Talk:Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1

message: This article is massive, and not very concise.
It is understandable considering the debate involved regarding miltary action, but if the purpose of this page is to simply debate and move the legitimacy discussion to a separate page, we still have quite a bit of work to do.
Ive added two sentences of text just to provide a summary of the rest of the article in the first paragraph.
CanadianPhaedrus 18:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong but perhaps the title was chosen so that a search of Iraq War would include this in the list.  I"m not sure.Dawgknot 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: The introduction is way too long.  Would anyone have an objection to moving the current introduction into the body of the article and writing a 2-3 sentence summary?  Thanks,TheronJ 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me, I have to agree it is too big. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, it could do with a tidy! AndrewRT 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some work on the article to shorten the introduction, then moved around information and am trying to sort it out, the article mentions WMD's so I am gonig to also add a section on human rights abuses and one on terrorism to balance everything out. Feel free to use the subpages discussion section to give feedback. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Forgot the link ... User:Zer0faults/Legitamacy_Rework --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The WP:LEAD section reccomends an intro no longer then 3-4 paragraphs, that does not state it has to be 3-4 paragraphs. Please see: Korean_war, Vietnam War, United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Seven_Days_War, Gulf_war ... etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr. Tibbs is right that 2-3 sentences is probably too short, but, IMHO, the current version has too much detail to function as a summary and is hard to read.  (I was probably being optimistic with my 2-3 sentence estimate).  Does anyone else have thoughts?  TheronJ
I expanded what I had in my above link User:Zer0faults/Legitamacy_Rework, hopefully giving a brief mention to the reasons covered for or against he legality:
"A legal dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The debate is centered around the question; was the invasion an unprovoked assault on an independent country -- thus an invasion breaching international law -- or whether the conditions set in place after the Gulf War allowed the resumption if Iraq did not uphold to the Security Council resolutions. Those arguing for its legality often cite Congressional Resolution 114 and previous UN Security Council resolutions, as well as Resolution 1441, stating these documents allow for military action. Those arguing against its legality also cite much the same sources, stating they do not actually permit war but instead layout conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Critics often cite the Downing Street memo as further proof the war was waged under misleading terms. The terms of the debate change depending on the subject of domestic or international law."
Since noone replied yet I changed it up a little more covering more indepth the debate. Will change it in the one on my talk page as well.
Comments suggestions? Most of the information is carried later and the overview is suppose to just summarize this. If I am missing a legal basis just let me know and I will try to fill it in. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "The WP:LEAD section reccomends an intro no longer then 3-4 paragraphs, that does not state it has to be 3-4 paragraphs." Actually it states exactly what it should be: "The length should be one to three paragraphs, depending on the length of the entire article, and should never be limited to one or two short sentences." - WP:LEAD -- Mr. Tibbs 07:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to know my rework is following the rules. Thank you for pointing that out. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The introduction is too long

message: By "begging the question" I mean that it implies that there is a significant populace that argues the opposite.  But let me be more objective: it is redundant.  You, yourself, agree with this in your edit summary :"it's what it says".  You can take a look on my user page to see my stance on redundancy in regards NPOV. Kevin Baastalk 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no longer hearing your WP:OR arguements, have a good day. You want everything removed that proves the war wasnt illegal, I get this not and will treat it as such. Save your soon to follow AGF tag. Considering the shape of the article, the fact that everything you seem to feel that is wrong with it directly relates to proof the war is legal says enough for me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kevin, I am not sure what your point is.  Factual accuracy and logical fallacies are separate items that need to addressed.  It is not redundant to point out that the people who believe it to be illegal is both inaccurate and a logical fallacy.   It is not the predominant view of experts or politicians and therefore it doesn't require "equal time" even in the article called "legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq".   In this article there is a giant elephant in the room in that no major politician and no court has come forward with an opinion that it is not legitimate.  The "significant populace" you speak of lacks citable references on experts in law.  This article is on par with "legitimacy of the round earth theory".  The flat-earthers may deserve a sentence but it is not the predominant view of recognized experts.  Until a substantial number Congressmen, legal experts and courts go on the record with a charge of illegitimacy, the overwhelming part of this article should be on the legitimacy of the article, not idle speculation and wishes and dreams.  NPOV isn't equal time.  It is notable the lack of finding of illegitimacy.--Tbeatty 07:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Factual accuracy and logical fallacies are separate items ..." -- insofar as they are mutually exclusive, maybe.  Something cannot simultaneously be factually accurate and logically fallacious.  In this way, factual accuracy and logic are inseparable.  This is at the very core of logic -- one of its founding principles.   Frankly, I didn't read further after that. Kevin Baastalk 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you agree with me then.  I'll try to put it in the first sentence so your attention span is not exceeded this time.  Your argument starts with an inaccurate statement and then moves with that argument and creates logical fallacies.  Both your inaccurate statements and your illogical conclusions need to be addressed.  Both your facts and process are flawed and they are addressed in turn.  It is not redundant to use the facts to refute both your inaccurate statements and your illogical process.  --Tbeatty 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Using Whitney v. Robertson as a legal precedent for the legal justification of the Iraq war has been established by many legal sources as Zer0faults has credited one with a citation. In light of this, I don’t see how this is a violation of WP:NOR. Zer0faults is not presenting material that has not been argued before by a reliable source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I cited a source, you ignoring it does not make it go away. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I provided you the chapter already, please read it and get back to me then. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Again "Use of Force and Arms Control" - Get back to me and let me know what you think. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The chapter is like 12 pages and covers the issue, so start at page one of it, I believe page 320 but I will get back to yuo when I get home. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Page 332, I will expect your apology shortly as well as your opinion on the entire chapter. It amkes some other interesting points in your favor, however I feel no need to cite those. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I am sure you will, your opinion on if the chapter supports the citation doesnt really matter since we have all seen your attempts at WP:OR violations in your "interpretations of law" --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That the Coalition did not have prior UN approval to take military action in Iraq in 2003 is a common misconception.  The U.S. operated under the SAME authority that was cited in 1998 during the Clinton Administration when it took military action against Iraq and bombed the country for days.  The words of the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Peter Burleigh, in 1998 state it very clearly, "...the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for member states to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area."   The Resolutions cited in 1998 by the Clinton Administration were STILL in effect in 2003. JustTheTruth 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN / US law 2: balance in the microcosm 

message: This sentence seems unclear to me: "For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952 [35]."
Does it indicate that the state of war between Germany and Japan didn't end until 1951 or 1952? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.142.46.107 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The state of war against whom? 

message: No comments on this?  What a surprise 195.157.52.65 12:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powell and Rice claim no WMD in Iraq pre-9/11