it is inaccurate to claim the resolution failed.  --Tbeatty 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A resolution withdrawn due to obvious hopelessness to get it passed has failed. But even if you disagree, the text does not say the resolution failed. The text says the US failed to get a resolution, which is definitely correct. Añoranza 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its false, you can't fail to get something you didnt ask for. If you look up the history at the UN website, no resolution was in fact ever asked for or voted on. --Zer0faults 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Withdrawn resolutions carry the #, so provide it and you will convince us that a resolution was asked for. Right now you are going against the concensus here that a resolution was ever asked for and are not citing a source regarding it. --Zer0faults 01:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You have 24 hours to provide a source, the prelude section says Powell went before the UN, not that a resolution was put forward. Resolutions are documents a member nation submits and gets voted on. Its not simply asking for something. So if such a resolution exists as you claim it will have a resolution # after 1441 and before 1445. Please state it and link to the UN website. Else I am afraid you are mistaken. PS even withdrawn resolutions would carry a #. --Zer0faults 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at our own article if you do not know what everyone could get from the media: Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003 February 25. Why not just look it up instead of starting an edit war? Añoranza 01:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite your sources, you cannot use wikipedia articles to justify wikipedia articles without further sources WP:Cite. Please provide a security council resolution number. Thank you --Zer0faults 01:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be bitchy, just google for it. Everyone knows they tried to get a resolution. Añoranza 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, ten seconds, first one was on the previous resolution:  Añoranza 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong resolution. November 6th is the date there. That is resolution 1441 which was later passed on November 8th. --Zer0faults 02:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop throwing out links and read them. That article is saying Russia will veto any resolution, does not say a resolution was voted on or withdrawn. Once again please cite your sources as per WP:CITE. --Zer0faults 02:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sure, Russia just said so for fun, there actually was no resolution they wanted to veto, they just wanted to point out that they had the right to veto if there was one. Why do you edit articles on topics you do not even know the most basic facts about? Añoranza 02:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again your cite does not list a resolution that was voted on or withdrawn instead it cites that a resolution was once in its early form as a draft. Also France after the first resolution said they would not support further resolutions, before talk of a 2nd one existed. Russia was simply stating they would not support further action by the UN SC. Please cite the resolution number or an article stating what the UN SC vote was. --Zer0faults 02:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, just stop the ludicrous endless argueing especially given that you know full well what Anon is talking about. If the US hadn't been attempting to get UN endorsement for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Powell never would have even bothered to attempt to persuade them.  -- Mr. Tibbs 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you are in fact siding with me that what Anoranza is writing is factually incorrect and also are admitting no resolution was ever asked for or voted on or withdrawn. Hence the resolution could not have failed. If Anoranza wants to contend that one was withdrawn they can point out the Resolution # which is searchable via the UN website so it can be confirmed and cited. If they want to contend it was failed, then we need a Resolution # that states the votes in opposition. Please read WP:CITE We cannot simply use other wikipedia articles that also do not cite sources. --Zer0faults 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See source: . And no not every single sentence in an article needs to be sourced. Many should be common-sense or self-evident or at least should be to most people. -- Mr. Tibbs 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making a substantial claim that can be seen to be in contention, it should be sourced. Furthermore your link doesnt state that a resolution was put before the security council or was withdrawn. Please read sources before submitting them as citations. Please provide a Resolution # if you as well feel the resolution was withdrawn or voted against so we can cross reference it with all the resolutions on the UN website to confirm its legitimacy. --Zer0faults 03:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "U.S. and British officials said they believe the resolution may get the necessary votes and avoid a veto. For the resolution to pass, nine votes are needed. Only four appear guaranteed: the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Permanent Security Council members France, Russia and China could veto the proposal. With Germany and Syria siding with those opposed to the resolution, much attention is being focused on the remaining six council members: Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan. All non-permanent members, they're being called the "undecided 6" or "U-6" in U.N. circles.". Pretty clear what happened, they failed to get enough votes to make a resolution. Please read sources before commenting on them. -- Mr. Tibbs 03:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You got the link to the text above, if you still don't stop the only thing you can prove is that you are ignorant and not interested in improving the article. You were already told that the resolution was not voted on because it was clear it would not get a majority. The text does not say anywhere that the resolution was voted on or officially withdrawn. Now stop it and apologize. Añoranza 08:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will no longer hear arguements from you as your comments toward me above no longer are serving to find a middleground but instead assert your opinion forcefully. The only time I will respond is if you manage to provide a Resolution number for me to reference as all resolutions put before the UN receive a number, or if you decide to admit you cannot fail "at getting a resolution" when its something you submit not something you are given. --Zer0faults 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding failed security council resolution

