Talk:Iraq War/Archive 14

message: I think my Iraq Wars Bibliography at http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/EdMoise/iraqbib.html is good enough so it would be useful to have a link to it in this page.  I am not sure whether this should be an item under the existing heading Bibliography (section 18 in the Contents) or whether a new subhead, Bibliographies, should be created for it (presumably coming after the existing subhead Media Echoes) under External Articles (section 20 in Contents).
Ed Moise (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq Wars Bibliography 

message: I will remove the POV tag on the casualties section. There are a lot of points of view regarding the ammount of causulties, however the summing up of estimates is not. This is not to say that the section cannot be improvedBas van Leeuwen (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag on casualties section 

message: There have been promulgated by the U.S. Government many reasons in support of the war, such as Saddam Hussein's participation in the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. in New York and Washington, his support for al Qaeda, his development of nuclear and biological weapons, and the danger he posed to the Middle East region.  Also, Saddam Hussein attempted to take the life of President George W. Bush's father, the former president George H. W. Bush.  And a perpetual war in the Middle East with the United States as the major participant fits in with the neoconservative hegemonic philosophy that the United States, as the sole remaining superpower, should, in fact has an obligation to project power in its own interest wherever and whenever it is able.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.86.145 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for Iraq War 

message: I've found several useful links providing information that shows a reduction in violence after the surge,
(
)
...so I'm going to go ahead and add that information to the troop surge section.
Mgerb (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduction of Troop Deaths Following Surge 

message: I believe British Intelligence still states that Saddam was trying to get Yellow Cake in Africa.  I will the relevant references and if I am correct update this article.  The Wilson investigation may be correct, but it appears to be entirely separate from the British Intelligence conclusions.
:Wait . . . I thought Wilson reported that Iraq did attempt to purchase Uranium from Niger in 1999.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the reference to The Connection because it does not belong in the lead.  You asserted that "a number of investigative journalists state that Saddam was generally involved in terrorism and had a collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda." To back up this claim, you provided one book that has been discredited by basically everyone knowledgeable on the subject of terrorism.  The only thing appropriate to include in the lead (about this topic) is the consensus of the intelligence community, which is that there was no operational link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.--Rise Above The Vile 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other sources for these claims.  In the interest of improving the quality of the content, the editors and other major contributors here who exert authoritarian control over such things might exhibit some good faith and ferret these sources out.  Dependence on participants with other viewpoints simply doesn't work, especially given the level of hostility toward those viewpoints and the amount of effort it takes to get them heard.  The results are shoddy and biased articles such as this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be further noted that Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Saddam's connection to AQ are not interdependent.  Saddam's involvement in 9/11 was never given as a rationale for deposing him.  What was clearly stated by the Bush Administration is that 9/11 changed the calculus and underscored the need for interrupting the cooperative activities of states and terror organizations.  Clearly, much of this work still lies ahead.
