Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 4

message: If I recall correctly, it has been the policy of the US government since 1998 that the government of Iraq should be changed. It should be included as a relevant fact. It was bipartisan policy that Saddam had to go as of that year
TMLutas 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Pre-Attack Developments 

message: This information should be included on the page when it is unprotected.-csloat 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gen. Odom

message: Admins please add the template I added on Gulf War and Iran-Iraq War articles. Thank you.--TheFEARgod 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  P.Gulf wars template 

message: I added terrorism and sectarian violence to the section about what resulted from the war but someone removed it. Why? Especially the latter article should be noted here given that it is kind of the continuation of the violence in Iraq that started with the invasion. Nameme 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the sectarian violence part, not about the terrorism part. Terrorism is too general to be listed as a result of the invasion. It would be like putting Death there. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Islamist suicide terrorism"?  Specific enough?  "killings by al-Qaeda and their allies"?  "Suicide attacks"?  Come on, "terrorism" is specific enough that we know what it means in this context.  There was no Iraqi terrorism prior to March 2003; there never was an Iraqi suicide bomber prior to then, and there was no significant al-Qaeda activity in Iraq prior to then.  Now there is tons of it.  The word "terrorism" is not vague in this context, I don't think.--csloat 07:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it should be noted that there are attacks on civilians. If we just put "insurgency" the readers will think violence is only directed at the occupying forces. Nameme 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of the invasion

message: Does anyone else think this section is lacking NPOV? There was propoganda on both sides I believe. Krait 09:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Wiki bias. Few editos speak arab. Would be great to read the arab featured article. Maybe we can get a translator at meta, I'll ask. Nameme 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related propaganda and phrases 

message: This photo won the world press award:  Any chance to get it? Or similar ones? Nameme 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Please take a look at the talk page of Iraq war in order to see a translation of the featured Arabic version of this article. Thanks to Eagleamn! AlIAS 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Arabic version

message: The tag was added but no mention was made as to why the user thought the article was POV. After reading the article, the scales seem to sway from side to side but no one side is heavier than the other. I looked into the reverts over the "war on terror" issue and it seems the argument is more of an issue of facts and misunderstanding than a issue of POV. The user fighting to censor the wording from the article seemed to have a strong biasness about not having the war on terror wording included in the article by going to extremes of using a sock puppet. The users who voted to leave the "war on terrorism" info on the page make very logical but simple arguments.
For example: Mmx1's states, "The 'War on Terrorism' was launched by the United States, and claims the War on Iraq is a part of it. Regardless of your opinions on the matter, it doesn't change the fact that the main protagonist in the war considers it a campaign of the 'War on Terror'."
The statement is a very simple fact that the United States political heads consider it part of the "war on terror" campaign and wikipedians do not decide if the US is wrong in doing so. No other implications are made and is a completely NPOV.
On the other hand, a rebuttal by user Hermitage states: "This is a weak argument. Every war has at least two sides. In this case, one side is the US and its allies (UK, South Korea, etc.), and the other side is a guerilla insurgency. First of all, I'm not even sure that all of the coalition partners would agree..."
Without the need to go any further, it is obvious that Hermitage has POV as the user is going straight into a counter strike without completely understanding Mmx1 statement, showing editing with emotion and a refusal to open his/her mind to the discussion. Hermitage missed the fact that Mmx1 is basically stating that an entity started a campaign and then performed the work in the name of that campaign and that’s it. If the table was turned, the result would be the same. An entity (Iraq) started a campaign (war on world domination) and then attacked a country (USA). Iraq's campaign would be "called war on world domination" and the attack on the USA would have been part of the campaign. The rest of the ensuing arguments are reiterations of the above statements with the NPOV editors trying in vain to show they do not have POV.
Considering the overall magnitude of the event and the huge amount of biased emotions on both sides of the war/invasion, this article is going to be tagged as POV constantly. As of right now, however, the article seems evenly balanced. Some of the facts and statements may need citing (or removed if sources cant be found), but that doesn’t make it POV, it only means more research needs to be done by NPOV editors and changed accordingly. I'm going to remove the tag since no argument as been issued as to why it was originally added and because sources have been provided linking the use of the words to describe a campaign called "war on terror" with the Iraq invasion.I already forgot 14:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=11552
Should this be mentionned?  According to this article, Turkey invaded iraq early in the invasion to prevent a stream of kurds fleeing north iraq.
Evilbu 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey accused of invading north iraq 

