Talk:Iraq War/Archive 4

message: So where do we go from here? I am sure there will be tons of reports and people analyzing the report that got leaked stating WMDs were actually found, furthermore I did not even know that Deuffler last year stated that insurgents had been using some of those chemical munitions. Anyone have a link to that report? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WMDs

message: Please leave your reponse to this indicating whehter you think Iraq was invaded as part of the WOT or that it is incorrect to assert that the US invaded to fight terrorism in Iraq.
People that oppose including Iraq in the War on Terror, because they think that "part of the War on Terror" is a statement of fact and inappropriate for such a disputed topic.
#Comment per WP:NPOV, views must be attributed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: WP:SOAP, not even for the Nicaraguan government, or the U.S. government for that matter.
#:Also, I think it was zer0faults who incidently brought up a logical contradiction in including Iraq in the "War on Terrorism": premises: 1. The War on Terrorism is ongoing. 2. The War in Iraq is over. 3. The War in Iraq is(or was) part of the War on Terror. 4. There are currently terrorists in Iraq. logically: if the iraq war is part of the war on terror, the war on terror is ongoing, and there are still terrorists in iraq, then the war in iraq is ongoing. This contradicts premise 2. removing any one of the four premises removes the logical inconsistency. premise 4 is empirically supported; verifiable; sound, so at least one of the premises (1,2,3) is not. Kevin Baastalk 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the statement I posted under this poll question: "This voting section was so good until I got here and found a straw man argument. So congrads on everything up until this point. In protest I included a reduced statement below.Mrdthree 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments 

message: *Your poll makes no sense, it says you are seeking no justification yet it says "that it is incorrect to assert that the US invaded to fight terrorism in Iraq" these things are mutually exclusive. That is seeking a justification, is this some kind of trick to get people to vote in the wrong direction? YOur are in fact attempting justification for an action it seems. Very tricky. COnsidering you started this, will you cease to vandalize the other? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments regarding the alleged NPOV of questions

message: Not only is Zero manipu8lating the RFC, he also deleted the following comment:
:Any compromise that still introduces a controversial statement into an infobox is in violation of WP:NPOV. Even if everybody agreed this still violates Wikipedia policy. Further, deleting an ongoing RFC after also deleting every mention of the previous discussions is rather bad taste amd can only be seen as trying to remove all other viewsw than that of the Bush administration.
:The past days I have been thinking about this
*62% and 78% were against including this statement in the infobox, see links above.
*Nevertheless two zealots restarted the debat, which this time included votestacking, leaving out the details and links which I just mentioned, also deleting every comment on the blatant manipulation.
*Trying to insert links to the previous debates goit me blocked.
:Clearly since including any statement that is controversial is contrary to wikipedia policy we should not do this here. However, since people willingly adopt the Bush talking points as facts in wikipedia I will withdraw from this page. Thank you.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This RFC is being altered and severely manipulated. Since it is impossible to wait and see what respondents to the RFC think I definitely withdraw. Reaching consensus is clearly not what some people want.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't claim that "War on Terrorism" is a neutral description, no because it's not a description. If someone talked about a war on terrorism they were thinking of organizing, with lower case letters, so it's not a proper noun, then those words would be used for description in that setting. In this case "War on Terrorism" is a proper noun, and although it's not really a war on terrorism, "Duke Ellington" wasn't really a duke, but that's the name he went by. The "War on Terrorism" is the name this campaign goes by, whatever it's true nature is, and however misleading that name is. Does this argument make sense to you, Rkrichbaum? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to proposal

message: I cleaned up the redundant wikilinks like the top state, only kept duplicates if they were first mentioned in the infobox or also mentioned there, I also left the ones in the images. Can anyone look over my work and let me know if more needs to be done to scratch that off the list? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok well I am going to scratch it off, if someone feels more work has to be done feel free to put it back. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to do

message: Support. Obviously I support the merge. Just getting something into this section. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political and diplomatic aspects 

message: Support. Obviously I support the merge. Just getting something into this section. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude 

message: Support. Obviously I support the merge. Just getting something into this section. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: Support. Obviously I support the merge. Just getting something into this section. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military aspects 