Below is list of Eighteen (18) links (mainly journalists) on the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  At mininum he provided money, training, weapons, passports, safe haven, and medical treatments.  Joint Operations were at least discussed.  Direct Operations with Ansar al-Isalm were carried out.   As the 9/11 Chairman notes:  Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States." 
As noted by the NY Times, the statements made by the Bush Admin. on the contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were essentially Correct.  They never stated that Saddam had an operational role in the 9/11 Attacks:
Bush Admin (Correctly) Claims Relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/iraq-quaeda.htm
It is obviously hard to get details on the Inner workings of a small terrorist organization, but in WWII the US destroyed entire cities on the basis of information that had the same level of credibility as these articles.  The 18 links I noted above are as follows:
Al Qaeda proposed Operational Cooperation with Saddam (2006):
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaidia Cooperated in Killing Anti-Saddam Kurds.
http://www.nysun.com/article/39631
Al Qaeda Training in Northern Iraq (under Saddam):
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868301/posts
Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam (from 9/11 Report):
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp
Detainee Assets Operational Contacts with Saddam:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
Senator Clinton (2002) Notes Al Qaeda and Saddam Contacts:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_abcs_of_iraq_and_al_qaeda.asp
Note on Al Qaeda + Saddam contacts in Report:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507011134.asp
W. Safire Note on  Report listing Contacts:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EFDA1239F932A15755C0A9629C8B63
A list of Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam:
http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_alqaeda_connection.htm
Links Missed by 9/11 Report:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025
Saddam Trained Thousands of Terrorists, many Al Qaida Afflicated:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Original Summary of Defense Review of Contacts:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Ansar Al-Islam in Iraq
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={9E091170-6A9D-48CA-BC7B-02FF7F84A443}
Zarqawi Trained by Al-Qaeda in 1989, in IRAQ in 2000:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1793632,00.html
Al Qaida and Antrax Attack:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/usnews/whispers/main3500524.shtml
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/startling_implications_of_a_ji.html
Review of Selected Sources on Saddams Support of Terror and Al Qaeda:
http://www.regimeofterror.com/
Saddam & Terror Funding (some Al Qaeda Links):
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Saddam & Al Qaeda Links (2003):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31597
Surge:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119561766597900285.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWZiZTg5YWYyNjY1ZWU1ZDRjM2Q5YWI3NDUzNjUzM2I=
ITBlair (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I clicked on three of these at random, and what I got was speculation, uncertainty, and op-eds.  Do any of these meet wikipedia's WP:RS criteria?  Also, if there was a hit of credibility to any of these, then Bush would be talking about them daily. 85.214.79.185 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the logic here is clear.  Much which is "speculative" is included in this article without your objection.  Clearly, speculation which favors your position is acceptable and speculation which is in opposition to your position is not.  This is the problem with this article specifically, and with Wikipedia in general.  You folks seem to have a serious handicap when it comes to looking at these things objectively.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Updates 