message: The following information is related to parts of the article, but I am not sure if it fits here: Insurgencies, frequent terrorist attacks and sectarian violence lead to harsh criticism of US Iraq policy.     . After the Al Askari shrine bombing in February 2006 the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad warned that sectarian violence spread might lead to a civil war in post-invasion Iraq and possibly even the neighbouring countries.  De mortuis... 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harsh criticism of US Iraq policy 

message: I've noticed an article at 2003 invasion of Iraq/temp, which I presume is a stalled attempt to rewrite this page. It's not been touched for a month and a half. If it's not going anywhere, could someone familiar with the page merge it in and redirect, or flag it for deletion? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp subpage? 

message: I don't see what the opposition is to mentioning failure of cooperation as a causus belli. It was a major part of the pre-war debate. You want the speeches,
  May 18, 
{Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men. }
France, Russia and Germany, hoping to derail the war, begged Iraq to comply with inspectors:
[]
They weren't begging him to give up drones, but they were begging him to cooperate with inspectors, indicating they felt that step would remove impetus for the war.
--Mmx1 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person doing Any begging over the airwaves that March was Hans Blix.   He's stilly pretty peeved about it after the fact too.   They did cooperate which is why Bush stresses that the inspectors have been deceived, Not shut out. In fact the Bush administration Never contested Blix's assessment that they needed "months".  They simply ignored it then they said the inspectors have been duped and theres no doubt he has WMDs so we're going in.  In the March 17 and 19 speeches the word "cooperate" is never even used. The Bush administration didn't push the case that Iraq isn't cooperating because thats in direct contradiction with what the inspectors are saying. He simply says the inspectors are being deceived and that:
 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. 
He even goes on to admit that he has failed to receive international support:
 "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."   
However, earlier on in the Iraq disarmament crisis on September 12, 2002 Bush Did state "cooperation" as a push to action:
"In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again. 
As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."  
On October 7, 2002 he even goes so far as to explain what he means by cooperation:
"Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions."  
And exactly what Bush demanded, Bush got: Iraq cooperated with the inspections, and Blix said that, and Bush never contested it. This is why Bush drops all the talk about cooperation and instead switches to deception and further pumps up the supposed WMD threat. See the difference between Bush talking about the possibility of Iraq having WMDs in his September 12 speech and then talking about the Certainty of Iraq possessing WMDs in his March speeches. Iraq met Bush's demands regarding cooperation so Bush made more demands and then just flat out said the inspectors were duped. And thats why saying "cooperation" as a casus belli is weasely. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Iraq under Saddam, was frequently locking its firing RADAR on our "no-fly zone" enforcement aircraft. This single fact alone establishes hostile intent and non-compliance with the 1991 terms of cessation. The arguments against Bush such as the one shown above, are basically straw-dog arguments. Here are the facts 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait, 2) Iraq never fully ceased hotile activity, 3) even on this point alone, USA had 100% full legal right to invade. Merecat 03:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you clarify "our" no-fly zone? Iraq invasion to Kuwait is a fact but this "hostile activity" was willingness to control their own country on the end. I would be really interested to see the international treaty which is declaring this "100% full legal right" - AFAIK it was U.S. imposing no-fly zone over Iraqi soil, and not Iraq imposing a no-gly zone over U.S. soil. Could you allow me to point that the Anglo-American focus without citing the sources does not help to achieve good neutral article. -- Goldie (tell me) 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The argument that by locking their firing radar on U.S. and British aircraft that were, in fact, invading Iraqi airspace and dropping bombs on Iraqi soil, Iraq was establishing "hostile intent" thereby permitting a U.S. invasion, is absurd for a number of reasons.  (1) The Iraqis had no realistic chance of shooting down a plane; (2) The US and British planes had no right to be there in the first place, as the UN Resolution which was used to justify the no-fly zones says nothing which authorizes the use of military force (it doesn't even say anthing about zones Iraqi planes can't fly in); (3) Even if one accepts the very questionable notion that the US and Britain had the right to fly those missions over Iraq, Iraq making preparations to fire on those aircraft still doesn't  give the US and Britain the right to invade.  Only the Security Council can decide on the use of force in this case, as the US and Britain were not themselves under attack.  If they were concerned about their pilots being fired on, they could have simply stopped flying over Iraqi airspace.  Most importantly, for the purposes of this article, Bush never made this argument in the UN.  As for Kuwait, if the Kuwaits felt they were in danger of being reinvaded they could have come to the UN and requested intervention.  They did not.  The article has it right: the official reason given for the invasion by the US was that Iraq was supposedly hiding a WMD program. Brian Tvedt 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interference with Inspectors 