message: I suggest that an expert on this war create a flowchart that incorporates as many facts and events about the war as possible and entitled it, "Diagram of Iraq War Facts," or some other appropriate title.Patchouli 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that title is very useful.. or understandable. --DjSamwise 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger versus Further Breakup Solution 

message: "Declaration of War" bit (moved here from Archive 2. It is no longer there.)
The article alleges that since the US never issued a declaration of war, the Iraq "war" isn't a real war according to international law. The treaty of international law which states that wars have to begin with a declaration is the Hague Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities from 1907. Its first article states:
:The contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
Thus, an ultimatum is considered another equally valid initiation of war. In his March 17, 2003 speech President Bush stated:
:Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.
In my eyes this qualifies as "an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war", and thus the war can be considered as much a real war as if it had begun with a formal declaration. —Gabbe 06:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a war when there are soldiers fighting and dying, bombs being dropped, and so forth. Thus it is perfectly valid to speak of the Vietnam War, even though there was no formal declaration of war or even an "ultimatum". Whether it is a legal war or an illegal one is a different matter. Brian Tvedt 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there is no basis in the claim that the Iraq War isn't a "war". Its legality is certainly a matter of debate, but I think it's absolutely certain that from any possible viewpoint it is nevertheless a war. Parts of this articles alleges otherwise. —Gabbe 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The war ened in like a month, technically, I think this is just the largest police action ever ... Also the Supreme Court ruled that the Authorization to use force, that the Congress passed was equivalent to a declaration of war. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Sounds like a bit of post-hog wriggling to me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for contributing your inciteful comments the wiki. Care to actually state something. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original commenter has a good point.. It's more an Occupation of Iraq now.. The war was over when the Iraqi army disbanded shortly after the fall of Baghdad.. Now, question is.. Does the occupation count as part of the war? WWII article doesn't include the occupation of Germany and Japan in the article, but instead has articles for Allied Control Council and Occupied Japan.--Bobblehead 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a pretty interesting idea, it would face no opposition from me to split everything that happened after the fall of baghdad, however I am sure you would face some opposition as that would basically negate this article, since there is already an article on the initial invasion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't have to negate this article. Just have to create a new article called 'Occupied Iraq' or 'Occupation of Iraq', copy the content of this article (minus the stuff that's mentioned in the the invasion article) then move the invasion article to 'Iraq War' with a redirect from the invasion article to get all those articles pointing to the invasion article to the new name. Then you drop a link in the see also section for the new occupation article in the new 'Iraq War' article and vice versa. Aside from all the editing that would be involved, the hard part would be updating all the links and redirects that point to the existing articles and get them pointed to the correct articles. --Bobblehead 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am saying is since the war only went on for (1) month, most of the contents in here would be phased out and moved to the article about the occupation. We would have an invasion article covering the very beginning maybe 3 days or so, then a war article covering the month after, then an occupation article covering everything till it ends. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, sorry. Still, not really. You'd still keep the entire article up to, but not including, the Post Invasion section. The stuff leading up to the war is important and needs to be covered somewhere. That'd also save on a lot of the moves as you'd just have to move the occupation info to the new article and could keep this article and the invasion article in place. There would need to be other edits, of course.--Bobblehead 18:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you are saying. As I said you will face no complaints from me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. Hmmm. I foresee lots of copying and pasting in my future from this article to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006. Lots of redundancy between these two articles. --Bobblehead 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: same I believe with 2003 Invasion of Iraq. I believe most of that article is in this article. It is suppose to go, 2003 invasionof Iraq -> Iraq War, kind of like a timeline, then -> Occupation of Iraq would be next. But you have a dif idea in mind, so it may create a mess at first, good luck to you though, sounds like a good idea. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet mother of pearl, you be right. At this point it looks like the overlap from the invasion and post-invasion articles are better written.. The idea I'm going with is that this article would be the summary article for the entire conflict. Move the rationale portion from the invasion of iraq into this article and remove it from the invasion article. Move the stuff not covered in the occupation article from this article and then leave only a quick summary of the occupation stuff from this article. Probably have to leave html notes on this article so people know not to put details here. Heh. Lots of work. Hopefully I'll be able to get enough free time to do it successfully. --Bobblehead 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What a stupid argumentation. First of all, governments are not the final arbiters of truth. Second, please rename Vietnam War to Vietnam Conflict. Third, please split up Second World War into several dozen articles each decribing one pairing of combatants.
