Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 3

message: I'm requesting semi protection to help stop anonymous user from pushing POV reverts over and over. How is this requested? Swatjester 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request semi protection

message: I suggest a section of the page be identified to be moved to its own page. 
This is because the page's length has exceded suggested guidelines. I suggest that the section about News Reporting be considered for being created as its own seperate page linked to the main page. This section can be viewed as its own topic, and consists of substantial length. Comp8956 01:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening Length 

message: The introductory paragraph is experiencing a tug of war of edits over the number of the number of members of the coalition of the willing, and the magnitude of defections.  As I write this the article currently says that the USA and the UK invaded Iraq, and that 48 other nations joined the coalition.  The last edit cut a sentence about defections, with the explanation that it was POV.  Personally, I'd say cutting mention of the defections was POV.  Maybe we can arrive at a compromise wording here.
But the additional 48?  The coalition of the willing article list 46  members, with just 24 nations having a military commitment in the theatre.  The USA and the UK, plus an additional 48 is a total of 50.  Can we all agree this is clearly incorrect?
The reasons for the defections can be debated.  It is clearly not solely based on the realization that the premises for the war were fabrications.  The Phillipines withdrew its platoon-sized commitment shortly after terrorists kidnapped and killed a Phillipino civilian.  Similarly, one could make a case that Spain defected, in part at least, because of the Madrid bombing, not the realization of fabrications.  Other defecting nations have attributed their defections to the lack of progress in the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure, and the ineffectiveness of attempts to restore civil order.  No doubt the embarrassment of being duped played a role -- along with these other factors.  
Surely, failing to mention that a third of those listed in the coalition have provided only verbal support, no boots on the ground, is deceptive?  --  Geo Swan 02:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the phrase to hopefully be more neutral, but I know the math is still off slightly. Is the reworded phrase acceptable to all? 68.199.46.6 06:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spain withdrew after the previous gouvernment lost the election and a change in gouvernment took place. Withdrawal from Iraq was one of the most important topics during the campaign, and was promised by the winning party forming the new gouvernment long before the bombings. Claiming that the bombing caused Spain to withdraw is at the very least misleading (at best it is indirect, causing the election result, but there is no consensus about this).--Stephan Schulz 11:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: bad math in the introductory paragraph

message: My remark about these codenames in introductory paragraph was mainly because stating all these lyrical codenames takes a huge amount of space in the first paragraph, especially if the successive revisions are stated, while not giving actual information. For instance, no single mention is made of the fact that the rational for the invasion were found to have been fabrication, which is quite significant a piece of information, I would say more than the military codename which have no incidence on anything. Rama 07:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the introductory paragraph, it creates the false impression that there was a large consensus to invade Iraq in 2003. This contrasts with the rest of the article where it becomes apparent that it was, as Britannica puts it: "a combined force of troops from the United States and Great Britain, with smaller contingents from several other countries." . So the question is, do we chop it down and let the reader read on to find out the details? Or do we try and present an overview of the entire article in the introduction? I think it might be best to just chop out the "48 governments" and the "legality questioned" part and just let the reader go to those sections if thats what he's looking for instead of trying to summarize in the opening paragraph. 68.199.46.6 18:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually the Lead section "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Also the military codenames are very redundant indeed. NightBeAsT 14:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codenames in introductory paragraph 

message: If there is another article dedicated exclusively to  media coverage of the invasion, why is its treatment so lengthy here? I would think a synopsis of the main article be produced instead, with any additional info contained here inserted in the other article as appropriate. This would help make the article a little less of a quagmire. Daniel Collins 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Coverage section 

message: As with the media section, the one on WMD is perhaps overly long and amorphous. I suggest what content need to be moved over to Iraq disarmament crisis be moved, and then a synopsis of that main article be reproduced here. Thoughts? Daniel Collins 21:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think that article is much more in-depth and doesn't have the problems (like mind-reading) that this one does.--csloat 20:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMD section 

message: While reading the article I found an inconsistency in the "weapons of mass distruction" section:
: [...]and in November 2005 David Kay, the head of the Iraq Suvery Group charged with finding Saddam Hussein's WMDs stated that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion[...]
This edit, from user Kulinda seems pretty old: 04:36, 14 May 2005. Somebody, with a funny sense of humour, had recently added (considered by some to be a month that hasn't yet occurred) right after "november 2005" .
Now the question is: how do we fix this? I suggest removing the whole edit by Kulinda, as it does not seem reliable anymore, unless it turns our he is a time traveler or - more likely - he just did a mistake confusing months or years. --Nova77 17:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was amused by the anonymous edit. I did a quick search for the relevant reference to correct the statement, but came up short. There is far too much here that is not cited. I support the deletion (besides, Kay said a lot more than [maybe] just this), and I encourage all to bring references to the table. Daniel Collins 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2005? 

message: I have problems with the introductory paragraph. It reads as vague and poorly written. Passive voice, etc... It is also POV (Saddam Hussein was President too, yet this title is only given to Bush). Furthermore, more than half the content is about the rationale/legality concern, not the actual event. The invasion was a very isolated event in this continuing saga that is U.S. involvement in Iraq, and this article goes far beyond the scope of its title. In the interest of not ruffling too many feathers, for now im willing to leave parts of it in. My suggested rewrite is as follows:
Initiated on March 20, 2003 by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and several other nations loosely defined as the "coalition of the willing", the "2003 invasion of Iraq" marked the formal beginning of the Iraq War. Swift in execution, the invasion followed the military doctrine of Shock and Awe.  Baghdad fell on April 9th, 2003 and on May 1, 2003 U.S. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations, for all intents and purposes terminating the Ba'ath Party's rule and removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from office even though he would ellude coalition forces until December, 2003. A transitional occupation began thereafter and among other topics, is covered under Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. Prior to the invasion, the U.S. tried and failed to secure a U.N. mandate to intervene in the interests of U.S. national security and international stability. Thus, the legitimacy of the invasion is a point of contention.  The request to the U.N. Security Council was based on intelligence reports showing Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The legal justification involved Iraq's implied violation of several U.N. Resolutions, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 1441. U.S. president George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that these weapons posed a significant and timely threat to the United States and its allies.  Much of this intelligence is now under scrutiny and of questionable veracity. In the days before the attack, the Iraqi government repeatedly denied the existence of any such facilities or capabilities and called the reports lies or fabrications. U.N. inspection teams, in and out of Iraq since the Gulf War, while willing to continue the search were ordered out as war loomed. This article covers the particulars of the invasion. For more general information see Iraq War, U.S.-Led Occupation of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005.
Please comment. I'll clean it up a bit and then make the changes if acceptable. ImagoDei
: This introduction will be a nice one for the article when we will be done with the work of switching the topic from the whole war in Iraq to specifically the invasion in the sense of  mostly pure military implementation.
: A few observations:
: * It is a little bit long 
: * "This article covers the particulars of the invasion. For more general information see Iraq War, U.S.-Led Occupation of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005"; I would put this as a disclaimer above the introduction rather than at the end of it
: * "Much of this intelligence is now under scrutiny and of questionable veracity"; hmmm, it is not "questionable"; it was bullocks. Even the White House and the British government recognise this. Diplomatic formulation is one thing, but this wording is too weak to reflect the extend of the dichotomy between the governmental declarations and reality.
: Overall, this is a nice proposal, which goes in the same direction than what was discussed previously, so probably another sign that moving away from discussing the whole Iraq war would be a good idea. Rama 12:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now the article Iraq War covers things from the "mostly pure military implementation" perspective. No reason to make this article into a mirror image of the main article on this subject. One of the three main articles regarding this subject needs to thoroughly cover the rationale/legality concern, as it's the reason this war is so unpopular, this article seems the logical place for it. Nice intro overall though. However, "Much of this inteligence is now under scrutiny" sentence needs to go. I suggest just deleting that sentence and inserting this one after "were ordered out as war loomed.": "Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction.". Or something of that order. 69.121.133.154 05:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Paragraph

message: Below is a quick summary of my changes; I think this covers everything:
1.  Kept RonCram's addition of the 1998 article in there.  I don't think it is necessary but if others do, it should stay.  I've changed the language and context for more POV and accuracy.  This article should not leave the impression that RonCram's version conveys that this was a big piece of evidence missed by the Commission and Committee -- it was a mistaken report by an Italian reporter (I'm not sure who said "alliance" but let's say two reporters) based on the prevailing wisdom of the time (1998), which turned out to be wrong.  In 1998 the NSA thought that Saddam and AQ were teaming up, and launched a "red-team" study of the issue (The NSA's position was different from CIA's, and the NSA goal was to prove the CIA wrong).  Well, they failed -- they were unable to find the connections they assumed were there (more info here).  So it is clear that people around the president at the time believed that Saddam was connected to AQ, but when they souught evidence for this they turned up dry.  I mention this because RonCram makes a lot out of articles from this time period, when many people believed there was a connection, but there had been far less investigation into the issue than there is today.  By now the prevailing wisdom of intelligence analysts and of the mainstream media around the world suggests that no evidence has emerged to support a Saddam-AQ connection.  RonCram has every right to disagree with all of those experts, but he is not correct to demand that Wikipedia make his case for him.
2.  Contextualize Powell quote with what he said in 2005, and add statement about the intelligence community's analysis of the "links".  I could add further detail here if people want but all this info is available at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  I am not sure how much duplication is necessary here; I would prefer to cut a lot of this section out completely and just refer people there.
3.  Include info on al-Janabi and the INC.  This stuff is also on the other page but if we are going to include this information here it should be put in context.  
4.  I removed the sentence "Evidence of the relationship is contradictory" because it is not backed up by the information on this page.  There is nothing contradictory about it at all.  There were some exploratory contacts between Saddam and AQ and they led to nothing.
5.  Contextualized the Senator Hollings thing.  I really think this does not belong here at all.  Senators and Representatives enter all kinds of things into the CR and it does not appear in an encyclopedia.  The fact that Hollings read an op-ed piece as evidence of foreknowledge is meaningless -- even if it were true at best it would prove that bin Laden's plans were an open secret in parts of the Islamic world.  But even that is not supported by the flimsy textual analysis Hollings offers.  But let's say this guy knew OBL was going to blow up the towers.  How is he connected to Saddam?  He writes an op-ed piece in a "state-run" newspaper?  I work at a "state-run" university in California; does that mean that if I know about a crime, it can be assumed that Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration was involved in it??  I feel ridiculous having to spell this out; it is difficult for me to believe that anyone can give this credibility.  
Look, if there was really a collaboration between Saddam and AQ, where is the money trail?  Where are the weapons?  The evidence of planning together?  The big things, not shadowy meetings that are disputed by other sources, or bizarre readings of op-ed pieces in local newspapers.
6.  Got rid of Able Danger.  Contrary to what RonCram thinks, I am not "afraid" of this information.  If it was relevant, someone besides Wikipedia editors would have mentioned it.  No article on Able Danger has seen fit to mention any of this.  If Able Danger turns out to prove that the Commission lied or covered up a connection between Saddam and AQ, that would certainly belong here, but so far that has not happened and nobody is even speculating that it will happen (except on Wikipedia).  This is not the place to explore such possible future worlds -- if mainstream newspapers start mentioning it then it belongs here.  Otherwise Ron's assumption that the Commission's credibility on this question will be tarnished is "interesting", but it is original research.  I've made this argument a number of times above and on the Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, but Ron does not seem to want to let it go.  Can others offer their opinions on this?  
--csloat 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am the one that speculated you were "afraid", although RonCram may have also.  What would the cited sources have had to say in order to make it relevant?  It is pretty clear that Able Danger, has politicians questioning the thoroughness and objectivity of the 9/11 commission, as well as Atta's timeline.  Reporters are reporting this.  We certainly are not claiming to be personal witnesses to it.  Your arguments fail to go beyond mere assertions.  Can you lay down your reasoning step by step, (assuming your assertions are the result of a reasoning process rather than mere intuition), so that we can perhaps reach an understanding and compromise?--Silverback 01:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First silverback, do not make such massive reversions without discussing the issues.  Second, Able Danger has not led to any questioning of the Commission's handling of the Saddam/AQ connection.  If you insist that it does why is it that you cannot explain why not a single reporter has reported such questioning?  I did lay my reasoning out step by step, silverback, I am not the one making inferences that are not sourced.  If I am it would help if you pointed them out rather than just insisting that I am making assertions.--csloat 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Qaeda section rewrite

message: User Silverback just reverted all the changes I made with a cryptic edit summary.  He has been doing this kind of massive reversions on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page as well, and he does not respond to arguments or discussion in talk.  I spent a lot of time rewriting this entry in good faith to include the arguments introduced by RonCram, even though I did not agree with the significance of those arguments.  I also spent time writing my justifications for every change, which are listed above.  Silverback reverted almost all of it without responding to a single of the justifications above.  I have implored Silverback to stop this behavior on his user:talk page.  He is not only reverting here; he is deleting relevant information wholesale.  I hope I am not alone in perceiving such edits as highly problematic.--csloat 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverback's revert 

message: Hey, um, why do we have this page whereas there's the much nicer, and NPOV, article at Iraq War?
: the two pages do not cover the same topcis. This page talks about the invasion of Iraq as a military operations, Iraq War is more general. Rama 06:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is this one much more POV then?  Just compare the opening paragraphs even. JG of Borg 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: The provide citations don't support Spains 90% opposition figure in the article.  I haven't removed that figure yet, perhaps someone can come up with the citation.  We need to be careful with the language, to avoid giving the wrong impressions by mixing polling results from different time periods with different questions and circumstances.  For instance, the gallup polls which are cited are from January, before the invasion of course, but many then were still hoping that the UN would act responsibly.  The poll results might have been different just before the invasion, after the UN had not responded good faith efforts at a new resolution by the US, UK and Spain.  Of course, we will never know what the pre-war poll results would have been had there been general knowledge of the oil for food corruption's possible influence on the UN decision making.--Silverback 14:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what cites support 90% opposition to the war in Spain? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_2003_Invasion_of_Iraq
--Theo Pardilla 13:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is the link for editing Template:Infobox_2003_Invasion_of_Iraq

message: The header and the link to the main Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda would remain, here is the proposed replacement text for this messy section:
*In 2003, the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on America, and used this allegation, among others, to persuade Congress and the American people to invade Iraq. Prior to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror, many believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to al-Qaeda. Reports of contacts between the two were published in various newspapers and magazines, but none of these are considered concrete evidence that Iraq conspired with al Qaeda in the past to commit terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.    This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA.  The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.
--Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the text to address your concerns.  If the Shahab story has merit is should be in the "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda" page.  Is there any sign that his tale was taken seriously and relied upon by the administration?  If not, I'm not sure how notable is, just a case of nuts coming out of the woodwork.--Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, like all of these stories from bogus defectors.  If we leave the story out someone will accuse us of censoring relevant information that helps prove their conspiracy theory.  (You might be familiar with this line of argument).  People who believe the conspiracy tend to insist on every tiny detail being included no matter how little credibility any detail has... Things like poorly worded articles from Italian newspapers from 1998, or local Iraqi newspaper articles with vague references to something or other... Anyway my point is I don't think the story has any merit whatsoever but it nonetheless belongs on that page if we erase it here (actually, whether or not we erase it here).csloat 09:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to replace the text of the al Qaeda section with this summary 

message: The header and the link to the main Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda would remain, here is the proposed replacement text for this messy section:
*In 2003, the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on America, and used this allegation, among others, to persuade Congress and the American people to invade Iraq. Prior to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror, many believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to al-Qaeda. Reports of contacts between the two were published in various newspapers and magazines, but none of these are considered concrete evidence that Iraq had conspired with al Qaeda to commit terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.    This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA.  The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.
--Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to replace the text of the al Qaeda section with this '''revised''' summary 

message: "Coalition of the willing" is a loaded phrase which includes the implicit judgement of "willing" and the misleading "coalition". The impression given is of a large number of nations in alliance toward a common purpose is at odds with the invaders constituent sources being primarily the United States and Britain with a numerically minor component from other nations.
This is in comparison to the first Iraq war which could be more fairly described in its essential character as a coalition.
--Theo Pardilla 13:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern is better addressed by an appropriate usage of quotations marks. Rama 13:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda terminology "Coalition of the willing" & "Coalition"

message: Where are the observations of Iraqis on this subject?
No i mean really this seems like some sort of self indulgent uni frat debating.
It sort of reminds me of the Blues brothers film when Jake and Elmo are in a bar and one of them asks a patron what sort of music she likes and she replies "oh I like both types, Country and Western". It seems like the priviledged elite are locked inside of an incestuous echo chamber endlessly banging on, fighting and slappping each other on the back. Yes the posers  are all so concerned with bringing democracy to Iraqis or preventing them from being slaughtered by foreign invaders that it would be beneath their social station to actually ask them what they want or their observations or opinion or to include it on these pages.
--Theo Pardilla 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly wouldn't be against adding an "Arabic popular opinion on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq" to stand with American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq. If you haven't already, you should take a look at Al Jazeera or ArabNews or the multitude of Iraq-based news sources: . - Mr. Tibbs 20:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraqi viewpoints

message: Someone recently added in the "Invasion legitimacy" section:
:There are also various International Intelligence agencies, including the U.S., that report that WMD's were smuggled across the Syrian border.
Does anyone have a good recent source for that? In the UK the serious media have not suggested that for a long time. Googling, I find a 2005 report from MSNBC which says exactly the opposite:
:intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.
and a similar one from CBS titled No Basis For WMD Smuggling Claims.
-- Rwendland 11:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "various International Intelligence agencies, including the U.S." is an odd wording; this seems to suggest that the US intelligence would be the most reluctant to alledge such a thing, or among the most serious ones... Rama 12:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Discovered that the Duelfer Report addenda, from the CIA, says "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place". So this statement is false, so I will remove it. -- Rwendland 17:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMDs smuggled to Syria? 

message: The german article is much better. Maybe something could be taken from there as it represents a more objective view from outside. helohe (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Article 

message: From the most recent Edits:
:Since the invasion began without the explicit approval of the United Nations Security Council, some legal authorities regard it as a violation of the U.N. Charter. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal."  However, critics of the UN 'point out that between the years of 1991 and 1998, the United Nations passed 11 resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with IAEA and UN inspectors, suggesting that the UN was not properly equipped to handle the Iraq crisis, and that compliance to the UN charter is thus irrelevant. Moreover, in light of the Oil-for-Food scandal that involved Kofi Annan's son and perhaps Annan himself, critics say that the Secretary-General may have had personal interest in preserving the regime of Saddam Hussein. 
Vs:
:Since the invasion began without the explicit approval of the United Nations Security Council, most legal authorities regard it as a violation of the U.N. Charter. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal."  However, US critics of the UN claim that as between the years of 1991 and 1998, the United Nations passed 11 resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with IAEA and UN inspectors, suggesting that the UN was not properly equipped to handle the Iraq crisis.
First of all there is nothing to claim here, it is a well established fact that 11 UNSC resolutions had been passed. So much for your first claim of unexplained + unevidenced POV-pushing. 
Secondly, The Oil for Food arguement has been made hundreds of times by dozens of people. Had you taken the time to read through the discussion, you would see that it had been settled 2 years ago, and been in ints present form since then.  So much for your second claim of unexplained + unevidenced POV-pushing. 
: Utilizing massive presicion air strikes along with rapid ground attacks, the invasion was a complete success, and did not require the huge army build-up like the 1991 Gulf War, which numbered half a million Allied troops. 
vs:
:The invasion did not require the huge army build-up like the 1991 Gulf War, which numbered half a million Allied troops. 
This is a fair assesment of the speed and conduct and outcome of the war, unless you can argue coherently otherwise, drop it. DTC 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained POV Pushing

message: What does the 98% mean in the first sentance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.36.255.222 (talk • contribs) 5 Jan 2006.
: It means 98% of the forces were either from the U.S. or UK, but it was poorly worded, I'll reword. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  98% 

message: Please, 192.127.94.7, when you make changes to the page, indicate what you are changing and why in your edit summaries.  When you are obviously pushing a one-sided POV, you should justify that POV here on the discussion page.  Especially when quoting articles out of context or leaving out important passages that change the implications of your statements.  It is clear you are putting in totally unconfirmed reports from the Russians about this stuff to push the POV that the attack on Iraq was justified, yet nobody, not even those who publicly justify the attack on Iraq, has ever cited this information to justify the attack, and it is quite clear that these warnings were not and are not taken seriously by anyone in the intelligence community.  It's also clear that they do not establish "links between the government of Iraq and terrorist organizations" as the heading here claims.  In fact, this information is totally irrelevant to the topic of this article, which is not Russian "warnings" but the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  This information simply was never part of the discourse about that invasion (and in fact the article you quote has Putin himself saying that whatever information he had did not justify the invasion).  Some of the other claims you added are just bizarre and will be deleted or fixed.--csloat 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he has, though the reverts are sometimes partial.  But look at the edit history -- the biggest problem is he makes the reverts without posting anything in the edit summaries or on talk - as you can see below I was very careful about explaining every change; to have it all reverted without responses to those explanations is disconcerting, not to mention insulting.  This is more than a content dispute; this is user conduct that is a problem (though you're right it's not vandalism per se).  As for copyvios, check again.  The CNSNews thing he added (I hilighted the change on the complaint page) was word for word plagiarism from the CNSnews article, without an indication that it was a direct quotation.  It was just a couple sentences, but still, we shouldn't have such plagiarism in wikipedia.--csloat 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous user pushing one-sided POV 

message: I made significant changes to the most recent edits; I address them each below:
1.  Result - as established above, a massive increase in terrorism is one of the obvious results of this invasion.  There is no reason to hide this from readers.  The fact that the result occurred after the invasion is no reason to exclude it; it was, in fact, a result, therefore it took place chronologically later.
2.  Sanctions - the Russian migs from the 90s do not deserve this much prominence here.  I took out some POV wording from it but left it there after the first paragraph rather than before, but it really shouldn't even be there at all - the other issues here are more important.  I also deleted an unsourced claim that was stated boldly; the point is made adequately without such ranting.  
3.  "links" to "purported links".  Even if there were some links, they were purported; the fact is that most links turned out to be nothing.  Saddam's support of terrorism -- like most Arab leaders -- was limited to support of Palestinian terror groups with limited aims in Israel rather than transnational terrorists like al Qaeda who attack the United States.  This has of course been established over and over in many discussions on this page as well as on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  Edits like this one are attempts to make such links seem stronger than they actually were, and are attempts to circumvent actual discussion of particular links.  Please stop changing this.
4.  Iraqi intelligence plots -- these do not show us any links to terrorist organizations.  They are perhaps examples of terrorism or attempted terrorism by Saddam's agents but they do not establish links to terrorist groups.  I moved this but there is probably a better place to put it than where I did.  It doesn't belong under this section though.  I also cleaned up some plagiarism from the washington post article (the wording was almost an exact quote without the marks) and included the source of the info.  Can the anonymous editor who added this please provide additional information about this?  Who was arrested in Yemen, Jordan?  Was there anything confirming this in any of the ten other countries?  
5.  The Telegraph information I have qualified since this story, in my research of lexis/nexis, does not appear at all after it is reported on 4/13/03 and the so-called documents never seem to have materialized.  If this is incorrect please cite sources when correcting it.
6.  I erased the thing about the Pakistani ambassador because the article doesn't mention anything about it.  If you meant to link another article please introduce the link here first - let's actually look over this information rather than posting it without reading the articles, which you seem to be doing.
7.  Beslan school attack paranoia - I included a wikilink and I added information from the article, which it is clear the original poster either did not read, or intentionally withheld from the post in order to distort the facts.  It's pretty clear from reading the article (and after some time has passed since the Beslan attack) that this was sheer paranoia.
8.  Russian warnings - I've deleted extraneous uses of "Russian President" and I've made minor language fixes.  I deleted the additional quotes which were clearly introduced to make it seem as if these warnings played a part in the decision to go to war.  It is clear that they did not.  It doesn't make sense anyway if Putin was supposedly also helping Saddam assassinate Americans, according to the Telegraph stuff added above?  Anyway the Bush quote adds nothing - we already know Bush thought Saddam was dangerous; this paragraph is about whether Bush cited Putin's warning, or took it seriously in any way. In fact it is never mentioned by US intel analysis or the SSCI when covering this issue.  The McCormack quote is even less useful.  It says, elaborately, "no comment."  The fact that we sometimes share intel with the Russians is nonresponsive to this issue.
9.  I erased the Yasin information that the anon editor added.  It is already addressed in the article.  The anon editor is also incorrect -- Saddam did offer extradition and the Clinton Administration refused it.  This is also dealt with extensively in Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as well as below in this article.  In any case it does not belong in this section.
I think that's it.  Please address these concerns directly before you revert.--csloat 08:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification for recent changes

message: I'm deleting the stuff about the OKC conspiracy theories for three reasons:
1.  they were blatantly plagiarized from the first paragraphs of sources that the editor probably didn't read.  As such they are copyright violations.
2.  they report information that is not at all related to the topic of this article.  Noone in the administration ever suggested that the OKC bombing justified the war in Iraq, and they would have been laughed out of town had they suggested so.
3.  they report a conspiracy theory that is not accepted by anyone except Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie, that the courts found against, and that is only being taken seriously by conspiracy theorists.  The Oklahoma City bombing page doesn't even bother to mention; there is a separate page for conspiracy theories about OKC.  Laurie Mylroie's analysis has been totally discredited (look at her page) and Davis has not said a word about this in three years, leading me to believe she doesn't have the goods to back any of this up.  Regardless, it has precisely nothing to do with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs) .
: Just some friendly advice, you probably have a point, but please don't refer to it as "crap" (or just tone it down) just to avoid causing dissonance and disharmony; just state why you find the material unacceptable and use professional language if you can. It's much better as a whole. Cheers! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 12:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OKC Crap 

message: TDC felt the need to add "It is claimed that" to a perfectly reasonable sentence.  First, let's use active verbs - *who* claims what here?  And what is being claimed?  Here's the new sentences:
:It is claimed that some of the evidence cited by the United States for Iraq's possession of illegal weapons was known at the time to be of doubtful value. In January 2006, the New York Times reported that "A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was 'unlikely.'"
So it is not just "claimed" that the evidence was known to be of doubtful value; that is a fact.  Note - at issue is not whether the evidence was of doubtful value -- that is another debate that I will not get into here -- but rather whether it was known by the Bush Administration to have been so.  Either that intelligence assessment by the Bush Admin exists or it doesn't, and the NYT says it does.  Let's either say "The NYT reports..." or leave it out.  There is no reason to question uncontested facts with weasel words just because you don't like those particular facts.  If someone contests them in the news or scholarship or whatever, that is of course a different story.  But if nobody contests the fact in every published account of an event, there is no reason for people on wikipedia to do so.--csloat 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but for far too many people what comes out of the NY Times is very much contested, especialy on the Niger urainum deal. DTC 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that doesn't respond to the point here.  If you have a published contestation of a specific claim, that's great for wikipedia.  If you don't, adding weasel words based on your assumption that "far too many people" agree with you is silly.  Shall we put "it is claimed that George W. Bush is president" or "it is claimed that bats navigate using echolocation" simply because such things are published in the new york times?--csloat 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but this is the most NPOV way to make this statement. First, we have to assume that this high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration, is bieng reported in its proper context, without the author distorting anything. Secondly, there is the information from both the Butler inquiry and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report that state that the beleif in the sale was reasonable to believe and backed by further evidence. DTC 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I already told you, the Butler inquiry and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report deals with this matter. DTC 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, that doesn't respond to anything here that I can see.  We're talking about a Jan. 18 2006 NYT article. Your argument was that you don't think the NYT is credible, not that it was preempted by committees two years ago?--csloat 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My arguement is that this is an a-l-l-e-g-a-t-i-o-n, made by someone, and ,as such, should be treated like one. DTC 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we know that.  Your argument is incorrect, unless you are prepared to treat every newspaper report as an "allegation."  Hell, even mathematical formulas are allegations according to this view -- shall we say "the Pythagorean theorem is allegedly a relation in Euclidean geometry between the three sides of a right-angled triangle."?  If there is reason to disbelieve the report (in this case, a report that a specific report existed) then state the reason; "it is claimed that a certain document exists" is as silly as "it is claimed that the value of pi is 3.14159..."  All we have to say is NYT reported such-and-such.--csloat 06:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  necessity of weasel words? 

message: It seems to me that the title of the infobox should be changed from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "2003 Invasion of Iraq" for three reasons:
#The invading forces took the form of a coalition of many countries, only one of which used the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
#The article title is "2003 Invasion of Iraq", so for consistency sake, this should be the title of the infobox as well.
#"2003 Invasion of Iraq" is less confusing.  Not everyone knows the specific propaganda phrase "Operation Iraqi Freedom".  "2003 Invasion of Iraq" is much less ambiguous and more NPOV.
I see there's been some revert-warring on this already so I'm putting it here to get some sort of a consensus before committing a change on the main article.  --Cyde Weys 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa when the hell did the info box move to the right side?Swatjester 10:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title in Infobox Military Conflict 

message: This article is presently 136 kilobytes long. More than half of that is in the "Rationale"- and "Legitimacy disputes"-sections, moving these to some other article would keep this article more in line with Wikipedia:Article size. While noting we already have lengthy articles about the Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraq disarmament crisis, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Stances and opinions regarding the 2003 Iraq conflict, etc., I still suggest moving these two sections to a separate article, entitled "Rationale and legitimacy of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq", or somesuch, and that only a brief one-paragraph summary should be kept here. I'm a bit uncertain about how to word this summary, though.
We might also create a template to help users navigate many of the articles dealing with the justifications, opposition protests, memos, letters and all sorts of other opinions. I believe this article should only in length deal with the undisputed technicalities of the actual invasion; when it started, what troops were there, and where they were, and so on. Everything else should be mentioned, but not dealt with in detail here. Any suggestions, or comments? —Gabbe 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  length of article 

message: Stop reverting edits on the caption "3rd brigade combat team OF the 3rd infantry division. the 3rd Infantry division is divided into 3 Brigade combat teams, the one in the picture is the 3rd brigade combat team. Hence, it's the 3rd brigade combat team OF the 3rd infantry division (brigade is a lower tier of unit than a division, which is comprised of brigades). See my article on Brigade Combat Team for more info. Swatjester 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is the image name. it has nothing to do with being grammatical. if you change it, the link is broken and we no longer see the image. you can try reuploading the image, and then tagging the old image as speedy delete, but this may not be necessary since the reader will not see the image name if we use alternate text, as i am about to do. --Jiang 06:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd brigade combat team

message: Some time ago, someone had put in a tidbit about the proposed duel to "settle up" before the war, that was suggested be held between Saddam & George W. Bush. Did somebody remove it? And why? -- takthemud 11:43, 27 Jan 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Duel

message: I think that the anon edit that adds material from the leaked internal document from the UK about Bush expressing a desire to bomb Al Jazeera needs work.  A couple of very clear POV issues must be addressed.  First of all, the White House statements on the matter must be included.  Secondly, the leakers of the document were arrested for violation of the Official Secrets act.  They should be identified as having done so.  Third, when the matter was originally released in the Mirror, a source said the President was joking.  If the anon editor does not wish to make these changes, I shall do it myself. Dawgknot 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush bomb Al Jazeer edit

message: Was the 101st Airborne even involved in the capture of Hillah?  I don't remember any army being around at the time, they were mostly to the west in Karbala and Najaf, and the Marines were in Hillah with Army air support out of a base outside of Baghdad that shall remain nameless.  Can anyone confirm or disprove this? Just cause I don't remember you guys being there doesn't mean the 101st wasn't there of course.  pookster11 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillah 

message: This article is huge, and a brief overview of the discussion and the edits shows that most of the work being done on this article is entirely tertiary to its subject, namely the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  I propose for issues of length, clarity, purpose, and to allow a more on-topic discussion of specific matters, that this article be broken up.  The section on WMD's already, I believe, has its own article, and if not could handily make an article of its own, and, while it has relevance to the topic, does not need to be explored in-depth in an encyclopedia article on the invasion.  Rationale, once again, references two other main articles on the topic, and then proceeds to provide essentially all of the information in those articles.  This needs to either be cut down or eliminated, and a basic narrative for the rationale behind the war given with reference to other possible ideas.  The Sanctions section seems to have little if anything to do with the article and more to do with the Oil for Food program and ensuing scandal.  Human Rights has its own article, and once again, does not need to all be included here.  Purported intelligence plots could be tightened up and integrated into a new rationale section.  The Saddam/Al-Quaeda stuff already has its own article.  Legitimacy Dispute has two articles related to it.  In the section on countries, global protests are brough up again after just having discussed the topic, and then we go back to, once again, discussing the legality of the invasion, which is a topic in and of itself and should be referenced, but not necessarily included, in an article that is about the invasion.  And then we talk about the opposition to the war again.  Basically put, some of this could be incorporated into the articles that are already cited in the article, and some of it just repeats itself over, and over, and over again, and can get severely edited down and new articles created.  What does everyone think?  pookster11 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Swatjester 07:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: please use wikipedia:summary style instead of just splitting text to other pages--Jiang 08:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. I even did propose this less than three days ago on this talk page... Also note that although we have  and , they are currently unused. If there were template-boxes on all sorts of pages related the invasion, I think there is less risk that any single page will become bloated again. Maybe making a new template to link all articles related to the war/invasion would be appropriate? —Gabbe 12:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree.  This has become too wordy and too long.Dawgknot 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break This Article Up Please!  Vote here 

message: Is there anything specifically in this section that isn't covered in 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage and needs to be moved over there?  It seems its just a collection of short paragraphs about individual articles. pookster11 03:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, it can be eliminated.  I've worked hard on it, but only because it is there.  I wouldn't cry a tear if it was deleted.  I really don't think it adds anything to the article about the invasion itself which is already way too long.Dawgknot 03:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it needs to be removed from the article, but before that I want to make sure that there's nothing in the section that someone thinks should be moved to 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage that isn't there already. pookster11 03:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Al Jazeera issue is not covered in the other article.  It could certainly be moved there.  It more properly belongs there in my view.  We can wait for some more comment on the point.Dawgknot 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bombing of the Palestine hotel was a pivotal event in the invasion and thus needs to be included in the article. 84.59.88.9 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pivotal? Not at all. The capture of the bridge at Nasiriyah was pivotal. The securing of the Karbala gap was pivotal. A single tank shot that killed 2 journalists, did nothing to affect the future of the invasion, far from pivotal. Take a look at the dictionary definition of the meaning. BTW Pookster I support elimination. Swatjester 08:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it covered in the main article?  And in what way does it relate to the invasion?  It may have been an important event, but if there is a media coverage section on the invasion it will be a general summary and reference the main Media Coverage article as per Wikipedia guidelines, not an article by article discussion as is currently there.  In other words, the story by story format that is currently there is getting ditched, mainly because its a mess, is unprofessional, and does not conform to Wiki guidelines.  The question here is what needs to get moved over to the main article that isn't there already. pookster11 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  I see.  I left a msg for you on your page. Semper Fi  Dawgknot 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Coverage 

message: Article has been cut and shortened down, and two additional pages created with their relevant sections.  Nothing in these sections has been deleted or otherwise edited; they are intact from this page.  Please take whatever discussions, gripes, concerns, complaints, whatever, about those sections to those articles, and do not try and reinsert the unrelated material back into the article without making an effort to discuss it first.  Thanks.  pookster11 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with those arguments, but they do not directly relate to the invasion of Iraq, and as such were moved to their own page where they can be handled with greater discussion and greater depth, and with far more relevance to the article topic.  A summary of those arguments and links to places where those arguments are handled in-depth is contained within the article, but please keep in mind that the article is supposed to deal with the invasion and not every single topic that may be related to the invasion in a tertairy way.  Once again, I assure you that the edits and reconstruction of the page are meant to make the article more on-topic and succint, and not an attempt to squelch one side of an ongoing argument over aspects of the legality of the invasion.  pookster11 20:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So enumerating all the Iraq resolutions is relevant to the introduction of the invasion article but the international protests and the failed Security Council that would have authorized force are not. Is that what they tell you to call neutral at UCLA? 84.59.88.9 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Iraq resolutions are directly relevant.  Mention of the protests is relevant as well, and the protests are mentioned and links to respective article about the protests are presented; the protests themselves had no bearing on the leadup to or the exercise of the invasion, and as such are teriary to the topic.  The failure of the Security Council to authorize the invasion is referenced as well, and once again the reader is directed to the article where questions of legitimacy are handled more in-depth.  In short, everything you just brought up is in the article, as well as notification of where more in-depth information on the subject can be found.  This is not the article that should be concerned with debatingthe legitimacy of the invasion, the protests, and so on.  Reference to tertiary topics is necessary, but it is unnecessary that this article cover fully all tertiary topics related in whatever way to the 2003 invasion.  pookster11 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it was before, the introduction enumerated Security Council Resolutions dating back to the early 90s and did neither mention that the attempt to get a Resolution authorizing force in 2003 failed nor that other countries protested and called the invasion illegal or that the largest ever world wide demonstrations took place in protest against the war. 84.59.88.9 22:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your new edits, adding a sentence here or there is fine.  In the future, please refrain from simply re-entering entire sections that are now part of sepparate articles.pookster11 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Changes 

message: While you keep the UN Resolutions and the US "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" you  completely delete the legitimacy question from the Political and diplomatic aspects. This invasion has created the largest ever protests all over the world and is seen as a turning point in history as the only remaining super power ignored the UN Security Council which in the eyes of most experts equals breaking international law. The most important content needs to stay, and I urge you to rethink whether you are trying to help to improve an encyclopedia or just trying to present things the way you like them. 84.59.88.9 19:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with those arguments, but they do not directly relate to the invasion of Iraq, and as such were moved to their own page where they can be handled with greater discussion and greater depth, and with far more relevance to the article topic.  A summary of those arguments and links to places where those arguments are handled in-depth is contained within the article, but please keep in mind that the article is supposed to deal with the invasion and not every single topic that may be related to the invasion in a tertairy way.  Once again, I assure you that the edits and reconstruction of the page are meant to make the article more on-topic and succint, and not an attempt to squelch one side of an ongoing argument over aspects of the legality of the invasion.  pookster11 20:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So enumerating all the Iraq resolutions is relevant to the introduction of the invasion article but the international protests and the failed Security Council that would have authorized force are not. Is that what they tell you to call neutral at UCLA? 84.59.88.9 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Iraq resolutions are directly relevant.  Mention of the protests is relevant as well, and the protests are mentioned and links to respective article about the protests are presented; the protests themselves had no bearing on the leadup to or the exercise of the invasion, and as such are teriary to the topic.  The failure of the Security Council to authorize the invasion is referenced as well, and once again the reader is directed to the article where questions of legitimacy are handled more in-depth.  In short, everything you just brought up is in the article, as well as notification of where more in-depth information on the subject can be found.  This is not the article that should be concerned with debatingthe legitimacy of the invasion, the protests, and so on.  Reference to tertiary topics is necessary, but it is unnecessary that this article cover fully all tertiary topics related in whatever way to the 2003 invasion.  pookster11 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it was before, the introduction enumerated Security Council Resolutions dating back to the early 90s and did neither mention that the attempt to get a Resolution authorizing force in 2003 failed nor that other countries protested and called the invasion illegal or that the largest ever world wide demonstrations took place in protest against the war. 84.59.88.9 22:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your new edits, adding a sentence here or there is fine.  In the future, please refrain from simply re-entering entire sections that are now part of sepparate articles.pookster11 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legitimacy

message: It's time to archive this talk page. Who want's to volunteer?Swatjester 15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't for the next couple days at least, until the changes have been fully discussed and agreed upon by everyone.  Otherwise you will spark an edit war with people not understanding the new changes and thinking someone has simply deleted all their fine arguments.  Thanks. pookster11 20:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to do it myself. I want someone to do it for me. Swatjester 08:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: archive

message: Not sure what the relevance is to the article as a whole or to the "Prelude" section.  It seems much more of a topic that should be covered in the Legitimacy section.  Once again, the piece is supposed to be a summary, not a blow by blow account of who said what where and when in regards to the legitimacy.  As to the Republican party reference, it has direct relevance as to the build up to the war, as the Republican party had made it part of its political goals some three years before the invasion to effect regime change in the country, and is thus part of the overall background and lead up to the invasion.  This at any rate is my rationale.  If you could please explain why a comment from the UK Attorney General is more relevant in the prelude section than the Legitimacy section, it wouldbe appreciated. pookster11 21:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you just thought it would be more appropriate elsewhere, why did you remove rather than move it? 84.59.88.9 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is more relevant in the Legitimacy article created yesterday, where it currently resides. pookster11 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What is more relevant, the source cite by editor 88.9 does not stand for the proposition he asserts.  Moverover, I have read the AG's report carefully and I can't find any such words.  Perhaps editor 88.9 can help me out on that.  But beyond that, I doubt it relevance to this particular article.  The AG in the UK has repeatedly stated his view that the invasion was legal.Dawgknot 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I take it back.  The AG in paragraph 35 made substantially the same statement although not in those words.  The article cited doesn't support it, but a direct reference to his opinion would.  Still, it doesn't belong in this article.  It belongs in the legitimacy article.Dawgknot 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Attorney General 

message: Operation Iraqi Freedom is the name of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Please explain how a reporter using the actual title of the operation is propoganda? pookster11 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this statement that OIF is only propoganda and is not the actual name of the operation?  If so I would be interested to know what the name of the operation actually is.  As to your other questions, the Vietnam war comprised several operations occuring at the same time and did not fall under a single operational heading.  The Persian Gulf war was known as Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm.  It can hardly be argued though that reporters referring to the operational title of a military exercise is an act of propoganda, no more than referring to the Great Barrier Reef is an implication that all other reefs suck; its the technical name. pookster11 02:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He just explained you, it is the name of the operation as given by the military for propaganda reasons. You may call that technical name, it still is propaganda. If Hitler called the Polish invasion operation polish freedom you would not accept that as a technical name either, would you? 84.59.67.92 02:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job invoking Godwins Law. And in your hypothetical situation, yes, Operation Polish Freedom would be the correct name. Can anyone here dispute the fact that on my pay stubs I received in the war they say "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? No. That is the factual and technical name of the invasion operation. Swatjester 07:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is encyclopedias should not use terms because aggressors write them on pay stubs. We do not refer to terrorists as martyrs either even if that is what their family gets written on their pay stubs. 84.59.112.101 14:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the usage of the name of an operation by a reporter tantamount to biased reporting? pookster11 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what the original dispute was about, I just point out that Cyde is completely correct in saying that OIF is a propaganda term. 84.59.67.92 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good for you. pookster11 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not propaganda.  It's what they named it.  It's always capitalized in the press Iraqi Freedom.  Desert Storm.  I don't see why that is propaganda.  It's a naming convention.  But then that's one of those issues that reasonable people should be able to disagree about without rancor.Dawgknot 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They named it so for propaganda reasons. Do you know what propaganda is? This debate was about the sentence The fact that American news programs accepted the administration's war terminology like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" uncritically, and that many American reporters were "embedded" with American military units and wore US flags in their lapels, were seen as inappropriate behavior. Using a propaganda term uncritically is inappropriate, and even if you do not think so you cannot deny that many others do. There is no need to use propaganda terms, we do not use them either. That is why the article title is not operation iraqi freedom. As is explained in the article, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom," for example, expresses one viewpoint of the purpose of the invasion, and is almost never used outside the United States. You are just proving over and over that it is a really bad idea to have soldiers of a conflicting party dominating an encyclopedia article about a war. 84.59.112.101 14:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the anon's argumentation easy to follow. It is backed by our own article. The press can refer to an invasion as an invasion, no need to rely on the terms the military uses for obvious reasons. Please do not remove others' text from talk pages, that violates wikipedia rules. Even if there had been a personal attack - I cannot see any - it would have been sufficient to remove it instead of the whole text. Get-back-world-respect 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really concerned with your opinion but thanks anyway. pookster11 03:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: do you prefer the terms "marketing" or "spin"? Derex 10:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer baloney on honey wheat with mustard.  Any other non-related questions? pookster11 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are rude. Read it in the article, it is explained there. I have the impression you are just not willing to see this. Get-back-world-respect 13:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: i am now willing to stipulate as to your desired assumption. the phrase is propaganda because it is explicitly designed to influence public perception of the justice or nobility of the mission.  as a sidenote, to see the difference with usual historical practice (pre-1990), contrast it with the vast majority of operational code names. Derex 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OIF 

message: ... as they all seem to be stating the same info over and over again, there's got to be a way to combine this into a heading, just simply "prelude to war" or something like that.  What does everyone think? pookster11 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This works for me.  I think that if this article is going to make it to a manageable length, topics will have to be combined.  Particularly since we can't deal with them in the detail that they deserve.Dawgknot 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to combine Political/Diplomatic, Prelude, and Rationale

message: Please reference Wikipedia:Summary style regarding the proper format of this section. pookster11 01:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any particular problem please point it out rather than delete whole blocks others have spent a lot of work on. Deleting the information that US reporting was seen as gung-ho by many in spite of my repeated explanations that even the NYT had an editorial about its lack of criticism later on in my eyes is grossly offensive. 84.59.67.92 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line about gung-ho reporting is there.  I had no problem with it in the first place.pookster11 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not entitled to remove whole blocks. As I am unwilling to waste my time with you I revert the whole thing, you can move the gung-ho comment yourself if you like. If you have suggestions about the media coverage block be more specific and if you want it at a more appropriate place move it instead of deleting it. 84.59.67.92 01:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is a list of individual stories, most of which relate to events after the invasion, and is at odds with Wikipedia:Summary style.  There is no place to put this other than Wiki news.  It is in an inappropriate format for Wikipedia.  If you think otherwise please point out how. pookster11 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point out specific examples rather than delete a whole block. 84.59.67.92 01:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Palestine hotel event was a crucial event in the invasion. The information that 69% of the US population thought it "likely" or "very likely" that Iraq was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, although no evidence of an Iraqi connection to the attack has ever been found is highly important to explaining how this war could be fought. You are welcome to propose better style but do not delete whole blocks. 84.59.67.92 01:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, how is this a summary of the media coverage and not just imply individual events?  if you would like to make a page for these events and reference them, I have no problem.  Considering however that there already is an article dedicated to the MEdia coverage of the war, and this is an article about the invasion, only a summary of the Media coverage is necessary, as per Wiki standard, and as such the event by event posting that is currently up there falls outside of those standards.  Please either specify how these article fit with summary style, or delete them from the section. pookster11 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the entire media section should be substantially shortened.  The embedded media facts should be reported and maybe 2 or 3 other short topics, but there are whole article in the Wiki devoted to these subjects and that is where it belongs.  All these reverts are just making a very tough job even tougher.  Show some good faith and assume some good faith.  Give Pookster a chance to get htis done.  This is not a unilateral effort on his part.  He proposed this work up on this page earlier and detailed what he thought should be done.  And it was commented on.  Give him a chance and stop the reverts.  Otherwise this article will just devolve into utter worthlessnes.Dawgknot 02:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can point out anything that is not worth mentioning, do so. If you just want to delete a whole block again I will revert again. And do not tell me about other articles again unless you make a serious effort to really place the information there that you regard more appropriate there. Many other users have worked on this section for a long time, you cannot just remove all of it . 84.59.67.92 02:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course the question is whether it is worth mentioning. Better to have an article covering the important stuff in bad style than a well-written article omitting relevant information. 84.59.67.92 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please elaborate how its relevant to a summary of the media coverage. pookster11 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, if you want to make changes it is you who needs to explain. Give any particular example of something you regard irrelevant and we can discuss it. Unless you do so, the text needs to stay as it is. 84.59.67.92 03:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I have already explained, the section as you would like does not conform to Wiki standards of summary.  Please explain why you think it does. pookster11 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already explained, if you want to make changes it is you who needs to explain. Give any particular example of something you regard irrelevant and we can discuss it. Unless you do so, the text needs to stay as it is. 84.59.67.92 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Section 

message: Let's work together to make the 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage article organized and balanced.  There is plenty of opportunity to highlight many topics of dispute such as word opinion, internation media vs US media.  Criticism of the embedded journalists, debates about vitriol and the al jazeera bombin and hotel bombing.  I happen to think that those two issues may belong in this article if we can agree on language and sources.  Let's try to do that.Dawgknot 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way you will get the April 8 bombing of the Palestine hotel out of an article about the invasion. 84.59.67.92 02:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain then what it has to do with a summary of the media coverage? pookster11 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that 67.92 may be right about this.  It was a military event as was the al jazeera bombing.  I'm open to be persuaded otherwise, but if we can mutually agree on language and sources, I think 67.92 has a point.  I"m willing to find a way to make it work in a short form.  Obviously the issue can get more and fuller treatment in the other media article.Dawgknot 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If the events took place during the invasion operation until the point where major combat operations were declared ended, they have a place in this article, in the short form at least. If not, then they do not. How simple is this? Swatjester 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If any reference is applicable, it would be applicable within the text of the invasion, as a reference, as the other article treats it more fully and is the correct place for the reference.  It should not have its own section.pookster11 03:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, if you want to make changes, it is you who needs to explain in detail, not me. And stop deleting my edits at talk pages, that is a gross violation of wiki policy. 84.59.67.92 03:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You still have yet to explain how the article as you want it conforms to Wiki policy.  If you do not wish to discuss the topic, then please refrain from reverting the article. pookster11 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage]]  Let's work on this article too.

message: What is left that is disputed?  Besides the fact that the article is still huge, almost twice as big as the Wiki standard. pookster11 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you were constantly deleting pivotal material I kept the dispute tag up. Disputes were e.g. about the relevance of the bombings of Al Jazeera and the Palestine hotel and the perception of gung-ho US media as well as how the legality issue should be addressed. 84.59.67.92 04:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bombings were incorporated, as was the gung-ho line, and I thought the issues of how to present legailty were addressed already?  What else about legality did you want to put in there? pookster11 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You kept a line, I insist we need a whole section. I did not see an ok improved version of the bombings and I do not accept the legality issue to be taken out of the first prelude paragraph. 84.59.67.92 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They have their own articles.  This is not the article for the discussion of those topics, once again referring back to wikipedia:summary style  which I think you desperately need to read.  Reference and summary of those main articles is fine, but they can be treated in much greater depth and much more on-topic with their own pages.  This is also the first time you've insisted that a legailty issue be put back in.  There is ample reference to and inclusion of, in summary, the question of legality.  Referring to a conversation farther down this page, what exactly do you think this page is supposed to be about? pookster11 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted sections from this talk page about what the neutrality dispute was about, which is a gross violation of wiki rules. You then deleted my complaint about your removal. 84.59.112.101 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm beginning to wonder about the age and experience of the anon user, as I keep having to repeat the same thing over and over again and s/he doesn't seem to get it.  Lets try this.  PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS HAVE NO PLACE ON A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE.  Maybe that will help. pookster11 19:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You tell others not to personally attack by yelling at them and wondering about their age and experience? That does not seem very mature to me. He does have a point that you should not have removed the neutrality dispute tag  or the discussion here  as he claimed in the Request for comment on your user conduct. And please do not waste your time on requesting comments on an anon. Get-back-world-respect 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, its about time someone brought that up.  I also requested a protect on this page some 5 hours ago now. pookster11 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history, I have decided to protect the page rather than block individual editors that have violated WP:3RR. Please take this time to cool-off, and arrive at consensus on how to proceed. Once you are ready to resume editing, place a request at WP:RFPP. 04:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I think that editor pookster has been doing terrific, but entirely thankless, work.  I think he has consistently acted in good faith to substantially shorten this article to conform to wiki policy.  Many other articles have been created with material from this overly long and unwieldy article but other editors will not give him a chance to finish so that we can debate the whole scheme.  If it doesn't get done by this editor, it won't get done at all for a very long time.  I think he should have been given a chance to finish.Dawgknot 04:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He deleted whole sections, even here at the talk page. If you want to rewrite, do it in the sandbox. 84.59.67.92 04:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sections deleted from the talk page pertained to your behavior .92, after I requested that if you had a personal problem with me you took it up in the user talk pages, not in the talk section of this article.  If you wish to continue harping on this topic I have no problem with the a restoration of what you said, though I doubt you would fully appreciate that.  Personal conversations and insults do not have a place on a Wiki talk page.  Further, I would question how long you've been working with Wiki, as you don't seem familiar with any of the editing or article standards, and seem to be thrown off about what the article topic is supposed to be about.  pookster11 08:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he moved them to different pages. Learn to use wikipedia anon, and try registering some time before you lecture people. Thanks Pookster for your work. Swatjester 07:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pookster11 had deleted the whole section about media coverage without moving it to the other article. That was later attempted by Dawgknot. And he deleted sections from this talk page about what the neutrality dispute was about, which is a gross violation of wiki rules. Before lecturing people look at the facts. 84.59.112.101 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you have been unwilling to assum his good faith.  I feel very confident that the failure to get the material to the other articles was an accident.  Frankly, his job was not helped by your constants reverts.  I, myself, could not keep track of where material was because every time I turned around you had reverted yet again.  How about participating in the process rather than obstructing it.  You;'ll find that everyone involved is perfectly willing to work things out.  Give it a try.  And it doesn't help to hold old grudges.Dawgknot 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 RR warning 

message: I think it might be profitable to take advantage of the Wiki suggestion in Content forking and try using temporary pages:
One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy which people can then edit to show others proposed refactorings, rephrasings, or other changes. This can be helpful for controversial subjects or controversial changes; editors can show others exactly what their vision for a proposed change is -- without the controversy of having that new proposed version automatically replace the existing version.
However, just as "spinout" articles have sometimes been mistaken for POV forks, temporary subpages have also sometimes been mistaken for POV forks. Care should be taken on both sides to minimize such mistakes. Temporary articles should be given names which clearly indicate they are not part of the regular article namespace (a temporary version of X-and-So might be called X-and-So/temp, for instance) and their existence should be clearly noted on the talk page of the main article. Those who think they have found a POV fork, in turn, should check to see whether the article title indicates a temporary subpage and whether the talk page of the main article indicates that this is a place to work on consensus rather than to dodge it.
In this way, editor pookster can show us what he has in mind for this article.  We have to be aware of Article size and Summary style.  It might be very helpful to us all to review these policy statements and come back with fresh energy to get this job done.Dawgknot 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You broke the 3 revert rule, deleted whole sections with the false justification of moving the content to other articles, deleted sections of this talk page about the neutrality dispute and even the complaint about this and you made several personal attacks. As Mr Billion rightly noted, you are not supposed to deal with this article as if it was yours. If you want to make big changes, please discuss them here. Saying "it is not wiki style" is no justification for deleting whole sections without any attempt to cover their content. Do not tell me anything about wiki rules. 84.59.112.101 14:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are an anon, you don't get to lecture anyone about Wiki rules. Pookster11 is not attempting to delete entire sections: He is copying them into new articles, and leaving a link to the new article, in an attempt to save space, as this entry is massively over the recommended size. You also have broken the 3rr, and you are the only one here not acting in good faith. Please review WP:AGF Swatjester 16:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki summary policy and content forking