message: this article is middle-school quality, it focuses almost entirely on past issues, somewhat connected to the followup to the invasion. someone should redo the article and actually discuss the invasion of iraq and its aftermath.apparently there was not an actual shooting war, just diatribes lobbed back and forth at the un general assembly and silly council.
{unsigned|68.1.44.149}
I agree it needs more coverage of the war itself, but calling it middle school quality is hyperbole. The pre-war debate was easy to source and a HOT topic of POV debate, hence the attention. Now that we have emerging journalistic sources, the combat phase should be updated.
--Mmx1 04:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re iraq 2003 war 

message: The Wiktionary article 2003 Invasion of Iraq is likely to be deleted shortly, and I do not know where (or if) you folks over here want these translations, but rather than lose them I am passing them over to you to do with as you please.
*Danish: :da:Golfkrigen 2003
*Dutch: :nl:Golfoorlog van 2003
*French: :fr:guerre opposant l'Irak aux États-Unis 
*German: :de:Dritte Golfkrieg
*Hebrew: :he:מלחמת עיראק
*Japanese: :ja:イラク戦争 (Iraku senzou)
*Low Saxon: :nds:Situatschoon in'n Irak
*Romanian: :ro:Invazia Irakului din 2003
*Spanish: :es:Invasión de Iraq de 2003
*Welsh: :cy:Rhyfel Irac Dau
(all translations by User:Tedius Zanarukando) - TheDaveRoss 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the links for the languages to avoid redirects and disambiguation pages.  I checked all the wiktionaries and the articles have been deleted from all of them (if they ever existed), so I made the links go to the foreign languages WP articles instead.  In the process, I couldn't help but notice that apparently NPOV doesn't apply to :fr:, not even in the naming of articles... Tomertalk 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: At any given time, what the president/administration says is the USA's position, is the USA position. Anyone trying to say this is not so, is wrong. Merecat 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "USA's official position" is ok with me. Merecat 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's okay w/me, too. Kevin Baastalk 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In USA, the President sets foreign policy 

message: "That the Bush Administration had little or no tangible evidence of a threat." 
Where is the source on this, or any information that can be found reguarding this issue? I think there should be more information expanded on why there was no tangible evidence of a threat. As far as I can tell, it is pretty empty. Although Iraq_War-_Rationale Does talk about how there were no links to Al-Qaeda, if thats what was being refered to. KungPaoChicken 07:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to the invasion, US intelligence showed that the presence of WMD or link to AQ was unlikely. The currrent debate is whether Bush was aware of this. Nomen Nescio 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But I thought the chant was "No blood for oil"? If we went to war to steal oil, why aren't we stealing it? Oh yeah, no one talks about that anymore, now it's all "'Bush lied about WMD". Merecat 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's always been the mainstream criticism, merecat.  even before we went to war. Kevin Baastalk 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And just because the President failed doesn't mean the goal wasn't at least in part, oil.--Jsn4 09:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: Can we get some discussion on the proper extent of the intro? --Mmx1 03:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The World War II intro talks about events happening After the war officially ended, don't see why it would be inappropriate in this article. And I certainly don't think it's "poisoning the well" to give a brief mention of how the cassus belli of the war resolved. Better than leaving the reader guessing at least. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The military aftermath of the invasion is of course an appropriate topic for the introduction.  The political aftermath (elections, for example) is also a reasonable topic to insert in that section, although claims about how much "freer" the Iraqis are obviously don't belong here.--csloat 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true and verifiable....why not a statement about the first free elections? --Mmx1 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "The lack of WMD is not a result of the war but a questioning of the rationale and belongs in the body." Since the fib about WMD is what got this war started it surely belongs in the intro. The why of this war is the most important thing to discuss. Nomen Nescio 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Says you. Does the allegations of foreknowledge of Pearl belong in the Intro of WWII? --Mmx1 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly your idea of freedom is not shared by others. The US influencing who can be President does not sound like a democracy. Further, even with every democratic principle in place, I would hazard to guess that since the country is on the brink (or already past) of civil war, stating that the current situation is an improvement is open for debate. Nomen Nescio 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Improvement is a judgement and misplaced in an encyclopedia. De mortuis... 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that freedom has increased in Iraq post Saddam.  A little too much. Kevin Baastalk 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Edit war 

message: The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yellowcake 

message: :The Guardian, UK: it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Chomsky: 'There Is No War On Terror' If you google it you most often find it in inverted commas because except for FOX news journalists are aware of the fact that a propaganda term should not be used thoughtlessly. It is not universally used as the terms cold war or Berlin wall. Most people outside the US would just laugh at you if you told them the Iraq war was "on terror". As a sidenote, talking down on someone like "do you even know anything about history?" does not speak highly of the strength of your argumentation. De mortuis... 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I did not at all "ignore even the most basic facts of history" and making such completely unfounded claims does not help your course at all. Second, writing such an innuendo discourages everyone to take part in the discussion, so please limit yourself to just make concise points. Third, googling for "war on terror" does not help, you need to google for "war on terror" AND Iraq at least in order to see if the tag is used in this context. That is what I did, and what I posted is what turned up, not my choice that Chomsky was among the top links. The Chomsky link, the Guardian one and the own you cite from amnesty where it is again in inverted commas show that the term is heavily criticized and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia caption or wikipedia category. Period. De mortuis... 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They even have it in inverted commas in the title. If Bush had named it "War to bring peace" they would have that as their title. And no one serious would even think of using that without comment in an encyclopedia. De mortuis... 01:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian acknowledges "War on Terror", but attacks  validity of USA actions 

message: The more and more wikipedians and civilians alike dig into the Iraq war/War on Terrorism/Invasion of Iraq/Gulf War 2 the less we know.  I particularly like this comment,
'"You make a very good observation: "if the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, then what's it part of?" To answer that question, it would make it a war of aggression, and thereby a war crime. Sufficient reason to propose the adoption of euphemistic language."'
If you payed attention to the U.N. charter and its implications upon the Invasion you will find that the Iraw war falls directly under the terms of "an act of aggression."  We went to war on false pretense and are continued to be led by fictional or idealistic purposes.  We aren't really bringing democracy to the Middle-east because we are doing the work for the Iraqis.  A democracy requires self-governing, self-liberation, and self-independence.  If Iraq doesn't start that way then it can't become a democracy.  If we had any respect for the ideals of democracy we would understand it is best for the people of Iraq to decide what to do and let them do it.  At least the "democracy" "justification" is what is the most popular fabrication.  Ironically in the "shock and awe" of the 10 of March 2003, we had a very different notion of what we were there to accomplish.  We all know the "Mission Accomplished" procalmation on a U.S. Navy carrier makes it all the more silly.  And what a silly war it is.  The "war on terrorism."  Good luck with that.  Wait, what is terrorism?  If it means something similar to the action of terrorization, then doesn't that make the U.S. military/gov't terrorists?--Existential Thinker 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the above comments, there are no new arguments being advanced regarding opposition to War on Terror as a category. And take a look at Peace movement. Interestingly enough, the info box at Peace movement says this "Part of the Politics series on Anti-war topics". I don't see anyone here complaining about that type of categorization! And yet, if I turn to the article for A.N.S.W.E.R., I see that article is also covered under the category of "Part of the Politics series on Anti-war topics", which to me is absolute sheer POV because A.N.S.W.E.R. is a known Communist front organisation and is not at all truly anti-war. A.N.S.W.E.R. is a group of radical trouble makers whose main goal is to wreck USA. So if you guys want to keep going down this insane path of fighting to the death to remove War on Terror as a category, well then I guess to be consistant, we'll have to start hacking and chopping categories out of lefty-fartsy articles like A.N.S.W.E.R.. You can't have it both ways. Merecat 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part Quatre 

message: # I have posted my reasons in the debate above and as responses below. Rangeley 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Nike%2C_Inc. released a pair of football shoes under the Air Jordan category, everyone would think that is pretty silly, but it would be most correct of us, as editors, to also place them accordingly. It is not reasonable for Wikipedians to fight such things simply because we might see them as unjust, unfair, deceptive, ect. Rexmorgan 06:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Nike released a pair of football shoes under the Air Jordan category it would be our duty to make the reader aware of that inaccuracy, and not mislead the reader into believing this new shoe is a basketball shoe instead of a football shoe. Even if thats what Nike would prefer. You said it yourself: "consolidate, clarify, and then regurgitate". -- Mr. Tibbs 06:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but your duty to note that it's a football, not basketball shoe doesn't extend to letting you rewrite history and say it's not an Air Jordan shoe. --Mmx1 06:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it comes: "But we're fighting terror!". Again, no one here needs to prove that terrorists aren't being fought in the Iraq War or that the casus belli was terrorism. All that needs to be know is that its disputed and cannot be presented in the infobox caption as an indisputable fact. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I making that argument? I'm saying that the dispute over whether or not we are fighting terrorism in Iraq, and the dispute over whether or not the war on Iraq is part of the US campaign titled "War on Terror", are separate things. Granted, the propagandistic name of the campaign makes it hard to distinguish, but that's why we should put it in quotation marks or consider another term for it. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq War is part of what the U.S. deems GWOT. --Mmx1 07:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who think the phrase "Part of the [[War on Terrorism]]" ''Should'' be used in the Infobox Caption

message: # It is a non-neutral propaganda term not in use everywhere, especially not without inverted commas. The category and the template should be deleted. De mortuis... 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who think the phrase "Part of the [[War on Terrorism]]" should ''Not'' be used in the Infobox Caption

message: Wasnt the codename of the Iraqi invasion originally "Operation Freedom" and not "Operation iraqi freedom"?
No, it has never been assigned that name. Rangeley 20:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OP: Freedom 

message: Well, the discussion got heated, it got lengthy, and it involved a great many people. But several days have passed since the weekend (which seemed to be the peak) and since than things have cooled off. I think now people are more willing to come to reasonable conclusions. The discussions have revealed the core issues and arguments. I have not seen the arguments for recognizising the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror disputed. They proved to be solid against everything thrown at them so far. I think it reasonable that we can conclude that they are therefore worthy of application in ending the edit war, which has needlessly consumed time for all of us involved.
Enough time has passed, and enough has been said. Its time to implement the conclusion. Rangeley 01:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear 14-4 majority against the war on terror tag, and if you "have not seen the arguments for recognizising the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror disputed" you just chose not to see and indeed, your 25 (sic!) reverts stole all of us time. Añoranza 02:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No one needs to point out anything to you. And no one needs to argue endlessly with you. The consensus determined by the vote is clear, and it will be obeyed. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe you misunderstand Wiki Policy, however I am new as well so read Wikipedia:Straw polls and get back to me, thank you --Zer0faults 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we honestly saying here that votes are what counts on Wikipedia for determining facts? If I can get enough people together I can also change the name of "Iraq War" to "Big Fight in The Sand" I thought what we are attempting to achieve here was a factual acticle? I will yeild for the time being if Mr. Tibbs can contend that he feels all 13 votes on his position are being made based soley on facts, and their summary included with their vote represents that. --Zer0faults 11:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are honstly saying that a clear 14-4 vote is a better indicator for what should be done than the endless innuendo of people who regard themselves as the only clever guys around, who ignore the countless refutations of all what they write, and who revert 25 (sic!) times on a single issue. Añoranza 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what your hostility attempts to accomplish, but since you are reffering to me, please realize I have yet to change a single thing in this article, and I would like an apology for your accusation that I did. Furthermore wikipedia policy calls for dicussion participants to by civil, please do so as so I can avoid issuing a warning or asking for administrators to watch the tone you use. If you have a point to present please do so without false accusations and personal attacks. Also you are not Mr. Tibbs, please refrain from replying to things not directed at you. Thank You. --Zer0faults 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rangeley did the 25 reverts all by himself and I never personally accused you. There was an IP from Washington that did 3 more. I regard it hostile if a discussion is flooded with innuendo in spite of a clear consensus. It is ok to go on discussing if there is a real debate, but here it is largely characterized by posting the same stuff over and over, completely ignoring what a clear majority answers. Mr. Tibbs also got frustrated by this, and he replied for many of us here, there is nothing wrong with hopping in. Añoranza 16:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Straw polls This poll is not binding, polls are meant to layout information and see where people stand, not as final judgement on an issue as you seem to interpret it. Wikipedia does not make decisions based on how many people a side can muster up. --Zer0faults 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr. Tibbs himself can answer if he feels all the votes are fair votes and if people clearly expressed why they voted as such. I ask him this cause I know for a fact he does not feel that way as he went on to post on a users page that he feels they don't understand what is being asked in the question. Furthermore you keep claiming its a 14-4 vote which it is not. Finally if you objectively looked at the votes its clear people are not even giving supporting reasons why they voted as such. Some are listing obviously unfactual reasons as to why they support your position such as Nomen Nescio stating Iraq had no connection with terrorism. The vote of #9 goes directly against the Wikipedia policy found here WP:NOT. Are none of these examples troubling to you? Are we really stating the side that can muster up enough people to post simply that they agree is the side that should have their view expressed? Futhermore voting doesn't decide what does and does not take place on Wikipedia, it simply a means to hopefully reach a concensus, its not binding. I think a mid ground some of us were reaching was putting the term in quotes, however you seem to be under the understanding that voting is the "end all", if I am wrong please correct me. --Zer0faults 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't shoot an own goal by claiming only reasonable votes should count. And yes, polls are not the final answer, but when there is a disagreement they help, and unless you convince the rest of us - which I hope you won't try with another zillion ignorant posts - you must accept that and refrain from edit warring. Maybe wikipedia articles do not have to be based on democractic decisions, but they definitely should should not be based on the law of the jungle. Añoranza 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am filing a complaint against you for your constant personal attacks, please refrain from further addressing me. --Zer0faults 22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So flooding a page with innuendo ignoring what others tell you and refusing to accept that as most disagree with you there might be some reason for it is a good discussion. Claiming to be the one who knows the truth when there is no truth but just two opinions, what is that? Fundamentalism? Añoranza 22:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stay on topic, if you feel you have counter-points please post them, starting arguements is unecessary as we are all adults and rational people. --Zer0faults 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on topic that flooding a page with innuendo ignoring what others already wrote on topic is not helpful. Añoranza 00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion? 

message: I am still hoping to come to resolution of this issue and hope possibly this can be it. I have seen Mr. Tibbs and Rangeley have already come to an agreement that quotation marks is a fair middle ground and non POV way of coming to a middle ground. I agree with this as the term is one that is being used in the current conflict that the Iraq War is factually part of, however the term is not used by the whole world, though it is used in The United States and the UK in legal documents. Can we come to this center ground? --Zer0faults 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies Rangeley I misunderstood your wording at a point somewhere in the mess above this. --Zer0faults 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of quotation marks 

message: O removed the part of as being against consensus. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article in its protected state listed "part of war on terrorism". Please see Wikipedia:Straw_polls on rules regarding polls on talk pages, Further reverts will be reported as acts of vandalism. --Zer0faults 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles that are subject to edit wars are protected at the version the protecting admin finds, only in cases of obvious vandalism do admins decide which one is the wrong version. Reverting in spite of knowing that the discussion has shown support for the other side is vandalism. Añoranza 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: While discussing adhere to consensus

message: Anyone else see this link New_york_times#Times_self-examination_of_bias coming up incorrectly, if so please fix in article. Thank You --Zer0faults 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Coverage 

message: Somewhat late, but this maybe interesting:
:If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
 Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casus belli

message: There is a poll going on at the Iraq War article that is related to this article. You can add your vote here:  -- Mr. Tibbs 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Mr. Tibbs as you did not follow the rules for starting a poll I am afraid its invalid. Please see Wikipedia:Straw_polls section "Creating a survey" point (2) " Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." --Zer0faults 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iraq War]] Poll

message: I think the article needs considerable re-wording in its present form to represent the fact that the US was not the sole nation involved in the invasion. Whilst it contributed the largest portion of the invasion it still only held around 60% of the forces involved, The UK, Australia etc. holding the rest. The invasion was not planned and implemented by the US, but rather by the Coalition of the willing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.151.178 (talk • contribs).
:I agree but Anoranza or Mr. Tibbs will just revert if you were to hint someone other then the US was involved. Goodluck --Zer0faults 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, we should strive to hint that the "coalition" is more than a puffed-up PR device. We shouldn't belittle the noble though admittedly immaterial contributions of Eritrea, Angola, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, Estonia, Ethiopia, Honduras, Iceland, Latvia, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uzbekistan, or any other nation that allowed its name to be put on the list in exchange for a check.--Mr. Billion 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or their one-man armies (literally). (notwithstanding those that don't have a military) Kevin Baastalk 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The US issued the ultimatum unilaterally, and "Coalition of the willing" gives numbers showing more than 80% of the forces were from the US, same holds for the statistics here. Añoranza 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that Zer0faults' comment is biased endorsement of a totally wrong statement. The "only around 60%" does not fit in my math - U.S.A. officially confirmed over 130k troops, UK being the second largest was under 10k, and the rest have provided less than 1000 troop per 5 "biggest" supporters/allies. The total sum of all soldiers which are non-US (including symbolic contributions of 10-50 men) is around 22-23k. It can hardly make those missing 40%. -- Goldie (tell me) 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read up on Wikipedia policy on assuming good faith. To assume I am biased when this article doesn't even mention that passed UN resolutions covered in 1441 talk about human rights abuses, iraq's link to terrorism (PALF) etc. is absurd. This article is suffering from a horrible case of Undue Weight. There is an entire section that begins "Opponents of the invasion of Iraq disagree with the arguments presented by the Bush administration" but does not state who or reference a source, horrible use of weasel words. It even says they feel the war was waged so Haliburton can have defense contracts, I would love to see a reliable source for that one thats not in the form of an editorial. --Zer0faults 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy on good faith says nothing about saying someone is biased and made a factually incorrect statement.  One can be biased and make a factually incorrect statement and still be honestly trying to make the article less biased and more factually correct.  I am biased, and sometimes make factually incorrect statements, and I'm not ashamed of it - it's only human - and i wouldn't expect anyone to accuse me of not trying to improve the article.  And he never assumed you were biased.  Assumption is making a statement before having any evidence.  He took the fact that your factually incorrect statement was strongly slanted in a certain direction to suggest that your views are likewise slanted, which is quite a reasonable inference. Kevin Baastalk 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why sometimes its best not to comment on things that are not addressed to you. I did not make the factual wrong comment, the anon user above me did. Please read next time before commenting.  --Zer0faults 15:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry, ZerOfaults.  My mistake and I retract the directedness, but my points still stand. Kevin Baastalk 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for clarity, I think that's why the word "endorsement" was used. But this tertiary argument is irrelevant, anyway. --Mr. Billion 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah its almost humerous to see the article mention 50,000 Kurdish troops, 45,000 UK troops and 214,000 US troops. That means other forces of just Kurds and UK made up 32% or so? But for some reason we ignore the kurds ... --Zer0faults 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US US US US US 

message: The NASA photo caption on this page claims that the smoke plumes are from bomb impacts, while the caption on the image's page claims the plumes are burning oil-trenches set afire by Iraqi forces as a defensive measure.  By personal memory and the color of the smoke, I reckon the latter correct-- does anyone know more definitively?
AlanKHG 05:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's probably right.  The change was made by the IP 199.107.67.88.  The image's original NASA location doesn't actually say what the image shows, but I can't imagine smoke from ordinary bombs being that thick. --Mr. Billion 17:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Caption Mismatch 

message: Is this what they mean with interesting?:
:The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links to the White House.
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eeks

message: For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults]] 

message: I would invite all who are interested to partake in the discussion that is taking place on this page. Rangeley 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq and the War on Terrorism 

message: I've noticed a couple of references to the former Iraqi president as "Saddam" in this article. Although this is accepted in the political world, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we wouldn't call George Bush "George" throughout an article! (With the exception of quotes,) I think that we should change "Saddam" references to "Hussein" references, unless it's important to differentiate between Saddam and other Husseins in particular contexts. Does this sound right? T. S. Rice 08:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  usage of "Saddam" vs. "Hussein" 

message: Please feel free to visit and comment the debate on whether Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism. This is to counter the severely one-sided and biased discussion that Rangeley started. Instead of redacting out all the relevant information this RFC presents the entire case and not only what Rangeley wants you to know.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Iraq_War#Starting_a_proper_RFC_that_mentions_all_views|RFC]]

message: Discussion on the consensus reached is located here . Rangeley 01:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "War on Terrorism" 

message: Seems someone with a fairly... festive mind erased the strength of the U.S. forces in Iraq, the commanders, and replaced the result of the conflict with "Sex".  I really hope that whoever was behind that is warned. John D'Adamo 18:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive vandalism of the result box 

message: The paragraph from the article which states "Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction.[10][11]" is incorrect. The search for WMD's is still on going and there have been some discover of WMD as noted in the following published articles:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html
Why these findings have not been published by the "main stream" press amazes me.
:However- although there may have been the finding of SOME WMDs, the fact remains that the United States government grossly overestimated the Iraqi nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities under the Hussein regime.  John D'Adamo 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, overestimated greatly, unless its true they all went to Syria or are in those Underground Bunkers the ISG refused to open because they lacked the equipment. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Odd the report by the ISG did not say there was no WMDs, it said these were not the ones we went to war over. Hence they were WMDs ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ===Edit 6/23/2006==== 

message: I've marked several sections on this article that I think should be merged into Iraq War.  Please go to Talk:Iraq War to discuss so we keep the discussion in one place. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: The 100,000 civilian deaths was reported by Lancet in Sept. 2004. That was 18 months after occupation. It is now about 40 months after invasion so this figure cannot be accurate. 81.157.196.23 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths 

message: Somebody had moved the entire page text to Gulf War II and just made this a redirect, I moved it back. That's a silly name that makes it sound like a Hollywood movie, please don't move pages without clear consensus mandate from the people ;) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  12:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Note

message: According to a Harris Poll released July 21 found that 50% of U.S. respondents said they believe Iraq had the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003. This was reported in numerous news articles, such as The State (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15215272.htm) and The Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/08/do_you_believe_in_wmd.html). PJ 06:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Public Perception 

message: I removed  tag a few weeks ago after other editors removed some of the pov edits made by others.  Obviously the topic is a heavily debated one so it is my opinion that major edits should be discussed first as the changes may present a pov. The recent edits by Garygoldstein have not been discussed and present a pov. I reverted the edits by the user and a second suspected sock puppet 69.86.126.2 of the same user. At this point, I would like the opinions of other editors on the edits made by the user before adding the pov tag or requesting the help from an admin. I have no opinion on the subject either way and have no interest in the US/IRAQ dispute so I have nothing to add from a pov. Just trying to keep all articles NPOV.I already forgot 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to try and clean up some of the pov statements from the new edit by Garygoldstein and it turns out to be a rehash of what has already been stated in the article after numerous edit disputes and discussion.I already forgot 17:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV part 2

message: I put in this section. I somehow don't think it will last long but I believe it to be true. The truth will out eventually. It would be nice if Wiki was ahead of the game.
Why the USA invaded Iraq because Iraq was pricing oil in Euros not Dollars:-
Why the USA will invade Iran - if they do - for the same reason
SmokeyTheFatCat 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed from the "Rationale" section as it was never presented as rationale, and is only speculation over ulterior motives. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you understand the reason it was removed or did you refuse to read it and just assume that I "want to accept the Bush administration line without question?" The rationale section is for the publicly given rationale for invasion, not for speculation on ulterior motives.~Rangeley (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is for the rationale put forward, not for speculation on ulterior motives. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The rationale is the argument put forward in justification of an action. It is Wikipedia's place to present facts, as such it would present the rationale put forward in justification of the action, and not misrepresent speculation on ulterior motives as the justifications put forward for a course of action. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you disagree with what I said? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He answered your question. Its not about bush, Iraq, UN, etc. Its about the facts. I personally think there is a strong possibility that the war has to do with oil and a weak economy, but I do not, or have not seen any facts to such an accusation, only speculation. Wikipedia is not the place for "I heard", "I thought", or "I think", just give us the facts with sources and move on. The fact that you knew your edit was going to be deleted should have keyed you in on the possible POV edit.I already forgot 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you disagree with what I said? I think this is all based around a misunderstanding on the meaning of rationale. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Simply a War for Oil but A war for the Dollar