*What do other editors think of editor Patchouli's move of this page name, on 3 July 2006, of Iraq War to Iraq Conflict -- without any discussion here first? Personally, I think it's a very bad idea to make a name change such as this one without first using "discussion." I don't believe "Iraq Conflict" is the most widely used term. Badagnani 20:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think page moves should be generally talked about on discussion pages, however labeling this Iraq Conflict may help the upcoming merger if concensus forms for it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Are their more sources supporting this? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Great (sarcasm). A simple page move cannot be done because there is already an Iraq conflict article. I wish people would focus half as much time focusing on spelling and grammar as they do on these ideological disputes over naming. 172 | Talk 07:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Move it to Iraq conflict. Look like we need an admin to nuke the redirect? - Merzbow 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nuked. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the U.S. goverment sees Iraq as a "front" or "campaign" in the Global War on Terrorism. That is why I wear a "Iraq Campaign Medal" on my chest. I think in the minds of most people, including the goverment, the word "war" and a formal decleration of war have come a part. Even if you do not qualify Iraq a war, the arguement that it is not because Congress has not formally declared war is bizzare. (() 09:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizarre or not, in the legal sense the assertion there can be no war without a declaration of war is technically correct.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoy arguing that point on the Cold War page, I doubt you will however. Furthermore the US Courts have already stated that the Authorization to use Force resolution serves the purpose of a declaration of war. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Today's War on Terrorism constitutes the Cold War of the past that is a worldwide struggle. This particular military engagement is the Iraq Conflict.--Patchouli 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Round and round and round we go.;) Basically doesn't seems like there is much opposition to the name change from 'Iraq War' to 'Iraq Conflict'.. Perhaps in whether to call it 'Conflict in Iraq', but other than that.. Do we really have to get into whether or not Iraq is a legitimate war or not if there really isn't an argument against the name change? :) --Bobblehead 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: Iraq War → Iraq Conflict 
Survey
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose. The Proffesor 04:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask a U.S. administration official whether we are at war, your answer is going to be along the lines, "Of course, we are at war. Don't you see how the United States foreign policy has shifted since 9/11? This is the War on Terror. The Iraq campaign is a component thereof." We are not at war with the Iraqi government. "War of Terror" is an umbrella term for the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and potentially future wars in Iran and Somalia.--Patchouli 03:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then it's a war on Terror with the help of our Iraqi allies. Not a war against Iraq. That is why thte title is a misnomer no matter how you look at it. --DjSamwise 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google war isn't exactly verifibillity. --DjSamwise 13:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google numbers are perfectly verifiable, and when the ratio is as strong as it is here, it is definitive proof as to what the most common English name is, and our policy is to use that, even if you may personally consider it a "misnomer". Margana 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Prof, stop the ridiculous move-warring. - Merzbow 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved it back, as there's no consesus for having this at "conflict". —Gabbe 22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Iraq War is a proper noun, shouldn't the page be called Iraq War? This was the name of the article originally.--Bobblehead 22:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. —Gabbe 12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Many do call that "Vietnam Conflict" which the United States joined to defeat the North Vietnamese government, yet in Iraq there is no war against any government. It is urban warfare against guerillas.--Patchouli 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: When one refers to the "Iraq War" it does not necessarily imply that the war is "against" Iraq, it refers to the war that is being fought within the geographically defined territory known as Iraq. The artilce's definition of the Iraq war includes the 2003 invasion and the subsequent insurgnecy attacks, as well as the more recent sectarian violence. The purpose of an encyclopedia title is to aid the researcher in finding the information that is the most relevant to the research being conducted. Most people looking up the "Iraq War" today are looking for information leading to the decision to invade, the invasion, and subsequent occupation, which are all addressed. As of 2006, this is a good listing title for the article. However, historical relection on this topic may mean that the title needs to be changed in the future. For example if I wanted to know about the war fought between 1914-1919 today, I would look up "World War 1" but if I were in the 1920's and wanted to look this up I would look under the "Great War" because that is what it was called THEN. Just like the Iraq war is called the "Iraq War" NOWThis is an unsigned comment that has been moved here because it is about the article name.
*This is an armed conflict, not a war. Yet, if one wants to call it a war, then War in Iraq is more appropriate because the war in not against the Iraqi government. It is taking place there. In addition, unlike the one before, most of the actual fighting is taking place inland and not near Kuwait or the Gulf coastline; thus, "Gulf War II" is a misnomer.--Patchouli 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: "Gulf War I" would also be a misnomer for the 1991 war by this reasoning, since just as "Iraq War" is not a war against Iraq, "Gulf War" was not a war against the Persian Gulf. (I agree that "Iraq conflict" would be a better name for the current fighting, though.) --Mr. Billion 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 50px. I conclude that 
#Iraq War = War in Iraq or War against Iraq or War of Iraq.
#Persian Gulf War = War in Persian Gulf [involving neighboring states] or War against Persian Gulf [states] or War of Persian Gulf [states]
One could also substitute conflict for war and get the same result. 
This is my conclusion and I am not an expert linguist.--Patchouli 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey on proposed move