message: I noted the book the Connection, which outlines a set of contacts between Al-Qaeda, and the Saddam Regime.  This reference was deleted.  Just because one does not like a source or thinks it is incorrect is not grounds for deletion.  You have to demonstrate that it is factually wrong. Otherwise it has to be left in the article, along with the opposing viewpoints.
Similarly, I noted the most Western Intelligence Agencies, including the prior Clinton Administration believed that the Saddam Regime had restarted his WMD program. This reference was also deleted.  Again one has to demonstrate that this citation is wrong before deleting it.
From a context perspective, I noted that Saddam had WMDs and was within three years of a nuclear weapon in 1991.  Otherwise the article would imply there is no factual basis for the US concern on WMDs.   This reference was also deleted.  In particular, the 9/11 attacks reveal that a non-state actor with access to WMDs could destroy several US cities.  The doctrine of mutually assured destruction via massive retaliation does not work with non-state actors.  These facts, along with increasing globalization has dramatically changed the US strategic calculus.  There is a greater emphasis on premptive wars and not waiting a threat to fully mature before striking first.  
I do not think any of the above proposed updates was factually incorrect and I provided the relevant citations.  This is obviously a dispute among editors.  I am requesting comments as to truthfulness of these assertions and if truthful, why they should not be in the article.  As it stands, the current article reflects an strong anti-Iraq War perspective and explicitly denies any valid basis for this invasion.  I think this is not the case; at the very least both viewpoints should be well represented in this article.
:I deleted the reference to The Connection because it does not belong in the lead.  You asserted that "a number of investigative journalists state that Saddam was generally involved in terrorism and had a collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda." To back up this claim, you provided one book that has been discredited by basically everyone knowledgeable on the subject of terrorism.  The only thing appropriate to include in the lead (about this topic) is the consensus of the intelligence community, which is that there was no operational link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.--Rise Above The Vile 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other sources for these claims.  In the interest of improving the quality of the content, the editors and other major contributors here who exert authoritarian control over such things might exhibit some good faith and ferret these sources out.  Dependence on participants with other viewpoints simply doesn't work, especially given the level of hostility toward those viewpoints and the amount of effort it takes to get them heard.  The results are shoddy and biased articles such as this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be further noted that Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Saddam's connection to AQ are not interdependent.  Saddam's involvement in 9/11 was never given as a rationale for deposing him.  What was clearly stated by the Bush Administration is that 9/11 changed the calculus and underscored the need for interrupting the cooperative activities of states and terror organizations.  Clearly, much of this work still lies ahead.
Below is list of Eighteen (18) links (mainly journalists) on the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  At mininum he provided money, training, weapons, passports, safe haven, and medical treatments.  Joint Operations were at least discussed.  Direct Operations with Ansar al-Isalm were carried out.   As the 9/11 Chairman notes:  Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States." 
As noted by the NY Times, the statements made by the Bush Admin. on the contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were essentially Correct.  They never stated that Saddam had an operational role in the 9/11 Attacks:
Bush Admin (Correctly) Claims Relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/iraq-quaeda.htm
It is obviously hard to get details on the Inner workings of a small terrorist organization, but in WWII the US destroyed entire cities on the basis of information that had the same level of credibility as these articles.  The 18 links I noted above are as follows:
Al Qaeda proposed Operational Cooperation with Saddam (2006):
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaidia Cooperated in Killing Anti-Saddam Kurds.
http://www.nysun.com/article/39631
Al Qaeda Training in Northern Iraq (under Saddam):
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868301/posts
Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam (from 9/11 Report):
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp
Detainee Assets Operational Contacts with Saddam:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
Senator Clinton (2002) Notes Al Qaeda and Saddam Contacts:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_abcs_of_iraq_and_al_qaeda.asp
Note on Al Qaeda + Saddam contacts in Report:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507011134.asp
W. Safire Note on  Report listing Contacts:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EFDA1239F932A15755C0A9629C8B63
A list of Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam:
http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_alqaeda_connection.htm
Links Missed by 9/11 Report:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025
Saddam Trained Thousands of Terrorists, many Al Qaida Afflicated:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Original Summary of Defense Review of Contacts:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Ansar Al-Islam in Iraq
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={9E091170-6A9D-48CA-BC7B-02FF7F84A443}
Zarqawi Trained by Al-Qaeda in 1989, in IRAQ in 2000:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1793632,00.html
Al Qaida and Antrax Attack:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/usnews/whispers/main3500524.shtml
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/startling_implications_of_a_ji.html
Review of Selected Sources on Saddams Support of Terror and Al Qaeda:
http://www.regimeofterror.com/
Saddam & Terror Funding (some Al Qaeda Links):
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Saddam & Al Qaeda Links (2003):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31597
Surge:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119561766597900285.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWZiZTg5YWYyNjY1ZWU1ZDRjM2Q5YWI3NDUzNjUzM2I=
ITBlair (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I clicked on three of these at random, and what I got was speculation, uncertainty, and op-eds.  Do any of these meet wikipedia's WP:RS criteria?  Also, if there was a hit of credibility to any of these, then Bush would be talking about them daily. 85.214.79.185 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the logic here is clear.  Much which is "speculative" is included in this article without your objection.  Clearly, speculation which favors your position is acceptable and speculation which is in opposition to your position is not.  This is the problem with this article specifically, and with Wikipedia in general.  You folks seem to have a serious handicap when it comes to looking at these things objectively.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Updates