message: Some sourcing is very poor.  For example, this statement:
Critics cite the press coverage of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat they posed both in Iraqi regime hands, as well as terrorist hands, as being the sole reason given to the public.]
The two sources are White House press releases.  The last time I checked, the White House is not a critic of the policy and therefore can't be used as a source for "Critics."
There are others like this that put Wikipeida readers in the role of "critic" by using primary sources.  If you see this please try to find the secondary source that publised the primary sources views.  If a suitable source can't be found, the claims should be withdrawn.--Tbeatty 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those hyperlinks were used to source a previous form of the intro:   But Zer0faults had a problem with that old version of the intro and started pushing a different intro claiming that WMD were not the main reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. And so all the sources are screwed up and I've been trying to restore the original intro ever since. Also dealing with a mediation request about this.   -- Mr. Tibbs 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: Scope and scale is not related to casualites but related to sorties and combat patrols.  The Fallujah operation was on the order of the scope and scale of the invasion.  Normal day to day combat patrols, combat air sorties and combat recon is way down. Also, it is inaccurate to say the resolutions "failed".  1441 passed and was the basis for the invasion.  If you can find the resolution that was withdrawn, that would be acceptable to characterize it as withdrawn.   --Tbeatty 02:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would accept it as withdrawn if a Resolution # can be provided so it can be cross references with the UN website and cited. --Zer0faults 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree its reduced size and scope, casualties have gone down on a day by day basis. I would think it would be obvious that comparing 3 days of war to 3 years of occupation that the total deaths would be higher during the occupation, but the number of casualties daily has gone down. I will try to find a source for this however Monday or perhaps before. --Zer0faults 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduced scope and scale is accurate

message: #Colin Powell wasn't waving that vial of anthrax around for fun. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who think the [[casus belli]]-(main officially stated reason) of the [[2003 Invasion of Iraq]] ''Was'' WMD-([[Iraq Disarmament Crisis]])

message: # WMD was only one thread (though probably the most important one) in the larger argument that Iraq was a threat to U.S. security and interests.  The legal justification was violation of UNSC resolutions by hampering weapons inspections.  Eluchil404 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who think the [[casus belli]]-(main officially stated reason) of the [[2003 Invasion of Iraq]] ''Was Not'' WMD-([[Iraq Disarmament Crisis]])

message: Why is no mention of deaths made in the opening paragraphs of this conflict?
Pretty much every other conflict article I have come across: Vietnam War, World War 2, World War 1, Falklands_War, etc.
...all place information on estimated number of deaths within the introductory paragraphs for the obvious reason that it is one of the most important pieces of information regarding a conflict. Any sort of estimated deaths figure seems to be strangly absent from the introduction of this article and is hard to find even within in the main body. Canderra 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't over yet. The opening paragraph isn't a good place for stuff that changes on a daily basis. There are also just wildly varying estimates on the total civillian deaths. Eventually it'll get sorted out and make sense to put a final estimate in the lead. --CBDunkerson 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Toll 