message: "Iraq War" → "War in Iraq"
Patchouli just changed the title to "War in Iraq". I reverted. I think such a name change should have been discussed and decided on the Talk page first. I do see some mention of the suggestion, but no general support or decision. To me the change doesn't make much of a difference other than bearing less resemblance to ordinary conversational use. To me, "Iraq War" does not imply a war against an Iraqi government entity - to me, it just refers to a war that is in Iraq. But I don't see a big problem either way. I just reverted primarily because I saw no consensus for the change. —Wookipedian 07:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Different Renaming: "War in Iraq"? 

message: Funny how this article doesnt mention Bush's references to the security of Israel as an ally of the US, esp. when in context of the North Korean strife and missile launches. NK, which poses a threat to American soil, is ignored, while Saddam's SCUDs only posed a threat to Israel (Powell's fairy-tale drones aside). Anyone wanna supplement the article with this information? It is severely lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.246.27 (talk • contribs) 
:You should post some links here to give people something to work with, as for the whole NK thing, I think that is another issue, however if you can provide the information and prove its importance, I am sure someone would be more then willing to add something on it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know he also posed a threat to Iran and Kuwait with his SCUDs, the concerns are normally focused on Isreal however since he launched them against them during the first Gulf War, a war which if I am right, Isreal supplied no troops or took no action in. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Who is concerned about defending the mullahs in Iran?--Patchouli 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: Everybody is talking about how many soldier has fallen, sure they honor their country by severing as soldiers, I know Saddam kill many Iraqs, he is so evil and should be dead, but by comparing the numbers killed in this war and the ones he killed. Who's the real mass murders? I don't want to anger any conservitives by rasing this topic, I just want to know what you guys think. After all, you can justify mass number of people dying by saying it's for freedom.
:This is not a political chat forum. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, people aregue about it all the time. Not people who are in a position to do anything about it, however. Gzuckier 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the decision of the current Iraqi government to not impose martial law for at least one year that is causing all the Iraqi carnage by the Iraqis.--Patchouli 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does any one cares how many Iraqis die? 

message: The way in which the combatants of the war are portrayed presently is completely inadequate and oversimplifies the situation. The "Iraq Insurgency" is not a single combatant force, and although most of the killing is now Shia-Sunni, the info box only show Iraq governments forces, the US and Britain against the insurgents.--Nwe 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Iraqi insurgency section of this article is intentionaly simplistic as it is meant to be more of a summary for the main article on Iraqi insurgency to keep the size of the Iraq War article down. As for the infobox, the nature of the fighting/killings in Iraq makes it difficult to associate the death of Iraqis to sectarian violence vs. insurgent violence vs. criminal violence vs. coalition violence. Even harder to find reliable sources that do that, but if you can find a source that does that, go ahead and make a swag at it. --Bobblehead 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants 

message: Why does al-Zarqawi have a cross next to his name in the Commanders section? I believe this is to indicate that he is presently deceased, but why a cross? Perhaps a more suitable Islamic symbol would be in order. Also, why is there no explanation of the symbols used? That should be rectified somewhere. Jfingers88 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebox Commanders 