message: I believe there should be section about the 2006 survey that claimed 655,000 civilians (children, women, old ladies, mothers, fathers) where killed and wiped out like vermin. Who knows how many thousands of dogs and cats were also killed by all the bombs. Not sure anyone really cares? And the hundreds of thousands who lost there limbs. Here is one CNN link http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ and here is another one that claims 1.2 million children, mothers and civilians were killed http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html --Persianhistory2008 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section dealing with casualty estimates and the studies that were conducted to arrive at these numbers. You are referring to the 2007 ORB study that carefully extrapolated from the Lancet Studies of 2004 and 2006. These represent the only serious, scientific research into casualty figures conducted in Iraq. Pinkville (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The section immediately after "Casualty estimates" is Humanitarian crises. Pinkville (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section you write about is not that clear, that 1.2 million children, women, old ladies, mothers, fathers have been exterminated! This is going to leave a major scar on history. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will seem like a trip to the park compared to the 1.2 million who have been exterminated. The 1.2 million people who have been wiped out deserve a better section. --Persianhistory2008 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a wiki. Find some reliable sources to back up that statement, write it neutrally and add it. Mr.Z-man 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought I should point out that the survey that found 1.2 million Iraqis have died was conducted by a polling agency, not by researchers.  As such, its findings must be taken  with a grain of salt.  I see no reason to include it in the article.--Rise Above The Vile 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everybody has a different say on the casualty, but nobody as good info on it. (P.S. Nobody got exterminated by the United States of America, only the terrorist kill the Iraqis) SG 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Polling agency" and "researchers" needn't be a dichotomy. Carefully conducted polling - like that performed by ORB - is scientific research. ORB extended the work of the scientific researchers whose findings appeared in the 2004 and 2006 Lancet Studies. Thus far, these three studies are the only careful estimates of the number of casualties due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The methods and results of these studies have been accepted by the scientific community and other experts. Pinkville (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In the invasion phase of the war (March 20-April 30), 9,200 Iraqi combatants were killed along with 7,299 civilians, primarily by US air and ground forces. http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html That's SEVEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE CIVILIANS killed by Bush and Blair. Osama, Saddam and the insurgents had nothing to do with these deaths, they (men, women and children) were killed by allied bombs and bullets. You think that is justified? What if that was your mother or father or sister or brother killed amongst those dead? Would you rejoice? If you thought you were liberating a country would you personally shoot SEVEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE CIVILIANS through the head to bring it about? "Sorry little girl, we Yankees are bringing freedom to your country, you have to die" BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! Now for the forced-homosexual pile up at Abu Ghraib YUMMY! I can sell this to all the porn channels as "Moslem Gang-Bang Orgy" God bless America!" Colin4C 13:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you stating that 99% of the world does not hate us (the US) because of the war? Do you not realize that Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 YEARS (1979-2003) and only killed less than a million. But just in a few years ever since the war against "Evil" Iraq, over one million little girls and civilians have been killed! How many Americans did stupid Saddam kill? How many Americans did Bush kill? And what about the little kids killed in Afghanistan? By the end of the war, millions of Muslims will have been whipped off the planet who had nothing to do with the war (and thousands of Americans). And all this because they had weapons of mass destruction or was it because "this is the guy who tried to kill my daddy." CNN  Just wait and see what the history books and world leaders will say about the Iraq War! What is Allan Greenspan saying about the war?--Persianhistory2008 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a side note: Saying that President Bush killed the Americans demonstrates your POV. Happyme22 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you are wrong, it’s not my opinion that counts. If you travel outside the US as much as I do, you would understand how most of the world hates the US and its policies. Hate is a strong word, but there are enough books and articles written in French, German, and hundreds of other languages to prove the point. Even in England which is suppose to be our #1 ally, 90% of them disagree with us and they got rid of Tony Blair so quickly he did not know what hit him! Sorry if you don't agree, but why don't you go there or read some of the foreign books and articles. Chelsea Clinton also would disagree with you. She went to school in England and after Sep 11. 2001, she stated "It's hard to be abroad right now. Every day I encounter some sort of anti-American feeling. Sometimes it's from other students, sometimes it's from a newspaper columnist, sometimes it's from 'peace' demonstrators,". CNN anti-American feeling Now if they are so anti-American in England as I know they are, god help us when it comes to other countries. They simply hate us! You have to ask why?--Persianhistory2008 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to hear your explanation for the election of Merkel and Sarkozy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is a controversial topic; let's try to keep trolling to a minimum. Now, Persianhistory, you are well aware that we have no independent way to confirm some of these things you are claiming, and as such relaying personal experiences doesn't strengthen an argument. If you have a reliable source to back up your 1.2 million claim, by all means present it. Wikipedia is not a forum, so let's keep our focus on improving the article instead of wasting time arguing our opinions about the war. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I did, just read the above and you will see a direct link to references and external links. You obviously did not read any of the above. Most of what I wrote is VERY well documented. Just read the source.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 1.2 million kids and civilians killed 

