Talk:Iraq War/Archive 13

message: the news has leaked
http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf
this is the official death toll.
you cannot deny this.
its from the veterans affairs and the join chief of staff!!!!
manchurian candidate 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is for the FIRST Gulf War. I removed it from the article and corrected the casualty stats in the infobox. --Timeshifter 16:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADDED the most covered up topic.73000 troops dead and 1.6 disabled.its official!!! 

message: I removed the recently added text:
"'The Congressional-run Select Committee on Intelligence in 2004 did not find any evidence that "Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities".G. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Pressure Conclusions Similarly the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction concluded in 2005 that "The Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion, but the pervasive conventional wisdom that Saddam retained WMD affected the analytic process" Report"
because it is misleading.  Although the text does not make this clear, it is referring to first part of the Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq.  The investigation was actually done by a subset of the senate select committee on intelligence.  A "compromise" was struck in which they would split the investigation in to two parts: the first part was to examine the quality of the intelligence, and was to conclude before the 2004 election.  The second part was to examine how the intelligence was used in policy decisions, and was to be conducted after the election.  The sub-commitee had a republican majority, and was led by a republican who was accused of strong-arming the investigation.  After the election, the republicans did not continue to the second part of the investigation, as they had promised in their "compromise" with the democratics.
The first part of the investigation, which the text refers to, did not examine how the administration used the intelligence, so it is altogether quite unsurprising that they found no evidence, for something that they didn't investigate.  Furhtermore, the text gives the reader the impression that the second part of the investigation was performed, when, in fact, it was not.
Furthermore, the report produced by the first part of the investigation (which the text is referring to), did not examine the central issue at hand: the "stovepipping" of intelligence and the Office of Special Plans, though the text gives the reader the impression either that it did examine this, or that this was not the central issue.
The text is misleading and multiple accounts, on matters of important substance.  And no balance is provided.  And no context is provided. Kevin Baastalk 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may insert sourced commentary on whether or not the investigation was valid, but to remove it entirely seems like censorship.  Isaac Pankonin 10:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting the investigation in to two pieces, avoiding the second part but reporting its conclusions from only the investigation of the first part seems more like censorship. ←BenB4 15:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then somebody should put that in the article with sources that state that.  The only reason not to include something is if there are no reliable sources.  There clearly are reliable sources that state that the investigation took place, and it's clearly relevant.  Isaac Pankonin 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading text 

message: Shouldn't there at least be a little info in the Weapons of Mass destruction section about the claims of the former Air Vice-Marshal of Iraq that a lot of WMD material was loaded onto planes and flown to Syria for hiding just before the invasion?  When i get some free time I'll dig up the reliable sources and add the info.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's covered in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.  It probably deserves a sentence or two here.  I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it got moved to WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq war.  I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georges Sada 

message: Please discuss the lead picture here.
This appears like it will be a lengthy and seperate discussion.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header image discussion 

message: "Liberation of Iraq" was recently added as an alternative title.  I think it would be more appropriate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.  The Liberation of Iraq page does not exist yet.  Nor does Iraqi Liberation.  Any thoughts?  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on that. Same goes for the "Occupation of Iraq," this is a term that would apply specifically to the occupation phase, not the entire war. ~Rangeley (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I can tell, "Occupation of Iraq" is used to mean both the initial invasion and the ongoing presence much if not most of the time.  I agree with I.Pankonin; in particular, while "Liberation of Iraq" gets several times as many Google hits as "Second Gulf War," it is always used to mean the invasion and not the ongoing occupation as far as I can tell. Using "liberation" for the less-than-successful nation building effort would be incongruous. 1of3 13:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change.  Note that Liberation of Iraq was deleted in the past for being an NPOV redirect to a different article.  I created it again because it fits the definition of liberation and has a good chance of being searched for.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree about the name, but I'm not so sure about the meaning.  For women, at least, there is much less freedom now as there was before the invasion.  Even for the men, is living under a dictatorship less freedom than living without reliable electricity, water, and gasoline, with a substantially reduced life expectancy? 1of3 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing freedom with convenience, but let's not go off topic.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Liberation" is a western viewpoint. A majority of the world view it as "occupation" or "invasion". I would support a separate article on the Liberation of Iraq if you think it worthwhile but not for it to replace or rename the Occupation of Iraq or 2003 invasion of Iraq articles. Wayne 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All we're talking about is using it as a redirect to one of the pages about Iraq.  Somebody else put "Liberation of Iraq" as an alternative title to the Iraq War page, and the result of the discussion was that it was moved to a different article. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is very convenient to remain alive, and allows for additional freedoms, as most conveniences do. 1of3 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberation of Iraq" as alternative title 