message: i think we should have more information on the activities and contributions of other allied nations, in particular the UK forces. there could be more on what they did in the actual "invasion" and there could also be more on the peacekeeping actions of the forces in the years since. many could argue that because insurgents r less active in the south in areas like basra, (or at least there are fewer military casualites), that it does not warrant so much attention but i think we could point out possible reasons why there is less insurgent activity possible due to different military approaches to "hearts and minds" or different religious and political section etc. just something to think about.
i feel much of this lack of information on the south may be due to it being less covered in the US media and the majority of editors on wiki r from the US.
also it says that the majority of ppl in the UK (and others) opposed military action in iraq. just because 46% (eg) support the war does not mean the other 54% oppose it. if i remember around 15% in the UK didn't care. and just because 300,000 ppl or whatever the exact number was marched against the war in london does not show overwhelming number of ppl against the war, afterall the ppl who supported the war would not have a march to show their support would they.
Pratj 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some reason that you don't start your sentences with capital letters or capitalize the word "I"? —Wookipedian 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is all you have to contribute to these types of discussions, please just keep them to yourself Drew1369 19:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information on other allies? 

message: Not sure what started this latest round of edit warring, but it seems there is a concerted effort by those that oppose calling Iraq part of WoT to remove the entry from the infobox. Just seeing if I can get the discussion off the article's edit summaries and onto this here talk page. Just remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy and decisions are reached by consensus not by voting. Remember, keep it civil. --Bobblehead 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "War on Terror" belongs in the info box. It deserves comment in the intro. It evens deserves a paragraph to describe how the Iraq War front relates to the overall War on Terror. There are editors who don't agree with War on Terror rationale for invading Iraq justas there were some people who didn't agree that we should have engaged Germany when we were only attacked by Japan. But the fact is that the Iraq War is a front on the War on Terror. Iraq was part of the Axis of Evil that was identified way before the Iraq War and there is no separating U.S. involvement in Iraq and the War on Terror. --Tbeatty 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its actually just one user who opposes and who has been blocked for being a sockpuppet, then blocked again for evading his blocks using an IP. Esaborio, Copperchair, anon 190, whatever the name happens to be. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest round may not be Copperchair, or at least, it isn't obviously so. Although, you could argue that some of the edits by , , , and  have the appearance of similarities with each other, just not obviously with Copperchair. --Bobblehead 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome. :) --Bobblehead 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq is part of WoT 

message: I added Mahdi Army as a combatant because it is active, powerful, and current; it was removed swiftly. Why?--Patchouli 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First guess is Mahdi Army was removed because it is already covered under Iraqi insurgency. The Ba'ath loyalists get a mention because Saddam Fedayeen were made up of Ba'ath loyalists and were independent of the Saddam era Iraqi Army and involved in the fighting before the fall of Baghdad. --Bobblehead 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mahdi Army is the strongest single organization of insurgents that is now alive and well. It has eclipsed all groups related to Saddam Hussein in the occupation period.--Patchouli 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not true, the Mahdi army has for the most part been inactive recently. The Iraqi insurgency is not the Baath Loyalists but instead the insurgents who have been attacking since the Baath Loyalists stopped fighting in 2003/04. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahdi Army 

message: I've gone ahead and created a report of possible sock puppetry for Larry Lawrence and his possible pile o' sockpuppets. So rather than dueling it out with the guy, how about we wait for the puppets to get banned and then go about readding the part of label? :) Just a thought to save us all from the headache. --Bobblehead 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Larry Lawrence and his possible pile o' sockpuppets 

message: Should the war in Iraq be considered a current event? Red1530 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context wikipedia is using it. Yes. If you mean the 2003 invasion of Iraq then you're right. That wouldn't be a current event. But this article covers more than the invasion. It also covers the occupation of Iraq, which is ongoing.--Bobblehead 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I mean the current operations Red1530 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, yes. It should be considered a current event. --Bobblehead 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event? 

