Talk:Iraq War/Archive 2

message: What happened to this section?  It appears blank on the page as of Apr 3, 2006...
:anon one, that text was deleted by vandal user:24.176.41.51 on Apr 02.  I have restored the text.  -- thanx for noticing.--Silverback 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial Costs

message: The "Headline text" header is showing on sections 4 and 5 of the ToC. How do I remove this (I didn't change anything to make it like that, I  just noticed it as I stumbled across) Swatjester 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup headline text

message: That information is inaccurate. While the other list of countries against the war is accurate, saying the "majority" of the NAM members are against is inaccurate as the majority have not even made official statements either way. Swatjester 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The header text and the explanation text are in conflict. While the header states "Countries against", the explanation text merely says the list is of countries that did not support the war. The list is correct in the latter sense, but not in the former.--Mtrisk 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non Aligned Country opposition

message: Removed: In the siege of Fallujah, any person suspected of being an enemy combatant was to be targeted - at any age, with the regualar guidlines being someone over the age of 16. This information and more can be seen in the documentary - "Fallujah - the hidden massacre"' ... from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm 
JDR 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: informationclearinghouse?

message: I remove the following sentance: Unfortunately, the emergence of a theocracy after a civil war still seems a very real possibility. The sentence was found in a paragraph detailing what the supporters of the war were saying, so not only was the above phrased in a non encyclapedic way it also was located in the wrong section. Deathawk 04:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Removal 

message: I have deleted the paragraph stating that the U.S. used posion gas against civilians in Fallujah. The military used white phosphourous gas as smoke screens which is perfectly legal. This can be found atIndieJones 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't it been established that it was being used as a weapon? Perhaps drawing a parallel with Hussein's use of the same materials in combat is going too far, but I'm not sure it's right to assume that it was being used for smoke screens. Anyway, the assertion has no citation, so it's OK to delete.--shtove 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schwatz, have you used a phosphorus grenade before? thewolfstar 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I could not agree more. The POV appears to be consistently pro the war in iraq as well. I think a NPOV warning should be placed on top of this article. Kukini 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: First sentence of article: The Iraq War or War in Iraq1,2 is both an informal and a formal American term
What is the source for this being a _formal_ name? Derex 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  formal and informal name 

message: I don't remember anything about the war in iraq being about democracy (the last point in that list) back when the Bush Administration was touting it; I'm pretty sure that came later. Anyone have a source on that? Disavian 14:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Justifications 

message: Im putting a POV sign on this article. My problems with this are that we must agree that the "no-fly-zones" prior to the march 2003 war were in fact according to UN standards ILLEGAL, and that the note about the largest demonstrations EVER were simply deleted and not modified. I dont have the time to give you the references but i remember a figure of millions of people from the whole world, were out demonstrating against that war.131.130.138.156 Sanchez 14:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swatjester, if you remove the POV tag, please respect other edits in the article. Disavian 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jester, this is clearly a POV article, as is every war in history. As a matter of fact, one cannot have any description of nations, depiction of events or anything historical without having some kind of bias. If the POV sign is removed, people who read this article think that the article is accurate and can be used to cite. As you see, the length of this thread testifies, that this issue is clearly political. Please let the sign stand, until the issues are cleared. My proposal is that one should have two versions, or more of the article, so that a person can read both points of views and make up ones own mind. Sanchez 131.130.116.29 11:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point Sanchez.  It would be good to at least balance the POVs, so people can decide for themselves what side they are on.  It really is impossible to leave POVs out of a war discussion because people have different points of view on what happened and is happening.  Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. --Richard Armour -->That I think sums it up, as far as POVs are concerned.--Existential Thinker 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have commented about the size of the protests in the talk sections above ( and ).--JK the unwise 13:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV! 