message: I like the idea of a collage, but tearing down Saddam's statue has precious little to do with the war, and a lot to do with propaganda.  The other three scenes depict events that repeat every day in Iraq.  All four should. 1of3 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage 

message: Admittedly, I am coming from a pro-war perspective.  Nevertheless, the lead seems like it could use some work to achieve neutrality.  It asserts that, "The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and their domestic and foreign supporters was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction."  I think this is debateable.  There were many rationales given and I do not remember anyone saying "the main reason is ..."
:A whole series of alternative rationales/excuses for the war were provided after the weapons of mass-destruction were not found. The last and most desperate being 'at least its better than under Saddam' - since proved untrue. Colin4C 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is correct. There is no evidence. Your suggestion is just your own speculation. Colin4C 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe this is a case of 'imprecise wording' rather than 'weasel-wording'. Probably be better as 'no evidence of any substantial connection'. Colin4C 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is slightly incorrect. There was additional rationale presented originally, though WMD was indeed the main rationale. After the failure to find WMD, the US government focus shifted to its secondary reasoning. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I.e. they made new sh&t up.  And after that, failed, they changed it again.  And after that failed too, they changed it yet again.  And after that failed, they changed it yet again.  And on and on and on.  Yeah, we all  know.  We all witnessed it.  I think we're on something like the 10th reasoning now, which goes something like "It was a success, because we did not find any WMD.", i.e. we went to war in order to NOT find WMD.  They certainly get more creative as you go along! Kevin Baastalk 13:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if you are biased and driven by your vitriolic hatred of Bush, you might think that "BUSH LIED!" and the rush to war was all about WMD's (because that is what Move On tells you to think).  However, in the cold light of reality, Rangeley is quite correct.  There have been, since the beginning, a number of reasons why Bush and others thought we ought to topple Saddam.  The reason that caused the most urgency, and the justification that most Democratic legislators gave us for their support, was that Saddam was developing/producing WMD's.  The nearly universal support for this proposition and the absolute certainty of its veracity by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, among many others is not given proper weight in the lead.  Ursasapien (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought I'd expand on this and actually provide a source.  There's a White House press release dated 12 September 2002 about all the reasons to invade Iraq.  The truth is there were a lot of reasons to  take Hussein out of power.  That's why you've been hearing a lot of reasons.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead NPOV? 

message: I removed these two sentences from the intro:
:Diplomats from countries on the U.N. Security Council that opposed the war made statements that supported this belief.Iraq / Address by Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the United Nations Security Council. 5 February, 2003.Katie Couric interview with Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger on NBC's Today Show. 26 February, 2003. (that Iraq had WMDs)
and:
:In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Fruit of Appeasement, The New York Times 4 August 1990; subscription only
Because, as the 2nd paragraph said months ago, and now says again, the primary rationale (always mentioned first in the laundry lists if not alone) was not simply that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, but that there was an "imminent," "urgent," and "immediate threat," as the cited source demonstrates. 
It doesn't matter that diplomats from some nations that opposed the war thought Saddam had WMDs, because they didn't think he posed much of a threat.
It doesn't matter than Bush said the U.S. can't wait until the threat became imminent in one particular speech, because he and his spokespeople are on record making much more serious statements before and after. 1of3 14:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended the offending sentence to reflect reality. smb 02:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomats' belief and SOTU 

message: Recently, a bill was passed through a congressional committee labeling the slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during WWI as a genocide, causing a serious crisis in relations between the US and Turkey, a key US ally in the region. The Turkish ambassador was recalled from the US as a result, and now the Turkish military is massing on the border of the northern Kurdish region of Iraq and seriously looking like they plan to invade. The Turkey-PKK conflict is briefly mentioned in this article, but there is no mention of the congressional action which (in part) sparked this off. Shouldn't this merit some mention? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably does.  I was thinking about adding it earlier, but it hadn't affected the war in a material way.  I think that's changed now, like you said.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The resolution on Armenian genocide is not really related to the Iraq war, as say the PKK attacks from Iraqi Kurdistan. While certainly important to overall US-Turkish relations, I don't really think it deserves a mention here. I'll add a link to the "Tensions with Turkey" section to cover the resolution, tho. Publicus 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of US bill condemning Armenian genocide? 