message: Maybe I haven't been thorough enough in going through the article, but there seems to be very little detail of the war during 2005 and 2006, the escalating of sectarian violence, progress towards civil war, etc.Nwe 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs updating 

message: Last time I came here a British commander was also stated, the British army was led by a different commander, obviously all working for the UK/US Coalition. Where is that commanders name now and why does Wikipedia always become U.S. bias only (as if they never had U.K. support)! 
Amlder20 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, or maybe its because the British comander is probably less significant than any US captain in the entire country, and the extent of his "command" is probably as real as Britain's influence on US foreign policy. British involvement in Iraq as a whole is probably even more meaningless. Don't ever forget that this was a unilateral American invasion, with Britain and other obsequious weaklings thrown in. If you're British you should be relieved and keep hoping that British involvement in Iraq is mentioned as little as possible. It doesn't do to encourage the knowledge of such shameful things.Nwe 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be added, we are striving for completeness as long as its verifiable and factual. Feel free to be bold and add any informatino regarding other nations participation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the first reaction to the lack of information should be to add it, not allege there is some conspiracy. Only after people start removing it can you claim that :) ~Rangeley (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was also a British Commander 

message: From ABC News: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/230806Draft.htm Is the Next Step a Draft?]--Striver 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: I've added a link to this fascinating report in the external links section. To bad no-one in authority seems to have read it in 2003.
*"The Road Ahead: Lessons in Nation Building from Japan, Germany, and Afghanistan for Postwar Iraq" by Ray Salvatore Jennings May 2003 Peceworks No. 49 United States Institute of Peace
Is there anything that he cautions about in the report that hasn't in effect hapened by now?
And just for fun I think I'll add some snapshopts here from another messed up occupation.
1 Cornerstone of Steel - 2 Cost of Defeat - 3 Pas de Pagaille!
--Stor stark7 Talk 20:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The U.S. Messed up again

message: Although this is my first time viewing this article, I definitely picked up a hint of POV, i noticed this has been discussed before yet the article has not been tagged? I have inserted a tag but feel free to remove it if there is a specific reason for not having one, but please let me know first as I would like to participate in the improvement of this article, (note: my major problem with POV is that parts of the article seem to support the invasion, despite the fact that it was opposed by the UN and parts of Europe) Enlighten me! thanks --Frogsprog 15:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What in particular do you consider POV? ~Rangeley (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there where several quotes which I interpreted as a disguise for POV statements, primarily because those quotes where seemingly supportive of US actions, i.e "his killing was a major victory in the war on terror" with reference to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and also "The regular Iraqi insurgents and other groups such as the Sunni Islamic militant groups Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Islam are responsible for numerous abuses and killings" there is no such statement of fact regarding the US torture scandals? --Frogsprog 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a whole section on US Abuses, and further there is a picture of an American at Abu Ghraib but not of insurgents decapitating someone or committing their abuses. As to the "major victory," at face value I would have agreed with you, however the context in which it is presented is completely acceptable. "President George W. Bush said the killing was "a severe blow to al-Qaida and it is a significant victory in the war on terror" but cautioned: "We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continuing patience of the American people." Its presented as a quote, not a statement of fact. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean about the quote but what of the statement: "The regular Iraqi insurgents and other groups such as the Sunni Islamic militant groups Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Islam are responsible for numerous abuses and killings" This is an actual introduction to a section, and it seems to be making an enormous sweeping statement about islamic militants. thats my final problem. sorry to be so picky --Frogsprog 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, such organizations publicly claim to be responsible for the actions, and sometimes even publish videos of the event. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, in that case perhaps the sentance should name the specific islamic organisations who have publicly claimed responsibility for terrorist atrocities, rather than incriminate ordinary iraqi rebels? (these rebels are known in the article as regular insurgents)--Frogsprog 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the quote does not seperate them, we cannot do that ourselves, the source lumps them then we lump them. Wikipedia is about verifiability not facts oddly enough, or so I keep being told. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I noticed that the result section in the infobox has become humorously lengthy again... Rmt2m 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: i think it would be important to mention that there is an emerging and growing group of war objectors who are refusing to fight or going AWOL or getting involved with organizations like Iraq Veterans Against the War, and pehaps the parallels to the Vietnam War. any thoughts??
Qrc2006 09:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that list reached 10 it still would not be enough, every way has people who go AWOL or refuse to fight, its really not that important to mention. This article is about the war specifically, you may want to put a section however in legitamacy of iraq war or whatever that article is, since these soldiers are contesting just that. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if there were 10, these are people who volunteered to serve and are going back on their word. That is quite different than a conscript refusing to fight. Rmt2m 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something similar to Vietnam War#U.S. and Australian opposition to the War might be appropriate. It might also provide some structure to how opposition to the war is handled in this article. As far as war objectors, those could be mentioned as a sentence or two as part of the objection section but nothing more. I can't remember the exact number off my head (this article says 200 in Toronto and Vancouver) but there is a growing number crossing the border into Canada. So I'd say it's significantly past the arbitrary threshold Zer0 just set. The only difference is that now those that are going AWOL are doing so in the US and doing so publically. When previously they'd just disappear within the US or Canada. --Bobblehead 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Opposition to the Iraq War is probably a better link to what is being talked about. However, the soldiers going AWOL is notable enough to warrant media attention and the Opposition article seems worthy of a summary and link to the main article in this article. --Bobblehead 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised there is such an article as it seems inherently POV, the other side would have to be represented entirely defensively. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read the article yet, but if the article covers the opposition movement in an encyclopedic manner it shouldn't violate NPOV. That being said, there is an NPOV tag on the article, so it appears someone thinks POV is present in the article. A quick scan of the section titles seems to support an improper coverage of the topic and it could take some ques from Opposition to the Vietnam War --Bobblehead 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War objectors