message: As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say "http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"
:Two Iraqis claimed today they had been among those beaten in Amara, saying they would take legal action against the UK military and seek compensation.
The allegations by Bassem Shaker, 27, and Tariq Abdul-Razzak, 14, were presented to the media at the office of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the coalition forces."
A 27 year old doesn't seem like a child to me. Furthermore: 
"Mr Shaker said British troops fired volleys of rubber bullets at the protesters in a bid to disperse them.
Witnesses and officials at the time said British troops and Iraqi police had fired at armed, stone-throwing protesters, killing six people and wounding 11."
[b]"Assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades"[/b]
The article makes NO mention of children whatsoever. So before you all let your emotions run wild over this: a) they weren't children. b) they had hand grenades. c) they lied about their demonstrators being killed. None of this excuses the abuse. BUT we all need to approach this with a clear head. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no indication that those who were beaten up had any weapons. De mortuis... 11:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THEY WEREN'T CHILDREN!  

message: The "declaration of war" blurb in the second paragraph is a hypothetical "example" of the controversy which only serves to obfucsate getting to the real controversy over the definitive usage of the term Iraq War (which itself is rather limited). To my knowledge there is no debate about referring to the Iraq War as a "war" due to a lack of formal Congressional declaration. Some still claim that the Vietnam War should be referred to as a "military action", but even that usage is so limited that it makes any debate "settled." Because there is no application to the current conflict, its usage is unnecessarily hypothetical and is therefore out of place, out of context, and  out of order. -Ste|vertigo 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Declaration of war" blurb 

message: A section should be added that correctly illustrates the costs of this war. This article seems to be assuming the position that most western media takes: to whitewash over the distruction and civillian casualties that have been produced by this war. The section should include abuses and atrocities committed by both sides, of course...Any ideas? Amibidhrohi 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentions damages to the Iraqi infrastructure under "Costs of War" but there is no mention of what the Coalition has done to improve the infrastructure, which I'd be willing to bet far outweighs the damage done to it. KevinPuj 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a "citation needed" to the infobox.  I'm not sure if citations work well in the infobox, but the statement that the result of the Iraqi war is infrastructure damage is very POV.  It resulted in initial damage to the infrastructure, but the US has also rebuilt the infrastructure.  The article needs a source that states which(the initial invasion or the rebuilding) has had a greater effect on the infrastructure, and what the overall result now compared to pre-war is. KevinPuj 23:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs Of War: Civillian Deaths, Allegations of Abuse And Torture

message: Why isn't this template included on this page? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question. I would support using your new template --SeanMcG 08:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't the Casualties template used here? 

message: "Numerous human rights abuses, most notably those at the Abu Ghraib prison led to widespread criticism of the occupying forces."
Is it correct to say "numerous?"  Yes there were abuses, but nothing accepted as standard procedure as far as we know right? We could say, "A series of abuses" or something like that. Rmt2m 13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A series sounds good to me. Nameme 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torture 

message: Eagle does not have the authority to represent the Arabic section of  Wikipedia, he is representing his own opinion, we in Arabic Wikipedia who participated in the article will translate it as soon as we can, Eagle have minor editions in the Arabic article of Iraq invasion which was deleted later because it was biased in nature. Again eagle is only representing himself and he is not the writer of the article. Classic 971 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down guys, fortunately we are not at war here. And thanks a lot for letting us know what the Arabic article covers. Good to have an exchange. De mortuis... 01:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False Information from  Eagle

message: The official DoD policy in refrence to the Iraq War is to refer to it as Operation Iraqi Freedom, with a numeral after that to denote which "phase" (apologize already for an ambigious military term).  I've been busted out too many times myself for calling it the Iraqi War!  Gottalove the Military. Sinnabar 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank God this encyclopedia is not owned by your DoD. De mortuis... 00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the introduction isn't the best place for the term, but I think it is notable for inclusion.  Many battles across WWII were known by their Operation name.  Seems no different here. Sinnabar 04:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph change 