message: Nice try attempting to the get the truth on here, but don't waste your time.  This site is clearly propaganda and no serious person will put any stock in it.  I mean, the huge story coming out of Iraq for just about all of 2007 has been the success of the surge and the reduction in violence, and these guys refuse to even mention it.  Instead, they are harping on any tiny negative thing that might have happened in 2007, things that pale in importance to the overall improvement in the situation.  And then you have a guy that says the reduction in violence is due to less US troop presence?  Is this backwards day?  I wouldn't call a surge of 21,000 additional troops in Baghdad--not to mention the new strategy of going out into smaller neighborhood patrol bases--less US presence.  In fact, I would call it the exact opposite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.192.184 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I don't see much acceptance of opposing viewpoints here.  I see double-standards, bias, and opinion masquerading as fact.  Why should he, or anyone bother?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.173.63 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Try Happyme22 

message: Is it reasonable to mention the Iraq Body Count in the infobox at the top?  They admit they are an undercount. Boowah59 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it; all of the estimates are represented in the body of the article, where the IBC's own disclaimers are apparent; that was not the case in the infobox. Boowah59 (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq Body Count in infobox 

message: There seems to be no section on the funding/cost of the war.
Is this because people are it taking out? and if so, why?
--69.110.47.207 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't assume a conspiracy. The most likely reason the information would be missing would probably be difficulty in finding a source for that figure which was not only reliable but up-to-date. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Persia, please see WP:SOAPBOX. This talk page is reserved for discussion to improve the article, not to push one's personal views. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is indeed strange that costs are listed in the criticism section. The cost of the war is despite the uncertainty of calculation a factual thing. I understand that the cost of a war can be used as an argument against it, if one feels it is not  worth that price. Perhaps it is moved to the criticism section because editors feel this way? Anyway, it should be moved, the criticism could include a statement like: the financial costs outweigh the benefits. I will do my bit later on. 145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the costs are listed in the criticisms section because the issue of financial cost is one of the main criticisms (among others) by the anti-war movement about the Iraq war--that it is costing too much both in terms of lives, money, and relations abroad. This can be seen in the ongoing negotiations between Bush and Congress about whether to continue to fund the war, at what level, whether to attach benchmarks, etc. The cost of the war is rarely is ever mentioned by supporters of the war as a positive--more of a "cost of doing business" type mention, such as "it costs a lot but we need to do it." Just something to consider on this. Publicus 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The costs of the war are indeed often used as an argument against that war. However that does not mean that it should solely be seen as a criticism. Many other section subjects of this article (casualties, humanitarian crisis) are (as you rightly remark) also used as critical arguments, however you do not see many people arguing that those be put solely under criticism. My point is, that listing a subject under criticism makes it an opinion. The number of casualties or the cost of the war are facts (although disputable ones), the opinion is that the war is not worth paying such a price. The latter should be in the criticism section, the former should not.145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of the war articles do have costs, and my paper encyclopedia has costs for some of the wars, too.  I added the financial cost to the WWII article. Boowah59 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of War conspicuously missing 

message: Turkey  needs to be added to the combatants of this war. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_kurds
They are killing hundreds of rebels. Sgt Simpson (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Top Gun-I figured you would be on top of the PKK casualties. Let's wait until after the holidays to see how editors would like to handle this. Publicus 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the PKK insurgents? Turkeys dispute is a separate issue from the occupation of Iraq but is connected to the Iraq war so probably needs a section in this article. It is complicated by the U.S. also supporting the PKK in Iran. According to Haaretz Israel is supporting Turkey and Israeli crews are operating the UAVs used to target Iraqi Kurds so we need to include Israel in comabatants as well. Wayne (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wayne, what's the link on the Israeli support of Turkey on this? I haven't heard anything about that.Publicus 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I just found the story you must be talking about . From this story it appears that Israeli Aerospace Industries is supporting the Turkish military due to some contractual issue regarding providing UAVs to Turkey. Since these Israeli crews appear to be working as contractors for Turkey--and not as official Israeli military personnel, I'm not sure if Israel should be listed as a combatant. Publicus 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: I've separated Turkey and PKK from the list of general combatants with a line. I've also added the two commanders for them as well. However, we should talk about how we want to handle continued updating of this portion of the conflict, some questions:
# Do we also want to add PKK and Turkish casualties, strengths, etc to the info box? Probably should to be consistent.
# What is the best way to signify their inclusion in the conflict, but not confuse readers as to the level of involvement? Maybe a line separating them is enough, but perhaps there are other options.
# Iran and the PEJAK have also had some border incursions, not as significant as Turkey's/PKK's current ops, but if we include one border conflict, should we include the other? Or should we wait for the Iran v PEJAK conflict to reach a certain level before inclusion? Publicus 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Top Gun-I figured you would be on top of the PKK casualties. Let's wait until after the holidays to see how editors would like to handle this. Publicus 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the PKK insurgents? Turkeys dispute is a separate issue from the occupation of Iraq but is connected to the Iraq war so probably needs a section in this article. It is complicated by the U.S. also supporting the PKK in Iran. According to Haaretz Israel is supporting Turkey and Israeli crews are operating the UAVs used to target Iraqi Kurds so we need to include Israel in comabatants as well. Wayne (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wayne, what's the link on the Israeli support of Turkey on this? I haven't heard anything about that.Publicus 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I just found the story you must be talking about . From this story it appears that Israeli Aerospace Industries is supporting the Turkish military due to some contractual issue regarding providing UAVs to Turkey. Since these Israeli crews appear to be working as contractors for Turkey--and not as official Israeli military personnel, I'm not sure if Israel should be listed as a combatant. Publicus 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkey v PKK

message: I am a veteran of OIF I & II.  I have added a U.S. Soldier section to the Opinion section because I feel that it is important that the U.S. Soldier's voice is heard.  Not all soldiers feel they should be in Iraq and some soldiers do.  Please help me in respecting the soldiers who have fought and died by keeping this section and even adding to it.  Without the U.S. Soldier we would not be able to voice our opinions, just like in these articles.Rmouser (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think having the opinion of soldiers is a good thing for the article.  However, your introductory piece was WP:OR and the picture needs some explanation before it can be used.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the update.  I have made some changes to the picture and I will cite myself for the introduction.Rmouser (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The subtitles now state "solder who believe WE should('nt) be in Iraq". It should be obvious that "we" should be changed to "US troops" as a start. As a second I doubt the relevance of the entire subsection. I understand that the voice of US soldiers needs to be heard. The question is whether it should be heard in an encyclopedia. I think not. Perhaps it would be relevant to include research (if it exists) regarding U.S. soldiers stances on the war, however such research does not include some more or less random quotes. I thus feel the section should be removed, and will do so later this day when I have my login data. 145.9.226.69 (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again posted the U.S. Soldier tab to the Opinions section.  I made a change on the subtitles from We to U.S. Soldier.  I still believe that this is a very important and needs to be kept on the OPINIONS tab.  I emphasize Opinion because thats what it is, an opinion's section.  It is impossible to research all U.S. Soldier's opinions, that is why I included two quotes for both topics and leave it open to all U.S. Soldiers to add to it.  It is time to recognize the people who put their lives on the line and let their words be a part of the Iraq War History.Rmouser (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is really interesting.  I really like the idea, but I'm not sure this section is completely in line with Wikipedia policies.  I don't want to remove it personally because I don't want to get into a fight about patriotism and censorship of soldiers opinions.  Personally I love our troops, I have a lot of friends that serve in the military and I do support the mission in Iraq but I don't think think this section will stand the test of time.  I'm going to leave it per WP:IGNORE. Like I said, I love our troops and like this idea but don't be surprised when others come here to remove the section and argue that it's against policy here.  I can see this becoming a heated issue really quick here unfortunately. Elhector (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am user 145.9.226.69 from the post three up (now logged in). Elhector makes a valid point, the section is not suitable for Wikipedia. Let me be the first to do what should be done, and that is to remove it. I am sympathetic to the U.S. soldiers, especially those who are willing to speak up. However Wikipedia is not a forum. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's good you removed the following text, it would really confuse people after reading everything else in the article.  
U.S. Soldiers Who Believe The U.S. Should Be In Iraq
    * "Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going foward with no changes. Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and its's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible." Captain Jim Modlin[206]
    * "It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave." Captain Mike Lingenfelter[206]
--Exterior37 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Soldier Opinion Addition 

message: After reading this talk page, I am not sure the POV tag is on the article for anything more than personal feelings.  Does anyone have any reason to believe that this article is biased because it omits or misrepresents anything found in reliable sources?  If the only reason for the tag is based on gut feelings, rumors, op-eds, or innuendo, then it should not stay. Boowah59 (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, the POV tag is not linked to a specific concern and should be removed, in any case such a concern has not been explained in detail why it would constitute an NPOV violation Thisglad (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag: any substance? 