message: Many people debate whether or not the invasion of Iraq was part of the overall Global War on Terror. It can be argued that prior to--and immediately following--the 2003 invasion, Iraq had little to do with combatting Al Qaeda and ts allies. Regardelss or the pre-existing conditions, Iraq has become the new battlefield in the War on Terror following the removal of Saddam Hussein. Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist organizations and sectarian factions moved quickly to take advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq in the weeks and months following the fall of Saddam's regime. Furthermore, the Syrian and Iranian militaries have been supplying the terrorist organizations to continue to prolong the political instability in Iraq, in hopes of bringing donw the democratically-elected government. Iran has gone as far as sending advisors from their Revolutionary Guards to train and equip anti-government Shiite militia and Al Qaeda terrorist cells, while Syria and elements of Hezbollah are supporting Sunni factions.
Despite the insurgency, the biggest enemy we have in Iraq now is our own media. Unlike the First Gulf War in 1990-91 (where Gen Norman Schwarzkopf placed tight restrictions on the media), military commanders did not restrict media activities. This immediately became a terrible mistake--first during the invasion--when news reporters ignorantly leaked classified information related to military operations over television and radio outlets. Furthermore, the media's handling of the situation in Iraq provides more support to the insurgency by giving the terrorist groups the attention they demand. Along those same lines, this irresponsible media reporting has created a public perception of things going badly for coalition forces in Iraq, where in reality things have improved greatly in the years following the invasion. Specifically, electricity output in Iraq now is four times greater than prewar levels; reconstruction efforts are managed by an joint coalition-Iraqi team where Iraqis are making decisions on capital projects in infrastructure improvements. More Iraqis today have clean drinking water than at any time under the Saddam regime. Iraq's oil exports today exceed pre-1991 levels. Throughout the country thousands of new schools and business have opened their doors, offering Iraqis a new opportunity they hever had. 
Finally, the media has created a preception that the turmoil in Iraq is spirling out of control. The reality of the matter is, that outside of the immediate areas around Baghdad, Iraq is peaceful. Nearly all of the attacks have occurred in and around Baghdad--thus the violence is limited to a very small area in a country roughly the size of California. How can one say the entire country is careening toward civil war when most of the activity is limited to a very small area? There are cities in the United States that experience as much violence on a daily basis as Baghdad...Detroit and L.A. are a couple of example, but I could name more.
Bottom line is our media has painted a very distorted picture of what's going on in Iraq, and the media's irresponsible activits are not helping us win this war. Our commanders need to put away our biggest enemy--our own media.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.15.37 (talk • contribs) 
:Please see the archives this was discussed and decided long ago. The proof other then just lecture was given and accepted. If you have any issues with the previously presented proof, just tell me which item and I will address it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq and the GWOT