message: Its kinda amusing actually. The US ousts out a dictatorship government and then replaces it with a so-called democratic government that would most likely be a puppet government that wins every election and favours the US.
By invading Iraq, the US really can't pull out of it now. If it tries to get out, the whole damn country will definitely collapse into a civil war.
Oh yeah, by the way, where are those WMDs that Bush kept talking about?
Thats all on my mind now. 
AllStarZ 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts from the brain of a teenager

message: Why can't we just kiss and make up?  What is it that seperates us from the Middle Eastern World?
Is it because our differences?  Aren't we similar?  Don't we hate each other equally?  If so why?
I think this is deeply rooted in our relations with the Iraq War and it deserves thought.
Here is a quote:  "The love of one's country is a splendid thing.  But why should love stop at the border?"
                                           ----Pablo Casals
I hope that means something to you.  
Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.
                                        ----Guy de Maupassant
Think on that one too.  Oh, and what ever happened to diplomacy?  What happened to reason?
Just thought you mightlike to think about it.
--Peter bergquist 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence of "hate" in the sacrificial role the U.S. played in freeing the Iraqi people?  You commit an injustice by equating the coalition with those who spout hate and seek to terrorize or oppress.  Nationalism based on racialism is the virus that poisoned the 20th century.  Individuals not races and sects are what matter (and what has physical mass rather than just a subjective or conceptual existance), and a state that violates individual rights has no sovereignty worthy of respect and a state that protects rights has legitimacy even if it is defined by the racists to be an "exploitive" colonial or imperial power.  --Silverback 12:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Amends== Is it possible? 

message: Folks, this article is very POV.   I am opposed to the war and I think most reasonable people, when provided with accurate, neutral information also oppose it.  Passages like
The more exclusive definitions of the "Iraq War" term...rest on rationalizations that tend to disagree, in various opinions, with direct or meaningful comparisons with other conflicts, though these are largely found in stated (or perceived) goals by the Coalition for the invasion and occupation. A better metric to determine precisely who the war is being waged upon should compare the number of unarmed civilian Iraqi deaths by the various combatants with the number of armed civilians and Iraqi soldiers killed in the war....
can't be in here.   This is biased, uncited original research.  The topic here is "rationalization", but this is trying to declare "who the war is being waged upon".   Who came up with this "better metric" and why is it used at all in this paragraph?
The chemical weapons stuff is way over hyped.   People were burned to death -- horrible yes.   Chemical weapons -- no.   The grenades utilize chemicals, just like every sort of grenade utilizes chemicals, just like every sort of bullet and bomb use chemicals (just like humvees and helicopters use chemicals).   Merely using chemicals does not make a weapon a chemical weapon.  Killing is a morally abhorrent thing, but keep the bias out.   For anyone with a soul it would be bad enough to just say that people were burned to death by phospohorous grenades.
Justforasecond 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pointless to claim bias when you make blanket statements like "I think most reasonable people, when provided with accurate, neutral information also oppose it." Do you have any evidence to support that? What is accurate, neutral information? Is it the information you have? Have you been to Iraq, have you interviewed soldiers who fought there? My point is that your statement itself is POV, and asserting it as a reason for changing this article is grounds for disaster. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ..And by stating so, you are also making your POV.  Funny how that works?--Existential Thinker 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the first one I think it's biased, please someone modify it. As for the second one, it seems good extra information to the reader, because they are internationally banned specifically as chemical weapons. --Christinam 10:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV -- still 