message: As this article is dominated by two soldiers of one of the conflicting parties, namely pookster11 and Swatjester who repeatedly show their bias, e.g. by not even seeing that "operation Iraqi freedom" is a propaganda term (see OIF above) it needs to be looked at carefully. 84.59.112.101 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bias? You're the only one here who's too blind to see that OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM WAS THE OFFICIAL MILITARY NAME FOR THE OPERATION!!!!! It's the name of a book by NBC detailing the operation. If you click on this www.army.mil link , which shows the list of ongoing operations, guess which one was listed when you click on Iraq: OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM! On the first page of an Amazon.com search, I show 19 out of 20 of the listings have OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM in the name. Yes it's politically charged. Yes it's POV. It's also historical, and factually accurate. It's the name of the OPERATION of the invasion, just like the Israeli hostage rescue in Uganda was Operation Entebbe, just as D-Day was Operation Overlord, just as the first gulf war was Operation Desert Storm, this is Operation Iraqi Freedom.  On that note, stop calling me biased just because you disagree with me. I'm not putting up with any more personal jabs from you. Swatjester 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely NOT soldiersDawgknot 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am. Swatjester 05:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soldier's bias

message: :::I'm sick of this. I've filed a request for mediation against you. It's time for your nonsense to stop anon. If the mediator cannot get you to see reason and stop harassing people who edit on this page, I will file a request for arbitration. Swatjester 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Request for Comment has been filed on the anonymous user, in response to his violations of Wiki policy, his personal attacks against users here, and his WP:POINT violating RfC against Pookster's edits. Please respond with your comments.Swatjester 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A request for mediation over the page content was filed yesterday as well and still has not received a response.  Its sad when a random anon user can come in and take over an article, demanding that their POV be placed in there.  pookster11 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC against pookster has been deleted due to lack of support. Swatjester 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: There are factual errors in the article as stands.  The first, and probably most blaring one, is "if Saddam Hussien did not give up his WMD program".  Saddam Hussien, though he wanted a WMD program, did not have one, and thus it would be impossible for him to give it up.  So this statement, while directly implying something which is false (and the CIA (the OSP notwithstanding) knew this), is logically equivalent to saying "unconditionally", and I dont' think anyone would construe that resolution as a resolution forcing the president to declare war immediately.  In fact, the president can't declare war, that power is constitutionally reserved to the legislature.  And furthermore, the constitution provides no means by which constitutionally delegated powers can be transfered, save a constitutional amendment.  So either the resolution declared war, it didn't, or it is null and void.  And in any case, to repeat for the sake of emphasis, saddam did not have a WMD program at the time (nor the means of pursuing one), and therefore couldn't give it up.  So all-in-all the statement makes no sense at all.  
::: Partially correct partially not. See the problem is, yes Saddam HAD a WMD program, but it was basically nullified sometime after the gulf war, and was as far as evidence has shown, gone by the time the Iraq War started. So in one sense your first sentence is accurate, because he can't give up what he didn't have, but only when it's quantified by saying "At the time of the war." because it's known that at some point in time he DID actually have one. Swatjester 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That and regardless of whether he had one or not, he was ordered to stop producing the WMD... that it later turned out he wasn't producing.  Still, in the description of events the phrase is accurate; Saddam was ordered to give up his WMD program or face military action.  The fact that it later turned out he didn't have one, or at least that to this day none of it has been found, is in there as well.  Second, under the War-Powers act the President, as Commander in Chief, has the right to deploy US troops for up to 90 (or 60, can't remember exactly, my last poli-sci course was years ago) days without Congressional approval, after which time he must seek Congressional approval or withdraw the troops (something that no President has agreed is constitutional and has never gone to SCOTUS).  Regardless, Congress gave approval and under the War-Powers act the troops can be deployed.  This is why constitutional law should be left to constitutional lawyers and not regulars joes trying to write an article on the Invasion of Iraq. pookster11 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was never producing WMD.  He had bought WMD from the United States (Rumsfield and GWB sold them to him) He had programs to try to produce WMD, but they were never successful.  He was ordered by the U.N. to stop the programs, and they enforced it with inspections, and it worked.  They stopped the programs, and the CIA found out that they stopped the programs.  GWB knew, at the time of all his war rhetoric, that the inspections were effective in stopping the programs.  So whatever orders he gave to SH were disingenuous, and in any case, non-sensical and therefore invalid.  Skipping to the end... I'll leave it to the Constitutional lawyers.  They filled suit. (a pretty big news event, odd that it got so little press) Kevin Baastalk 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point.  Regardless of whether or not he had them or was producing them or could produce them or hid them or ate them or buried them in a camel, he was ordered to get rid of his WMD and stop producing, which is what is recorded.  The debate about the whole WMD existence or not or whatever is on another article. pookster11 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is misleading to write someone was ordered to do something and refused when he was not able to do it. By the way, presidents of another country cannot be ordered anything, they can only be called upon. But I do not really see the problem in the article. The article correctly gives the condition for the authorization of force and notes that actually no WMD were found. Drawing conclusions from this about the validity of the authorization is not this article's job. Get-back-world-respect 02:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incorrect. Any nation that is a signatory member of the UN may be ordered by the UN to take action. Swatjester 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, like the US can be ordered not to break international law. The UN did not try to order Hussein to stop with WMD, the UN did weapons inspections. The US was who tried to "order" but could not. Get-back-world-respect 13:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that the courts recognize Congress's craven authorization for the use of force as a de facto declaration of war.  While on the one hand, you are correct that war was never declared, on the other hand that power is vested in Congress.  And Congress basically said "go right ahead".  The courts simply aren't going to interfere under normal circumstances.  Now, what would be fascinating would be a legal challenge to the war by a member of Congress who did vote to authorize force.  They might have a very good argument that they never intended to authorize this, because this obviously would require a declaration of war.  Sometimes I despair, but then I realize it has always been this way.  We are a strange and savage species. Derex 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that would be interesting actually. The courts would not have power to interfere, due to lack of jurisdiction, with the exception of the SCOTUS, and if they can't get a consensus of justices to approve writ of certiorary, there would never BE any challenge. Congress could of course censure itself, but this would, again, require a vote from congress, thus voting against yourself. Regardless, as we've seen in the past half of the century a congressional declaration of war is not necessary for the President to exercise his emergency war powers, whether you like it or not. Swatjester 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: true enough, but there have been some awfully long "emergencies".  clearly congress knowingly allowed this to happen.  it's just a shame they don't have the balls to be accountable for it, with an explicit vote. Derex 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Iraq War falls under the scope of the Emergency Powers Act. (either in regard to the situation at the time or the military campaign) Kevin Baastalk 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be an interesting debate. I'm sure westlaw or lexis has an article on it somewhere. Swatjester 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding something small like "(The existence of which was disputed.)"? Kevin Baastalk 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors in article 

message: Getting hard to read: just copy and paste :# ~~~~ below this under the appropriate section. You can debate it above in the next section up, lets keep this one just signatures for readability sake hmm? 
Support: Proponents of this view support changing article name to 2003 Intervention of/in Iraq.
:# Johntex\talk 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: # Looper5920 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: # Derex current name is most neutral. undisputed fact, not a loaded word.  is accurate regardless of personal pov. 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: # csloat 01:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: # Kevin Baastalk 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: # Dawgknot 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: # Howrealisreal 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: #"Intervention"?  What in the hell, was Iraq addicted to alcohol or something?  --Cyde Weys 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: #Oppose. An "intervention" is typicall a punctual event, not followed by the occupation of the country, enforced changes in the society of the country, etc. Rama 08:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: # Czolgolz 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: # Swatjester 23:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: oppose/Support changing invasion to intervention