message: I evaluated the article based on 7 criteria:
#Well-written: Pass
#Factually accurate: Pass 
#Broad: Pass 
#Neutrally written: Fail
#Stable: Fail 
#Well-referenced: Super Pass
#Images: Pass
No article this contraversial can pass GAC. It's not stable, and it has a NPOV tag, which is an auto-fail in my book. You might be surprised that this article was in GAC- the nom never put the tag up, instead declaring it a GA before someone removed the tag. As such, I have no objections if someone wants to remove the GAfail tag, as it never should have been nominated, and no one knew about it. --PresN 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GAC

message: I reverted Plaws1856's removal of the reference to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report. If this article is to have a section titled "Criticisms of the rational for the Iraq War," I don't think it can be complete without mention of the Senate report, because that is one of the more significant and official criticisms of rationale. Plaws1856 offered no justification for the edit. If someone can explain to me why the reference might have been removed, I would appreciate it. Cyrusc 17:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved a mention of the supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda link up to the rationale section. No matter your political perspective, this was one of the primary justifications for the conflict, not just a criticism after the fact. Any thoughts? Benzocane 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq and Al Qaeda

message: Hello there,
I don't why this message was deleted, Is it possible to add a section about a possible connection btwn Iraq and Israel?[blacklisted link removed]
thanks
:::Find a different source and not one that claims there is a Jewish conspiracy with no backing of statements (Kurdistans leader is Jewish? Please...) ~Rangeley (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, find a different source. This one has already been shown to be unreliable. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, try signing your posts. 2nd, if it's so well known and 100% true then documentation shouldn't be difficult at all now shoud it. If after you attempt to find good documentation you discover there is none, consider changing your opinion. Either way, no reliable source, no wiki coverage. Peace. --Home Computer 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other section 

message: Should this important new info be added into the article?
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document." 
NBGPWS 06:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely - see also here. Instead of an endless edit war on putting "partof=war on tarrorism" in the info box, how about a section on the war and terrorism? This report is not news, of course, and in fact even conservative think tanks such as IISS had warned that the Iraq war was going to increase terrorism from the beginning. What is new here is the fact that this report represents the consensus view of American intelligence agencies -- according to CSM, "The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by US intelligence agencies since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and it represents a consensus view of the 16 different spy services inside government." This should really be in the article, along with information going back to the beginning of the war about the war's effect in increasing terrorism to an unprecedented level. (As I recall, there was such a note in the infobox under "Result:"; that should certainly be restored).--csloat 07:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War worsened Terrorism 

message: The article states that the US deployed 145,000 troops and the British 8,300 - are there verifiable sources for this? The German article about the war has 255,000 for the US and 45,000 for UK which corresponds e.g. with "Fischer Weltalmanach 2004" and other sources. --Proofreader 19:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance the troop deployment section seems to be spammy... But it also appears more in line with current troop deployment levels than that of the initial invasion. It's also not cited, so kind of hard to say if the number is accurate or not. If you've got different numbers from reliable sources, it's probably safe to make the update. --Bobblehead 17:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop deployment figures 

message: <This nationally-televised speech was delivered before an artfully-arranged live audience of colorfully-costumed sailors and airmen on the flight deck.>
This statement is just wrong. First off they are not "colourfully-costumed" they are in military uniform. And the statement "artfully" arranged. The way the naval personel are standing is a standard position for any dignitary that comes aboard a ship and also standard for when they are coming into port. Unless someone disagree's I will revert this to what they are actually wearing and doing. Drew1369 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov wording 

message: We need to shut this page down, lock it so it can be cleaned up. And ban a few IPs. Maybe it's just my computer, but the bar is still showing "Dune War," "Arrakis," and "Leto Atreides," to name a few. Hashshashin 18:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dune-related vandalism 

message: [Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
The Senate Committe report indicates that there were individuals who disputed the links. Nothing is mentioned about the Committee disputing anything; nor is the "War on Terrorism" even mentioned in the piece. This is a ridiculous display of original research and rampant speculation.
--Mmx1 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, its pretty annoying. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What sort of argument is that? This is not other language versions of wiki. Many editors have argued this matter from both sides leading to an arbitration case. The current verbiage with the footnote was the resulting consensus. --Mmx1 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence