Talk:United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War

message: A couple of references.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/29/MN116803.DTL
"The French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop Majnoon, a field near the Iranian border with estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels. Moscow has a $3.5 billion, 23-year agreement for several huge Iraqi fields that gives a lead position to a Russian oil consortium led by LukOil. 
http://www.informationwar.org/articlesofinterest/iraq/oil_french_companies_april2003.htm
"Certainly, until the war started, one of the firms that seemed most likely to get its hands on Iraqi oil was France's biggest company, TotalFinaElf."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm
"During the 1990s, Russia’s Lukoil, China National Petroleum Corporation and France’s TotalFinaElf held contract talks with the government of Iraq over plans to develop Iraqi fields as soon as sanctions are lifted. Lukoil reached an agreement in 1997 to develop Iraq’s West Qurna field, while China National signed an agreement for the North Rumailah field in the same year (China’s oil import needs from the Persian Gulf will grow from 0.5 million barrels per day in 1997 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2020, making China one of the region’s most important customers).(9) France’s Total at the same time held talks for future development of the fabulous Majnun field."
I once read that a new contract between France's elf Aquitaine and Iraq (in Euros, not USD) was due to come into effect on 1st April 2003, but cannot remember where. To me this explained the 'invasion' in March 2003. 144.136.192.32 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  French and Russian oil contracts. 

message: This is my first time making an edit here on any wikipedia.org page. Excuse me if I do not do something up to par with the wikipedia standards. Under the section: Position of UN Security Council members, the opinions of all the countries are given. However, for the countries such as Russia, France the USA, there is additional information added which is not needed. Why is it included that Russia had a 4.7 billion dollar oil contract with Iraq? Or why is it included that a French bank was running the oil for food programme? If these facts are so important, than perhaps the fact that 46.2% of Iraqi exports came to the USA in 2000, according to the 2002 CIA World Factbook, the factbook in publication the year we invaded Iraq. I honestly feel this information should either a) be left out all together, or b) be placed in a seperate section of the page titled something to the effect of "Possible Influences on Security Council Member Decisions."
The 2002 CIA World Factbook is availble for download here: https://www.cia.gov/cia/download.html
A simple google search for "world factbook 2002" will also return many results.
Please feel free to change my post to better reflect the standards of wikipedia.org, but please keep the general meaning behind my message intact. If I need to be contacted for any reason, my email address is anthron@gmail.com
:Completely right, this is a page about the countries' positions on the war and not about what people speculate about what influenced those positions. Quite ridiculous to reason that it was French and Russian oil contracts that made the Council oppose the war when billions of people all over the world opposed it. Get-back-world-respect 12:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Views? 

message: It didn't seem immediately obvious to me which year this statement referred to:
"British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50% to 30% by March."
At first, I thought this was current info, but then saw a previous statement said the events happened from 2002-2003. A date should include a year.
The bias is not necessarily from the countries trade and agreements with Iraq but more the UN itself.  In the so-called 'Food-for-Oil' UN program the United Nations could not confirm the location of S12 up to $20 Billion dollars of funding provided by Iraq directly to the United Nations.  An estimated 2-3,000 UN workers were being paid through this fund and if your individual job security it not an influence to your political opinion--then nothing is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.31.213.2 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Clarity (minor issue) 

message: Powell's UN presentation to convince the Security Council was on 6th February 2003.
Today's business news report that Singapore Air and Cathay Pacific were fined for fixing the price of freighting meat to 35,000 soldiers in Iraq. Contract date is given as 'January 2003' in both the Melbourne 'Age' newspaper as in online search results. This contract proves that the Iraq invasion was definite before Powell's UN presentation. Whether he was deceived by the advisors or deceived at his own volition only he knows. 144.136.192.32 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: So it is ignored when Iraq buys off 3 members of the veto-wielding security council members but trumpeted when the US buys off non-veto wielding members. What a fraud. 65.185.190.240 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a fraud 

message: This entire article lacks one citation. Any edits without citations are subject to deletion as OR. Most or all of this article will be deleted if not supported. So, offer some. Raggz 06:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not appear to understand the relationship between WP:OR and WP:CITE.  Because text does not have a citation does not necessarily mean it is WP:OR, and does not mean that it is necessarily appropriate to wholesale remove it.  It would be more appropriate to place the  template at the top.  Cheers, JCO312 21:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a year later still no cites. It does violate wp:or so I need to delete it all. Feel free to work on it, get it into shape, but do not revert without reliable sources. Raggz (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (cross-posting to Raggz's talkpage) There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia without any citations.  This does not mean that it is acceptable to just go and blank them, as that is a violation of WP:POINT, especially on an article which has been on Wikipedia for several years.  Instead, options are to add  or  tags; delete any implausible information; propose a merge; expand the article yourself; and so forth.  If you truly believe that the entire article should be deleted, add a  tag to it to propose a deletion.  If no one objects in 5 days, the article will be deleted, with no muss and no fuss.  If there is disagreement on whether or not to delete an article, you can file an article for deletion request.  If there is consensus for the deletion, the article can be deleted that way as well.  But do not simply blank existing articles.  Thanks, --Elonka 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There Are No Citations - OR

message: The first of the external links »UN & Iraq War« is broken.--193.170.135.160 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: There is no source for " When this camp was visited by a British journalist two days later, all that was found was a few dilapidated buildings and no evidence or signs of any terrorist activity, chemical or explosives. " If someone wanted to take that seriously there needs to at least be a source to go verify this information. I couldn't even find a trace of evidence to say that there was any proof of this on the internet. Please link or get rid of this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.56.251 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the source for the british journalist? 

message: Under the analysis section:  "The story was carried by the European and Australian press, and served as a further embarrassment to the Bush administration's efforts to rally support for their illegal war."  This sentence looks fine to me, until the second to last word.  Personal ideas aside, this is a highly biased sentence.  Can we fix it?  108.90.80.171 (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: This article has a section in which it summarizes the 'positions' of each of the members of the UN SC at the time of the US proposed military action in Iraq.  This list indicates the stance of 'Germany" although Germany was NOT**** a member of the UN SC in 2003. (ERROR !  NEED TO FULL RETRACT !  trying to 'delete' this ENTIRE comment but don't know how ! VERY SORRY !).  The missing member state is 'Singapore" (Singapore was UN SC non-permanent member 2001 & 2002 !  MY BAD !!) Jthicks1152 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members of UN SC in March 2003 

message: This article is missing any real data about the important resolution 1441 except mentioning it in links. It sounds like it tries to avoid the only hard fact relevant to the point. Thats like talking about cars without mentioning they drive with four wheel on roads. Crass Spektakel (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  avoiding the core 

message: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html Victor Grigas (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  images, etc from powell's speech available here