message: I ask you revert back the changes. Anoranza made the following changes  and simpyl wrote "revert to keep results in intro in line with results in box" as her summary which is obviously misleading as her intentions. She has been asked repeatedly to provide a resolution # which she claims exists, and has changed her story to it was voted on, to it was withdrawn, to it was never actually submitted. Your revert back to her version removes the work and edits I have done since then, and enforces her ability to revert without proper explanation. --Zer0faults 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it would seem that your version conveniently leaves out certain facts. I think it is important that any controversial article makes sure the details get mentioned. Lack thereof can be considered to be violating NPOV, or at best misleading. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IF you look at my edit you would see that nothing was actually removed from the previous edit. You have not addressed the issue relating to your reversion back however, as Anoranza did not specify her reasons for the revert, and her revery covers numerous changes made to the article which seem not to be in contention. It was stated the article's opening paragraph was too long, I attempted to consolidate as we have reasons for war being mentioned no where near the rest of them ... Also you reverted back to Anoranza's version which she still has failed to cite, That the UN voted or was submitted a resolution by the US. The term that keeps being used is "US failed to get a resolution" however if you look at that statement it makes no sense as resolutions are not given, the US would make one and submit it for voting. So can you specify a resolution #? Do you feel "Coalition of the Willing" is POV? Do you find "aiding to terrorism" to make more sense then "aiding of terrorists"? These are changes you removed without stating why, please explain your actions for the community. --Zer0faults 12:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment copied from my talk page

message: I am reccomending changing the second and third paragraphs with the following on the ground that they jump around too much and fail to mention all the reasons for going to war. I feel too much weight is being put into WMD's and the article reads very POV as the moment something other then WMD's is mentioned, it is placed next to yet another sentence stating what is already in the paragraph above says, WMD's were a big reason for war. I typed this up in hopes of taking that very large paragraph that jumps around and organizing it. If you feel I am leaving something out, feel free to bring it to my attention and I will work it in. I am not trying to exclude information, simply organize it:
In 2003 the United States, United Kingdom and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq to removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. The governments of the United States and the United Kingdom felt it was the necesary action to take after both France and Russia stated they would not support any further resolutions on Iraq, under any circumstances.  The prior United Nations Security Council Resolution, 1441, had expired on December 8th, 2002 and no other resolution had been brought to the Security Council for vote. The goal of the UN resolution was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's), and enforce prior resolutions calling for Iraq to allow UNIMOVIC and IAEA officials complete access to Iraqi facilities to affirm Saddam had destroyed his chemical and biological weapons. Without the support of the United Nations, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's has stated that, "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the U.N. Charter."  
The war went ahead without UN support when the United States 107th Congress passed the House Joint Resolution 114 "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."  This resolution, while not an official declaration of war, is cited by the President as authorization to invade Iraq. In the United Kingdom a debate was held on March 18th in the U.K. Parliament to decide if the country should goto war with Iraq. By a vote of 412 to 149, the United Kingdom entered the war citing Iraq's violation of UN Resolutions 678 and 1441. 
Among the reasons listed for war in HJ Res 114 and debated in the U.K. Parliament are: weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, failure to comply with United Nations resolutions, the threat of Iraq using its weapons against US interests or directly against the US, the threat of Saddam Hussein giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, Saddam's support of terrorist organizations, the attempt in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and, Iraq's violation of the no-fly zone. Many of these have come under scrutiny as President Bush has gone on to say that "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." Since the end of major combat operations on May 1st 2003, weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found and the links of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda have been called into question.
--Zer0faults 14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: Can you please explain to the community why you reverted my edits here considering your summary does not actually give a reason. People editing articles are encouraged to leave details in the summary box and if possible on the talk page. So please tell us what caused the reversion with no summary? --Zer0faults 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This coming from a person who's reverted via popups without using an edit summary countless times. Again, no one is obligated to argue endlessly with you. I've explained to you countless times why certain edits are inappropriate and in most cases you just come back with non-answers, like "Your arguement fails to prove you are correctly using the term casus belli."  Or snide bad faith remarks like: "If you feel you do not need to respond to me, then you failed here, and on the talk page. Also, well this is a message for Kevin Baas, so unless he is you? you aren't being addressed here. Good bye Mr Tibbs. I would make a sad face, but I dont think there are wikiemotes.". Frankly, I'm not going to pander to your hunger for conflict or the endless filibustering. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You failed in mediation cabal, then failed again when you asked an admin to comment on that cabal, then failed again when Nescio came to comment. Even the admin you hand picked said your vote, which violates Wiki policy was not suitable to address the concerns of the people here. Yet here you are saying I am filibustering? --Zer0faults 02:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Tibbs Reversions 

message: I'm sure there were many examples of human right abuses and massacres commited by the US troops or US special forces. I've added some, but I'm sure I've left many out. Can anyone help in expanding the list? siddharth 06:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on it tomorrow by adding more abuses by both US and Iraqi and Insurgent forces. There have been many abuses on all sides. Hopefully any research you do will be to display human rights violations in general, not just US ones. --Zer0faults 13:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the Brits also had their share.    But the US Marines made it to Current Events again by slaughtering 24 civilians. Añoranza 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this in reply to me? I dont see the relevance? --Zer0faults 16:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human rights abuses

message: Can you please post what sentences in this revert you feel were giving undue weight toward US? Maybe we can reach a middle ground instead of a revert war. --Zer0faults 16:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nescio's feeling of Undue Weight 

message: In the section on Prior to the invasion someone added the following as a response to an explanation in a magazine editorial by one Michael Smith why some Iraqi installations were bombed:
While Mr. Smith's thesis regarding the purpose of this attack may be correct, he makes no mention as to why such an action would have been necessary. US forces could have easily entered Iraq via surface transport, thus negating any concerns of being detected by Iraqi air defense units.
Now, I know nothing about war strategies and/or tactics but even I can tell this response is an opinion (just as the explanation in the editorial is an opinion) and needs a source for it to be included.   Lawyer2b 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering its an editorial and neither of these two seem to be of particular military knowledge, both should be removed. Who is Michael Smith to make such accusations, does he have any particular knowledge of military engagements? Can that quote be found anywhere else other then an editorial, i would prefer if the source was changed all together. --zero faults talk 11:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  He is a reporter who "writes on defence matters for the  Sunday Times."  That alone probably doesn't make him an expert but it may be that he had expert sources for the information.  The reference link wasn't working so I fixed it.  Take a look at his article and let me know what you think.  Lawyer2b 12:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Michael Smith editorial. 

message: Can anyone provide more sources for this section, perhaps make it something more then just what Jay Garner said. It seems as its just one persons idea and other then his opinion isnt actually supported by any facts. I am planning to remove it if more isnt added to it to support his ideas are not just his alone, preffering of course a real news source and not a bias sources requotting of his opinion. --zero faults talk 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, I totally disagree with the idea of removing it and while I am personally proudly and clearly biased in favor of the United States, I want NPOV articles.  So what if the quote is from a biased source?  Garner, who is not just "some man on the street" I might add, did say it and it is a valid opinion that is correctly cited.  Lawyer2b 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an entire paragraph on what Jay Garner said ... Doesnt seem like its being a bit overdone? perhaps shortening it or something. a retired general should not get his own paragraph when he isnt saying anything but opinion, he doesnt even claim to have proof of what he says. --zero faults talk 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jay Garner Section 

message: I have often wondered how we dragged ouselves into our current situation.  I look back and realize every claim or reason for the invasion of Iraq was under false pretense.  However, it seems the general consensus today that the reason we are in Iraq and the Middle-East is because we are waging a "war on terror."  Who believes that rubbish?  If we were fighting a "war on terrorism" then why are we only fighting in Iraq?  There is terrorism everywhere on our planet.  Obviously there are other motives at work in our current affairs.  That is the most fundamental flaw in the whole idea of "war on terrorism."  Now we are stuck deeper than I believe we can ever withdraw from our mess.  There has been a long chain of material fabrication, lies, deceit, and ignorance that has befallen our very consciousness.  I think it is time we open our eyes and our mind to the cruel truth.  
Whatever allusion that has been made to Iraq and 9/11 is obviously methods of yellow journalism.  There is no such connection between the two, except fabrication and pretense.  It is important as Americans that we understand where we stand in the world.  America has a short, yet cruel and deceitful history of killing, torturing, and capitalizing on it all.  Money is by far the greatest addiction to grasp man.  The American dream is deeply rooted in the pleasure of placing your hands on the cash, but it comes with a curse.  That curse is what we see today, saw yesterday, and will see tommorrow.  My question is what will be the "Briar Patch"?
--Existential Thinker 04:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I believe this "rubbish", I posted a reply on your talk page.  :-) Lawyer2b 08:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq- the "Tar baby" 

message: By including the "Haditha Massacre" in the Human Rights Abuse section, we are effectively convicting the Marines that are currently on trial. I think we need to wait until the trial is over.
::Disagree.
:::All I see is the listing "Haditha killings (Under investigation)."  Is the word Massacre used?  If not, I believe it should be because this word fits every version of the story presented in the public, including Time, the US Marines, and the Iraqi Government. - Seele June 8, 2006.
I agree with Seele, this is about (current) history, not law. Just because something hasn't been decided by a court doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, if for example the Serbian army (JNA) didn't court martial those responsible for the Racak massacre in Kosovo doesn't mean that massacre didn't happen. It should be enough in the article to just mention that the marines charged/suspected of the massacre have not yet been convicted.KarlXII 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, you cannot call it a human rights violation if its not stated what happened there. How can peoples human rights been violated if perhaps as the marines said they were shooting at them. Also your statement "have not yet been convicted" is kind of the thing we are attempting to avoid. Without guilt or a better understanding of the situation I think its premature to put it in the human rights violation section. Personally I think they did it, however the jury is still out and the facts are not even all gathered yet. I would not object to it being placed elsewhere under incidents or investigations perhaps, a section thats title shows their has been no decision no the topic. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as long as NPOV, NOR, WP:Verifiability are maintainted you can call it a human rights violation even if it is untrue. As Wikipedia says "As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Like it or not, as long as there are reputable sources calling it a massacre and/or a human rights violation than it can be included in the article. In this case, the hard part is not NOR or Verifiability, it's NPOV, but there is also sufficent reliable sources contradicting the original reports that even NPOV is more a 'how to write it properly' issue.--Bobblehead 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haditha massacre 

message: I see a lot of similarities between this war and the Vietnam War -- I believe a section should be added, documenting these similarities.
:Only if warefare experts make that comparison and we can cite to them in reliable sources. On issues like this, it's especially important to avoid speculation and individualized assertions.
::Agreed.
:::"Warefare experts"[sic]] are by nature deferential to warfare, and viewing war from a warrish point of view, rather than from a human one. We need not wait for "warefare experts" to make any comparisons. There have been plenty made already by various sources. -Ste|vertigo 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a shoutout for personal opinion.  Yes, I believe this war is terrible, that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died and over 3,000 coalition forces have died ever since the Hussein overthrow, plus the insurgents, according to Donald Rumsfeld himself on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, "go up and down".  This, in my opinion, is utterly rediculous, however even with my opinions, this is NOT a place for it.  I recommend message boards to vent your opinion, and I proudly use them every day as a "punching bag", if you will, to vent out my feelings.  I also move to add note of the 12-hour debate going on in the House and debate in the Senate over this new bill to officially count Iraq as part of the War on Terror and to put off a timetable for a while.  In fact, with a senior member of Wikipedia's permission, I'd like to start an article on this bill, as it has direct effect on the American people and the families of those that are fighting and serving or those who have had men die in the line of duty. John D'Adamo 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a senior member, but starting the article does not seem to have any negative implications, it is a particularly important bill related to this event. As for mentioning it, I think we should wait on both mentioning and creating till after the debate, this way we can say what the result was and have it be more complete. It will be over by tomorrow anyway, are the definatly voting after the debate? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, it got shut down by the House.  It really is too bad, as it means we're not even close to getting out of Iraq. John D'Adamo 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Vietnam 

message: The "U.S. equipment losses" has very dubious surcing from what appears to be a Partisan web site/organization. Can someone look into this?
What seems to be the problem? The report cited is from the Lexington Institute, but the information in the report comes straight from the military. Other sources all appear to be in order. Is there a specific point you have an issue with?
Publicus 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure about their issue, but is it possible to find these sources as released by the military, that way we have a first hand source? Not a complaint, jsut a reccomendation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. equipment losses 