message: At least let me leave my picture there for now.  This all started because of an english project at Purdue University.  When I have more time I'll work on a better addition for the U.S. Soldiers (without them sites like this probably wouldn't exist).Rmouser (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allow Picture 

message: "Approximately nine months after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States initiated Operation Southern Focus as a change to its response strategy,"  The statement seems to imply a cause and affect.  Clearly 9 months is an irrelevant time span.  If it were 1 months maybe I could see a cause and effect.  Every significant effect have impacts on future events and the 2 are related in that they are both related to the general war against radical Islam.  Still there was no Direct connection between the 2 events.  I am sorry, the pentagon was not sitting around one day deciding what to do about Iraq and radar installations who were locking onto our Jets who were patrolling the no fly zone.  Then someone stands up and says, it's been 9 months since 9/11 we really need to start using bombs.  September 11 significantly impacted a number of things.  For example September 11 created 1300 orphans, New York City saw a 20% births after 9/11.  There are many reasons why 9/11 impacted birth rates.  It brought people together, changed their priorities, made people forget about petty arguments, increased the time spent with loved ones due to unemployment and the fear of going out.  9 months is the normal gestation period for humans.  So yes September 11 clearly had clear and direct impact in conception.  That being said I don't believe there is a policy at the pentagon that says 9 months after a significant terrorist attack you must change tactics in areas of operations.  If we adjusted our tactics the next day or week after 9/11, then a connection could be made  Even then the 2 events could be not directly related.  In any case the line is random,  misleading and not relevant to events in Iraq.  I mean we could say "In response to the increase in birth in New York City, the pentagon decided escalate operations in Iraq".  I removed the line entirely, I assume no reasonable person will object.Mantion (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Statement 

message: Iraq War: Results
Preface:
Voices here in the discussion area make claims that the Iraq War Wiki is substantially misguided. I would agree for various reasons, but in short, the page is not worthy of wikipedia publication in my view, a position I am willing to substantiate at great length. For now, let us visit a section as a start, and attempt reasoned progress.
Iraq War: Results
The results section lists no fewer than eight "results" of an ongoing conflict.
I find this wholly inappropriate for the following reasons:
1 - The notion of listing the results of an event in progress is logically unsound.  One would just as soon list the results of a scientific experiment still in progress.
2 - Total departure from the Results format of the vast bulk of war Wiki's, making the Results entry an aberration in the vast works of the wikipedia.
To substantiate these two grievances, I offer these observations:
Comparison of this entry to all other war entries in the wikipedia, of which there are many dozens, the Iraq war Results entry contains vastly more entries of kinds that simply do not appear in other, better constructed pages.
Example: "Occupation of Iraq" is sloppy, at best.  It is hardly a result, unless one is willing to assert that the "occupation" is for all intents and purposes, permanent, which of course is not knowable.  It is also a term that has less than clear meaning.  If it means only that military forces are to be found in areas that they have successfully entered, then it is merely a natural and obvious observation, and clearly not a "result" any more than wet ground is a result of rain that one should take a special note of.
While the "Execution of Saddam Hussein" is not disputed, it is also rather out of line with the Results of Wars in other Wiki pages.  It is less a "Result" than a simple fact that should be included in the body of the work.  Also, the execution is more directly the result of Hussein's trial, and not the military conflict itself.
Humanitarian crises are the rule, not the exception, for warfare throughout the ages.  One may as well list "Wide distribution of lead" as one of the results of the war, due to arms fire.  And once again, Humanitarian crisis simply does not appear as part of the general format of "Results" in war related Wikipedias, making this entry stand out like a sore thumb as grossly non-conformant to other far better works.
Calling the Iraqi insurgency the "result" of the Iraq war, is like calling "complaints" the "result" if issuing homework to students in school.  The motivations to take up arms in the aftermath of the formal collapse of any government are far too varied and complex to be casually listed as a "result".  Shall we start listing "resistance" as the result of all changes chronicled in the wikipedia?
I shall not bore readers with a continuance of my critiques, but in two specific ways, the Results area is deficient:  It pretends to have  "results" of an event that is not settled, and secondly, it grossly deviates from the nature, tone, and construction of other war results entries throughout the wikipedia.
For these reasons, the Result portion of the entry should simply read: "Conflict Ongoing", and not to rush history to a premature conclusion.  And to deflect those that would claim that this is a disservice to Wikipedia readers, I remind all of an idea contained in the Hippocratic oath for medical practitioners: First do no harm.  Listing *incorrect* "results" is more harmful than correctly noting that the event is ongoing, and will certainly, given appropriate time, be properly recorded.  Next, as it is a current event, there is no shortage of information regarding long and shot term results and an accumulation of facts (often disputed or changing) that I suggest that current levels of information represent an oversaturation of politically motivated views, quite different from a reasoned, long-view historical entry, which the wikipedia should be.  In this, the wiki should adopt a sane and very modest posture, as it waits for history to unfold.
So, again, in the call of moderation and in deferance to Wiki wisdom found in other similar pages, I call for the "Results" secion of the entry to read, simply "Conflict Ongoing" as being fully correct and proper given the current state of affairs.
Ryder Spearmann (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have several articles about ongoing conflicts with a substantial "Result" in their infobox, e.g.,  Colombian armed conflict (1964–present) and Internal conflict in Peru.  But I agree with you.  I will try to replace "Result" with "Status". Boowah59 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War: Results 

message: I was looking through the first (in order of appearance in the article) few of CJK's changes, and found, a spelling error ("verifably") and a missing comma ("interests while Bush argued") which are not so bad, but then there's this:
:However, it was later discovered that Wilson's report actually strengthened analysts views that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger because they found it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales. (ref: REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ )
That looked suspicious so I read through the ref given, and at the end there is this:
:"DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.
:"Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue."
The word "strengthened", or any reasonable synonym for this context, does not occur in the source.  I would like to ask CJK what sees in the source that justifies the inclusion. Boowah59 (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With no reply, I guess this was a drive-by POV push. Boowah59 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I note you reverted wholesale my changes to your additions without discussion; including, for example, putting the chronology in chronological order and a number of cleanups.  I did you the courtesy of explaining each and every one of my edits' reasons in edit summaries.  You need to explain why you think your changes are neutral, accurate, and for a 150+KB article, not redundant.  Please see my edit summaries for my reasons. Boowah59 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Note that there are two sources given, one of them entirely reputable while Palast's Newsnight program (with multiple high-quality official sources speaking on camera) is attributed to him by name.  If the plan was in effect during the build-up, or shows intent before 9/11, it's pertinent. Boowah59 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There are several reliable sources.  If it's crank theory, where are the reliable sources debunking it?  I agree that there is no telling what the "primary" intent was, or even if there was one reason more primary than others.  I was the one who got the other reasons back in the intro, which for most of this article's history only mentioned suspected WMD and Al-Qaida ties as causes. Boowah59 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woah! 

message: OK, I tried to re-word some of the material to address your concerns in my last edit, please respond here if there are any problems. CJK (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded inline above and in section-separate edit summaries to keep the issues together.  Reverting fewer parts this time, I think slowly we are reaching a medium. Boowah59 (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New attempt at compromise 

message: Do we really need those? --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the kids in question are having a house searched by soldiers, just had a family blown up, and was severely injured, makes me think they are not particularly biased.  Maybe a graph of the number of M.D.s in Iraq over the years would be good. Boowah59 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of these two: , . I don't know what they add to the article. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like I said, those kids are pretty obviously victims of the war, so I don't think the photos are biased.  What sort of problem do you have with them? Boowah59 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're giving the impression that the US military presence in Iraq is primarily a humanitarian mission. While there may be such a side to it too, I feel that including those pictures in the article is about as neutal as putting up pictures with Iraqi children shot dead (which I'd also consider quite unnecessary). --82.183.224.40 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I think that we should still keep them thought. SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We tried that first image awhile ago. Good image but it didn't really lend anything to the article. Publicus 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Their used like the topical images we have at the bottom of the article, so if we don't need those pictures then we might as we get the topical images out as well. SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 21:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine by me, we could just have a link in "See also" to all the media/images/etc associated with the war. Publicus 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think one of these pictures could be kept, but two comes across as unnecessary and does not convey any useful or interesting information Thisglad (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of US troops with Iraqi kids