Talk:Iraq War/Archive 7

message: In the article there is only one reference to spain as a member of the coalition, but there is not reference to the antiwar stance of Zapatero, his pledge to remove the troops if elected, 11-M, or the subsequent removal of the troops. Spain was the first to pull out, Italy is doing so and the UK may do so soon. The issue has repeatedly been raised in the US with questions to the president as to the return of the troops. Dont you think that this deserves to be tackled in the main article?88.15.59.243 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good points there. Why not add a section yourself?GiollaUidir 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain and "pulling out"

message: The paragraph "Criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war" misses a blank between "and" & "Human". --User:89.58.6.137 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small mistake

message: Please stop adding the list of various operations to this article. There's another article,Military operations of the Iraq War that organizes all the operations which has been linked to here. The list that was on this page was incomplete and poorly organized-this other article does a much better job. Of course if the military operation was unusually important, like Operation Red Dawn then linking to it within the text is a good solution as well. Publicus 00:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coalition Military Operations

message: It's very misleading and Bush-POV. I suggest we split it into (at least) four sides. Something like this (Well, ok, this isn't very pretty looking, but I suppose we can do it better in the article):
Ba'athist Iraq.. | US
Sunni Militants| UK etc
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Al-Qaeda........| Shia Militants
--Merat 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - it's not just misleading; it's idiotic.  At this point there are a few different wars going on.  I'd say "Baathists" and "Sunni militants" probably are in the same category; "Shia militants" and the Madhi army in another category; al Qaeda in Iraq in a third category, and the "coalition" in a fourth.  That is still too simplistic but it's a hell of a lot better than pretending al-Sadr is on the same side as al-Juburi or that either of them would have anything to do with al-Masri.--csloat 20:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: we should have three-sided infobox! ok? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like this (I know that it doesn't look very good, and maybe we should add more sides etc, but look at it as a draft):
--Merat 12:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks much better. By the way, I think "George Bush" can go. Having him listed as a commander looks silly, makes it sound like something from a Republican convention, and means we'd also have to put Blair in. Keep this for the generals. yandman 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No idea... But is it preferable? On one hand it would maybe be a plus to keep all the combatants in one column, as the reader would be "forced" to realize that this is a war with more than two sides (which my version of the infobox still kind of suggests). On the other hand, it's a good side to see the major combatans on two diffrent sides (Iraq vs USA/coalition), and I guess that it looks a little better too. Personally, I'm open for both. --Merat 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think either one is better than the existing combatants section with everything jammed together. I also think the results section would be better if it wasn't divided into left and right halves. With nothing but the word "results" on the left side. There needs to be some kind of code to override the default "Military Conflict" infobox setup. --Timeshifter 01:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants/commanders: Having Hussein, al-Sadr and al-Qaeda on the same side 

message: After editing by others, and thinking about it some more, I prefer the second infobox to the right a little ways up. I added the notes section to the end of the infobox. It uses small text automatically. A notes section is allowed in Template:Infobox Military Conflict. The compromise shortens the length of the infobox. --Timeshifter 05:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes section added to end of infobox 

message: Could I have some opinions on whether we should have Bush as a commander in the infobox. I don't want to keep reverting pkpat's changes if others agree with him. I know that as president, he is automatically commander in chief, but it is my opinion that this doesn't count (Queen Elizabeth would have to be inserted, as she is also technicaly commander in chief of the British Forces). Opinions, please? yandman 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: President Lyndon Johnson, in the Vietnam War, made both strategic and tactical decisions about how the war was run. It made a lot of people mad too. I have no doubt that George Bush is doing the same. At least now and then. I bet Tony Blair is doing the same. The Queen has very little power, if any, anymore. Also, Bush has final say, I believe, over who gets picked to be in the Joint Chiefs. And I believe some of the generals farther down seem to get "retired" if they disagree too strongly with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld strategy on troop strength. Who was that general that recommended several hundred thousand occupation troops? And who really gave the final decision about demobilizing the Iraq military just after "Mission accomplished". In hindsight that is considered the worst military decision of the war by many. That and allowing the looting, and allowing Abu Ghraib. Bush had to have some say in all that.--Timeshifter 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see what you mean. Although I doubt that it's really George Bush himself making the choices (I bet Rove's never too far away...), the examples you've shown make the case for including him. yandman 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Bush 

message: I content the war rationale section should contain the rationales given by the government for why they went to war ... is this really in debate? Also what I wrote was not quotes. Please read HJ res 114 if you believe they are. --NuclearZer0 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it was written meant that it sounded like we were giving justifications. For example "The production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement". As an encyclopaedia, we know this to be PoV (and false), so to stick it into the middle of an article isn't appropriate. yandman 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the rationales given, it doesnt say they are true, it actually specifically mentions where they came from and who gave them. A rationale is a reason, having the rationale section say there was many changing reasons, like WMD's, is not very detailed when you compare that to all the reasons given. Also its not false, because it was the rationale given. I think you are looking more for justifications or something, but the section isnt called justifications. --NuclearZer0 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War Rationale

message: Why there's no info about Poland as third country of coalition, after USA and GB?
*You forgot Poland! Gzuckier 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POLAND

message: A soldier back from a one-year tour of Iraq has posted 650+ photos of what it is really like in Iraq, I enjoyed the growl-ease pictures best :) Octopus-Hands 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 650+ Photos

message: In realpolitik, actors (a/k/a sovereign states) establish a pattern of behavior in order to demonstrate their national resolve and future course of action.  Although some claim the Iraq Invasion was planned before 9/11 and some go so far as to claim the U.S. government actually sponsored 9/11, generally political discourse has accepted that any full invasion and overthrow of Saddam would be impossible in a pre-9/11 political climate.  Thus, the obvious question is, how come this article doesn't acknowledge that the Iraq War came about in response to 9/11?  Left-wing antiwar bias, perhaps?  - RatSkrew 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the bottom of the "Prior to invasion" section you could link to more wikipedia pages on the subject: See Iraq War - Legitimacy, Failed Iraqi peace initiatives, 2003 invasion of Iraq, Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War. There are several other wikilinks already there. --Timeshifter 04:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TS, I went to look for those links and couldn't even find them for about 5 minutes. They were in one long italic sentence. I changed the formatting and title. Please take a look. If the article uses a constant style of italic links, please change back, but with each link on a separate line with bullet. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the bulleted list you set up. Someone else changed it back to the standard format. I think the standard format saves a lot of space in long articles such as this one. By putting the many links into one paragraph. Otherwise much of the article would be bulleted lists. Very confusing to readers. I wonder whether the template needs to use italic text, though. --Timeshifter 11:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added breaks, As I said individual links to important related articles should not be condensed into one long sentence. I couldn't even find them for several minutes after reading your post above cause they didn't look like normal 'important' links. I will check to see if this style is even recomended for multiple links. I don't think it is. -F.A.A.F.A. 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For many links as at the end of that first section ("Prior to invasion") I like the breaks you added. The italics are not a problem now. I think several links in a single line, though, are fine. As in some of the other sections. They have 2 or 3 links in one line. I think that is OK, and not confusing. I don't want the length of the article to keep expanding except for the meat of the article. Too many bulleted links make for too much scrolling, and too much interruption of the readers. That is also why, whenever possible, images are set up to allow text to flow around them. --Timeshifter 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for alerting me to those articles.  More biased content that overlooks the over-riding realpolitik motivation. -RatSkrew 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REALPOLITIK angle: Iraq War as response to 9/11 

message: In reference to the number of Australian troops in Iraq, the number is 1450, not 560. Can someone please change this, I can't seem to be able to.
:Do you have a link to a reference showing 1,450 Aussie troops? A quick google news search brings back this article saying there is 1,300. I'll update with that number, but if you have another showing 1,450, we can go with that. --Bobblehead 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I've found a better reference which cites 1,400. It's the Aussie Army page for  Operation Catalyst, which is their name for their Iraq involvement. --Bobblehead 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aussie troop numbers 

message: When viewing this page in Firefox (problem not reproducible in IE), I see a style error where 4 edit links overrun article text under the section Post-invasion, early and mid 2003. (Screencap here ). Anyone else have this problem, and/or any idea how to fix it? Noabsolutes 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using Firefox 2 and do not see the overlap problem indicated by the screen capture. I tried different text sizes from the view menu of the Firefox 2 browser. What version of the Firefox browser are you using? --Timeshifter 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm running 1.5.0.8, but the problem has been resolved for me now.Noabsolutes 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Error