message: Agree with Publicus and Justforasecond that the article needs a lot of work but I think the major problem isn't POV, it's that the article starts off with long-winded, pedantic asides on terminology and rationales.  We shouldn't be calling "Iraq war" an informal term, it is simply the standard term routinely used by journalists to refer to the fighting which started with the 2003 invasion and continues to this day.  There isn't really much of a difference between "Iraq war", "Iraq War", and "war in Iraq".  The first alternative, with lower case "war", seems to be more common in news reports, so we should just use that and stick with it.  Also, though we should briefly summarize President Bush's justifcations for the war, the long passages from his speeches are not necessary.  Primarily this article should present the basic facts, the groups involved and the phases of the fighting, with links to other, more detailed articles on each of these. Brian Tvedt 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am new to Wikipedia could anyone give me tips on citing sources,etc?--Existential Thinker 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you about the "Iraq War" informal-formal stuff. Would anyone have any problem with simply removing all of that and replacing it with a much simpler intro from a previous article version? Here is a September 8, 2005 version of this article that I think has a much better intro:  So what say you all, better intro or not? -- Mr. Tibbs 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also Publicus the long series of edits without any edit summarizes messes up the article history. Please use fewer edits and provide explanations in the edit summary box. It makes it easier for everyone to track whats going on with the article. -- Mr. Tibbs 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the version which Mr. Tibbs points to is much better, both in the introduction and overall structure. Brian Tvedt 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh I dont know, I think this article lookos okay to me. Kappa 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As can be seen from the history, User:Kappa has not edited this page. The above comment was added by User:E-Series. He will be blocked if it happens again. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with this article 

message: I think it is somewhat innacurate to have Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the top opponent. While they obviously were the opponent during the invasion itself, they are no longer being fought in the Iraq War. Rangeley 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true. Justifications for the war should also be expanded to include the racial or sectarian excuses the insurgents and al Qaeda use to justify their attacks upon innocent civilians.  I doubt they would meet just war criteria.  They didn't spend over a decade trying to resolve whatever issues they had in the U.N., they certainly haven't used moral means, and they didn't resort to war as a last resort.  In fact things would be much better if they didn't resort to war at all.  The desire to oppress others is not a valid justification under Just War theory.--Silverback 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam the top Opponent? 

message: It states in the opening paragraph that it wasnt originally said that the war was for humanitarian reasons and democracy. This is false. Iraq_War-_Rationale#The_two_points_of_view. Donald Rumsfeld gave these as the reasons prior to the invasion. Saying that they werent given as reasons does accurately represent a common anti war talking point, however it does not accurately represent reality, or NPOV. Rangeley 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Original Goals? 

message: Should something be added to the article about the Tony Blair\GWB meeting that said the war was planned in advance? I think the memo is linked as an external site, but shouldn't there be something about it in the article itself?
68.148.168.84 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may find it interesting to know that the War was planned ahead of time in the talk that Dubya and Blair had pre-war.  It was aggreed that the war would happen on the 10 of March, 2003, whether or not there were any WMDsand .  It beats me.  The new evidence on this is outrageous,  however true, and I found it enlightening.  That was what the "Coalitoin of the Willing" was about.--Existential Thinker 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This new evidence you undoubtably be placed in the artcle under Just war criteria, as an un-justification.  The evidence that has shed light upon the Iraq War, surely proves the aggressive tactics the Administration were performing.  It did not matter whether they had any proof to go to war, only that it was to happen.  The true reason is very much controversial and I don't wish to end in more POVs.  This new evidence needs to printed in the article, and stated that it left all post-invasion excuses and "justifications" exempt from the Iraq picture.  It was definitely not about WMDs because it did not matter, and all the other reasons were stated after the War started.  All the "new" justifications" were probably, in my opinion, excuses to keep the War a popular idea despite its true ambitions.--Existential Thinker 11:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War planned in advance? 

message: "Instability and a massive amount of terrorist acts committed against civilians".  I think that "instability" is debatable and so is the phrase "massive amount".
68.100.115.135 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are attacks killing dozens of people every other day, if you do not see that is a massive amount and creates instability maybe that is just your POV? De mortuis... 00:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A "massive amount" of attacks implies a large quantity of attacks, there are at most several a day.  KevinPuj 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word massive itself is POV.  Massive to me means something like Hiroshima, where more were killed in an instant than in four years of fighting in Iraq.  Rmt2m 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I will point out that many of the things are rather silly to include. Civilian Deaths, damage to the infrastructure, economic shifts... All these are results of any war. I mean look at the WW1 and WW2 article, even the Korean War or Vietnam war. They dont include every these things in their infobox, despite the fact they happened, and were even more devastating. Im not downplaying anything here, but the infobox isnt meant to be used for this purpose. Some simple things should be there, Overthrow of Saddam, establishment of elected government, ongoing conflict between coalition and insurgents. At most it should be a sentence or two, not an article itself. Rangeley 15:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox POV? 

message: "At the same time, we must remember that an investigations after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way."  In other words, Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector, found such evidence.  KevinPuj 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way" does Not equal "However, evidence has been found to suggest that there were attempts by the dictatorship to start a nuclear program and manufacture weapons of mass destruction". There's a pretty big difference between Intent and an actual attempt. So you putting that rationalization in there is trying to make this issue read like: "Suspect A shot Victim B claiming self-defense in reaction to a displayed firearm. No firearm was found on Victim B. However evidence has been found that Victim B intended to buy a firearm once he was let off probation." Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? And Duelfer was not Ever talking about Saddam restarting a nuclear program, in all cases he is talking about a chemical weapons program, see Yellowcake forgery. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You make a very good point.  There's an important difference between the two.  I believe that the findings by Duelfer should be reported though. KevinPuj 00:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a big difference in terms of the danger that Saddam posed.  It was more than "intent", it was his plan to get the sanctions lifted so he could procede with what the sanctions were intended to prevent.  A better analogy would be "Good samaritan USA and the coalition of the willing, caught and imprisioned A, to foil a conspiracy to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, and did so only after A had established a record of mass murder and continued to shoot at and defy UN sanctioned authorities enforcing the no fly zone, other UN "authorities" being politically impotent due to jealousy, infighting and corruption."--Silverback 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Explanation 

message: I corrected the caption because it was incorrect.  White phosphorus is an incendiary, not a chemical weapon. TheKaplan 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  white phosphorus 

message: Frankly, it looks like shit. Info that extensive doesn't belong in an infobox. Moreover, the war is ongoing, so "results" is not wholly accurate. Phrases like "unprecedented terrorism" is OR and POV. Serbs might beg to differ. I would reserve "results" for permanent changes, so things like the corporate management of resources and destruction/rebuilding of infrastructure don't belong. Please do present all sides in the article.....but this is an infobox! Point by point:
    * Overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. 
:*Keep, this is hardly likely to change.
    * Civilian deaths of at least 100,000-300,000 and multiple times more of injured civilians
::*Needs to be more properly cited. Lancet study didn't even quote this high.
    * Destruction of infrastructure (homes of entire cities, electricity, water, schools, medical care)
::*remove or mention reconstruction as well. Side toward removal as it's ongoing. 
    * Large instability, massive amount of random civilian deaths caused by Iraqi insurgency and the occupying forces, general worsening of security conditions
::*Rm words like "massive". Particularly as it's ongoing and subjective, would remove. 
    * Unprecedented terrorism.
::*remove or restate.
    * Election of a representative government. Full participation of minority Kurds and majority Shi'ites in governmental power while Sunnites lost significant power.
::*Keep election as it has happened; remove the next sentence or rephrase to shorten.
    * The switching in the currecy used to sell Iraqi oil from Euros back to US Dollars
::*insignificant except for a few petrowarfare theorists.
    * Management of natural resources moved from the Iraq government to multinational corporations (mainly based in the U.S.)
::*also ongoing process during turnover; remove
    * Termination of the U.N. Oil for Food programme
::*um...duh. this follows from over throw of Hussein's regime. Remove.
I'm removing the last three.
--Mmx1 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've migrated this to use the standard  template.  The results section is still far too long, though, even for an ongoing conflict; strictly speaking, everything other than "Ongoing" (perhaps with a mention of the overthrow of the Baath government) is probably too much detail for the infobox, and should be in the body of the article instead. Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm very glad the infobox is being changed.  Previously it was just a long laundry list of reasons not to support the war, and was very POV. KevinPuj 12:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Rmt2m 16:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed everything but the removal of Saddam, and the election of a representative government.  Everything else can be discussed in the body. Rmt2m 17:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you coincide rebuilding and destruction of infrastructure as the same thought?  It would be as if I said that the ongoing progress/retrogress of the war has left many civilians without families and food.  I hope you revise that on your part.--Existential Thinker 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results in Infobox 

message: The major problem that I see with the articles on Iraq, the new Iraqi government, human rights abuses in Iraq, etc. is that the articles are more pro-war and anti-war editors trying to justify or criticize the war than editors documenting historically significant things about the war.  These articles are not encyclopediac at all.  Twenty years from now, most of this extremely specific information won't be useful to someone researching these events.  They'll want to know what happened, rather than every single case for and against the war.  This article needs major work.  Thoughts?  KevinPuj 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the infobox should be reduced to removal of Saddam and election of a government.  Every nation at war goes through instability, destruction of infrastructure, casualties and etc.  I think the body of the article should deal solely with military operations and the series of events in the war itself, not what uninvolved nations and the UN have to say about it. Rmt2m 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Operation Just Cause was condemned by quite a few different institutions and nations, and there were similar cases of looting as there were in Iraq, granted Iraq is 8 or 9 times larger than Panama in population.  Fact is in war people die, and that is never clean.  As is, this article is terribly POV, and for starters the murders of Nick Berg, Fabrizio Quattrocchi and others should be mentioned under the Human Rights Abuses section.  Why are these insurgent crimes not mentioned?    Rmt2m 21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Operation Just Cause was condemned by quite a few nations and if you'd read that article you'd see that it Also lists casualties, reasons for the invasion, and post-invasion looting. My message being that Operation Just Cause had no where near the popular condemnation that this war has and even in that relatively clean conflict the negative aspects are Not ignored: see the casualties in the infobox, detailed reasoning for the invasion, post-invasion looting etc. And this is exactly why those things need to be in the infobox in the Iraq War article. If you want to add a bullet point about Nick Berg in a certain section go ahead. But your idea of omitting the negative aspects of the Iraq war is POV in and of itself. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to having negative aspects of the war in the article, but I don't believe the infobox needs to be a detailed list.  I think the body of the article can be a good place for anything that happened, good or bad, as a direct result of military action.  My problem is that the article seems to only want to deal with coalition abuses, not insurgent ones.  Like the specific targeting of children waving at American soldiers in convoys, indescriminate use of IED's, and etc.  Rmt2m 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'm not opposed to negative or positive aspects of the war either, it's just that I see every single minute reason and detail for each side in the articles, and this is not appopriate for an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia should have the historically significant ones.  For instance, think of how the Vietnam War article would have been as the war was going on.  On the other hand, the information that is still significant is limited to specific important events: the My Lai massacre, the Nick Ut photo, and Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing the prisoner.  Compare that to the multiple sections in this article under the name "insurgency".  Just something to consider while editing this page.KevinPuj 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major problem with all articles relating to Iraq 

message: You're simply pushing talking points. Why not list "Part of the Global Struggle Against Extremism?"
Placing "part of the war on terror" in the title is placing a POV of a heavily contested point. This is a war. Give it a name. Then, in the body of the article, discuss the history of war, and justifications for entering it.
:I would like to see verified, unequivocal evidence as to why this article should not have the War on Terrorism link.  Like it or not, Operation Iraqi Freedom is a part of the administration's declared War on Terror.  Rmt2m 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's POV either way. Rmt2m 12:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Good luck trying to keep the link in the article though.  Rmt2m 11:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again with the Nazis.  Use someone else, or even better, leave hyperbole out of this.  Rmt2m 13:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Terrorism 

message: Instead of just changing the grouping under "War on Terror" back and forth, let's discuss it here, please. KevinPuj 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully; please do it.  It's too much of an incendiary issue on these pages and you're right, the controversy occurs outside wikipedia and should be noted more accurately rather than WP taking a "side."--csloat 10:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the edit war!