message: As I was trying to clean up the article I realized that the main casualty in the edit war over casus belli has been the lead paragraph. As people have attempted to represent each side by sticking in more sentences and citations the lead has become unwieldy. I know that this has been a contentious debate, and people have worked hard to improve this article and attain NPOV, but surely much of this information does not belong in the opening paragraph. An article this important and with so much effort put into it deserves to be readable and well structured. Pages such as Gulf War, Vietnam War and American Civil War do a good job of keeping only bare essentials in the opening and deferring controversy to later sections. I am going to work on tightening the opening by moving content to other sections. I do not wish to engage in debate about the war itself, I only want to beautify what is already an informative and well sourced article. I would appreciate any comments.
Nscheffey 10:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I support you, you will not be able to edit the article to remove the reasons given for going to war, according to some editors if you remove WMD's they will just revert you. However I will always add the other reasons if WMD's are mentioned without stating the rest of the reasons given as per Undue Weight. If you remove any mention of the conspiracy some editors will just revert it, as they feel mentions of polls and koffi annans quotes should be in the header as well as trivia about its naming by the press secretary. Good luck though, hopefully you can trim down the junk in there. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloated Lead 

message: I have my opinions on the war, but this page is god damn ugly. We are letting the controversial nature of the subject fuck up the whole layout of the article. We need to incorporate the various arguments without sacrificing readibility and clarity. I'm going to streamline this thing, arguments be damned. Let me know what you think. Nscheffey 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice work, prepare to get reverted however. But I agree with your changes at least, the overview was horribly ugly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's amazing how much better the article looks w/o that monster intro.  Rmt2m 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's actually supposed to have a monster intro according to WP:LEAD. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:LEAD section reccomends an intro no longer then 3-4 paragraphs, that does not state it has to be 3-4 paragraphs. Please see: Korean_war, Vietnam War, United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Seven_Days_War, Gulf_war ... etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, WP:LEAD states exactly how long an intro should be: "The length should be one to three paragraphs, depending on the length of the entire article, and should never be limited to one or two short sentences." -- Mr. Tibbs 07:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you want to do Mr. Tibbs add back WMD's so I can add back the other reasons because of Undue Weight, just remember, its you starting an edit war because your the only one with a problem with the lead, do not try to blame it on me, I will just be enforcing Undue Weight. I hope I will be seeing you changing all the other overviews in the other articles I mentioned, considering you are concerned with policy and not just using policy to enforce your POV. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a load of rubbish. Rmt2m 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had an issue with this as the above user has posted this on pages that are not part of the dispute, the dispute is over the Operation Just Cause article. I am not going to make a comment on every section however addressing the problem with their posting, I left a comment on their page, one I am sure they will respond to. At least they are not calling me a sockpuppet in attempts to get people to voice their opinion against me like they have been noted to be doing, even after it was proven wrong. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "one I am sure they will respond to". Definitely the kind of behavior this RfC is about. It's not an article RfC about Operation Just Cause. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured you would as you have been staring at my contribution list everytime you login. However this is an inappropriate place for this conversation to be carrying on, remember this is suppose to be a neutral statement above, you are inflamming the situation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I replied on your talk page where its appropriate, this page is filled with lots fo talk that does not belong here, I do not wish to continue the pattern. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What is this RFC message doing here? It looks like it's being used as a weapon. Haizum 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults]] 

message: I would invite all who are interested to partake in the discussion that is taking place on this page. Rangeley 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm confused - I wasn't trying to agree with Kizzle just then.  I was stating the issue as I understand it, not trying to rephrase those bullet points.  I think I'm saying that the War in Iraq is definitely part of the campaign in which it is classified by those prosecuting it.  I'm also saying that the name of that campaign is itself somewhat prejudicial, and that using it without remark entails picking up some baggage. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No longer confused, possibly redundant now. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet you have failed to cite a single source that would provide such a "classification of the Iraq war as part of the war on terror from the beginning". Rkrichbaum 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Rangeley 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just copied and pasted what was on the project page, I don't know who came up with what. --kizzle 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoa!  Suddenly there's a crew in here.  What's with Rkrichbaum's claim that we don't have any sources regarding the US government classifying the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism - is that true? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Near simulpost, Rangeley, hi.  Rkrichbaum, what do you say to that link? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already commented on that source here, scroll down a bit. The war powers resolution does not state that the Iraq war is part of the "war on terror". Some users apparently interpret the Joint Resolution in this way, but strictly avoid any comment on the fact that the conditions set out in this paper, namely that Iraq was harboring 9/11 terrorists, were not true and already in dispute. In addition, there was rarely a public statement averring that Iraq actually did, and the attempts to justify and garner support for this war were clearly focused on WMD claims, as everyone who was alive and conscious at that time is well aware. Thus no source from "the beginning" can be found that actually states that the Iraq invasion was part of the war on terror. (This claim is of a much later date and often cited by Republicans as reason for the troops to stay in Iraq. It clearly is a partisan view and disputed by most democrats in Congress. The overwhelming majority of the population also seems to disagree). Rkrichbaum 00:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;" I dont know what you are looking for, they dont have to state the exact sentence "The Iraq War is part of the War on Terror" for it to be part of it. In this press conference with Bush, Blair, Aznar, and Barasso  before the war, Bush states the UN must address Iraq and be responsible "for the capacity to win the war of -- the first war of the 21st century, which is the war against terrorism." And another,  which was March 8th was a speech entitled "War on Terror." In it the President states "This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror" with one front being the capture of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad, the other being that the weapons inspector from Iraq has reported to the UNSC on his findings. He goes on to say "He (Saddam) provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries." And finally, on May 1st, Bush announced "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."  I hope that clears things up. Rangeley 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times do people have to tell you that it is not about what who said what and when, but whether stating as a fact, not opinion, that Iraq is invaded to fight terrorism is a fair representation of the known facts, again not opinion. If you want to tell us this is what Bush believed then state seen by Bush as part of the WOT. No, you want it to say part of the WOT, and that is a statement of fact and not opinion. Please see the numerous discussions where this has been told to you before and which you ignore and even refuse to mention in your severely biased poll.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who started the WOT? Who can add conflicts to the WOT? Why do you think the US went to Iraq? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  If the US government coined the term War on Terror then don't they, and they alone, determine who is part of that war.  If that is the current party line then it is part of the War on terror.  This argument is a joke.  It provides Nescio a forum to argue his politics. You can argue until your head explodes.  If the US government deems it part of the war on terror then it is.--Looper5920 10:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In effect you are saying that if Bush says the moon is made of cheese then it is. Interesting opinion.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can take your condescending attitude somewhere else you arrogant prick.  What I am saying is that no one else on the planet is fighting a self proclaimed War on Terror.  Thus, they set the terms.  It's that simple.  If they invade Greenland tomorrow and say it is part of the "War on Terror" then it is.  It's the American name for a war that they are fighting.  Who decides which conflicts make it up?  You? God help us all --Looper5920 11:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you tell me which countries involved int he global conflict have spoken out against the name, and of course source it. -zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These were the first that came up at Google within 5 minutes: "Schroeder reiterated his commitment to the US-led war on terrorism, a policy he has pursued after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but said a war against Iraq is a different thing."; "Chancellor Schröder told Newsweek that he did not expect a unilateral American action against Iraq, while a government official in the Foreign Ministry spoke harshly against the Americans “settling old scores” and using the war against terror as an excuse for finishing off the Gulf War." Rkrichbaum 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not countries saying the name is invalid. They are countries that did not take part in the later conflict. Out of all the nations where the Global War on Terror is being fought, only two are speaking out against Iraq, says much about how the global community feels about its inclusion in the WOT. Also would you consider Phillipines part of the WOT and Operation Enduring Freedom? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you tell me where it says wars of agression cannot be included in the War on Terrorism. Please source this as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A war of aggression "is the supreme international crime". Defensive military actions is sanctioned, such as in Resolution 1373 which states that "any act of international terrorism, constitute a threat to international peace and security, (...) the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations". Military action against a terrorist threat has therefore to be defined as defensive in nature. Which is why US government officials went out of their way to make their opinion known that Iraq posed an "immediate threat" ... Rkrichbaum 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesnt matter if its illegal, the point being, you cannot say a war of agression is bad and so any war of agression cannot be the basis for the WOT. That would remove most of WW2 then as well, since Germany started most of those conflicts as wars of agression, see the problem with stating that it has to be excluded ismply because its a war of agression? Most wars start as wars of agression, some one has to cast the first stone so to say. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq and the War on Terrorism 

message: In the event that there is a fact disputed by two significant sides, our Neutral Point of View policy requires that we describe both sides of the conflict, as I have attempted to do in the current revision. Please do not engage in stale revert wars over the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and it's applicability