message: The info box says: "Coalition injured, diseased, or other medical:** 28,645 US". I was checking statistics on post-traumatic stress disorder in Iraqi veterans and found that the VA has 50,000 combat veterans currently being treated for PTSD. Further the VA has 100,580 veterans being treated for all forms of mental disability. Surprisingly almost half are new cases since June 30, 2006. The VA doesn't separate Iraqi from Afghanistan veterans but the majority must be from Iraq and it must be easy to estimate percentage split. Having checked the 3 sources given for the infobox data it appears they are all military. Why do we not use the documented VA stats? Surely an estimation of the true number of casualties will be more accurate than what is there now. Wayne 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Casualties 

message: This is quite a broad statement that needs to have some references, certainly for the last part. 
The original U.S. justification for the Iraq War was Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and Saddam Hussein's alleged collaboration with the Al-Qaeda terrorist group. However, the intelligence on both these claims has been criticized and largely discredited post-invasion, with the Bush administration accused of falsely portraying the available intelligence. Cronos2546 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with it specifically? I would say it is completely accurate, and I'd have little or no difficulty finding references for it. smb 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There's nothing wrong with it, just that I think it needs some references, because it was such a big part of the growing anti-war movement. I mean, if we have 2 references for the "Failed States" Index, then we should probably have at least one for the discredition of the Bush Administration. Cronos2546 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Part of 2001–2003: Iraq disarmament crisis and pre-war intelligence 

message: First off, I am American and conservative Repulican. That being said, like many in my party this subject has been the cause of much gritting of the teeth.  I and many like me didn't want the war in the 1st place and now we are in a mess without a clear way out.  Now all that is nice but None of that has any business in this article This is supposed to be an article about the event not the political views of the editors.  I am not sure who was doing all the strike outs of other's views here but that can lead to a quick ban. As to how I would approach this article:
*Keep the style to just the facts.  WMD was one of the major reasons for the war, State it source it and let it be.  WMD were found but it was an old stock pile that seemed to be forgotten and of no military use, source, cite, and be done.
*I have found as long as we don't wander into intentions (where we have to guess what is going on) and keep it to the facts we are left with what is verifiable and citable.  If we can't prove it leave it be.
*This page has degenerated into a squable of political views, this isn't an acceptable use of a talk page. I don't care if you are pro-Bush or anti-Bush, but leave it off the talk page.  Were we (America) lied to? Probably yes but leave it that useable WMD wasn't found and any WMD program seemed non-functional at best. There is enough proof that this was the case and the larger view of who was lying is up to the reader and not the editors.
*Strike outs of other editor's comments... completely unacceptable. I've put this page on my watch list and if I see anyone doing this I'll follow up with a complaint to the admins for a possible ban.
*Just keep to the facts, believe me they speak to the truth far better than anything else we could or should say.
Tirronan 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points Tirronan. I agree. My own method on editing this article(and wikipedia in general) has evolved from early edits with a distinct anti-war(or ideological) bias to my current method of striving to create an accurate and referenced historical record. As far as people squabbling on the talk page over various political views, I really don't have a problem with that so long as it's healthy debate--I feel it helps allow editors to blow off a little steam on a particular issue or event. We should cut editors a little slack on this since most of them are highly motivated individuals who feel so strongly about a particular issue that they are willing to anonymously edit a virtual encyclopedia without payment.;) Publicus 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the blowing a bit of steam, hell this subject gets me on edge too as I considered it a waste of National time and resources and it turned out to be everything I hoped would never happen.  The strike outs however really bother me.  I hope that it was the same editor reducting his statements and not someone else.  I've edited Battle of Waterloo and you'd think a battle 200 years old wouldn't generate much heat but lord you should have seen the hell raised.  However it is bleeding over into the article as well, the *Insurgent all-stars* comment was really crawling out on a limb. Tirronan 22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion on how to address a hot political topic 

message: Just a general query really, wondered if maybe Poland should be on the combatant list, i think i read somewhere they are contributing the fourth largest army to the Iraq War, i think it was Poland and Denmark ??? (Neostinker 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Combatants