Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 6

message: I suggest a section of the page be identified to be moved to its own page. 
This is because the page's length has exceded suggested guidelines. I suggest that the section about News Reporting be considered for being created as its own seperate page linked to the main page. This section can be viewed as its own topic, and consists of substantial length. Comp8956 01:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening Length 

message: The introductory paragraph is experiencing a tug of war of edits over the number of the number of members of the coalition of the willing, and the magnitude of defections.  As I write this the article currently says that the USA and the UK invaded Iraq, and that 48 other nations joined the coalition.  The last edit cut a sentence about defections, with the explanation that it was POV.  Personally, I'd say cutting mention of the defections was POV.  Maybe we can arrive at a compromise wording here.
But the additional 48?  The coalition of the willing article list 46  members, with just 24 nations having a military commitment in the theatre.  The USA and the UK, plus an additional 48 is a total of 50.  Can we all agree this is clearly incorrect?
The reasons for the defections can be debated.  It is clearly not solely based on the realization that the premises for the war were fabrications.  The Phillipines withdrew its platoon-sized commitment shortly after terrorists kidnapped and killed a Phillipino civilian.  Similarly, one could make a case that Spain defected, in part at least, because of the Madrid bombing, not the realization of fabrications.  Other defecting nations have attributed their defections to the lack of progress in the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure, and the ineffectiveness of attempts to restore civil order.  No doubt the embarrassment of being duped played a role -- along with these other factors.  
Surely, failing to mention that a third of those listed in the coalition have provided only verbal support, no boots on the ground, is deceptive?  --  Geo Swan 02:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the phrase to hopefully be more neutral, but I know the math is still off slightly. Is the reworded phrase acceptable to all? 68.199.46.6 06:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spain withdrew after the previous gouvernment lost the election and a change in gouvernment took place. Withdrawal from Iraq was one of the most important topics during the campaign, and was promised by the winning party forming the new gouvernment long before the bombings. Claiming that the bombing caused Spain to withdraw is at the very least misleading (at best it is indirect, causing the election result, but there is no consensus about this).--Stephan Schulz 11:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: bad math in the introductory paragraph

message: My remark about these codenames in introductory paragraph was mainly because stating all these lyrical codenames takes a huge amount of space in the first paragraph, especially if the successive revisions are stated, while not giving actual information. For instance, no single mention is made of the fact that the rational for the invasion were found to have been fabrication, which is quite significant a piece of information, I would say more than the military codename which have no incidence on anything. Rama 07:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the introductory paragraph, it creates the false impression that there was a large consensus to invade Iraq in 2003. This contrasts with the rest of the article where it becomes apparent that it was, as Britannica puts it: "a combined force of troops from the United States and Great Britain, with smaller contingents from several other countries." . So the question is, do we chop it down and let the reader read on to find out the details? Or do we try and present an overview of the entire article in the introduction? I think it might be best to just chop out the "48 governments" and the "legality questioned" part and just let the reader go to those sections if thats what he's looking for instead of trying to summarize in the opening paragraph. 68.199.46.6 18:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually the Lead section "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Also the military codenames are very redundant indeed. NightBeAsT 14:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codenames in introductory paragraph 

message: I would suggest that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was not the original codename at the time of the Iraq invasion.  I was in a headquarters unit, and although I don't remember the original codename, I do remember the we didn't hear it referred to as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" until later in the invasion... probably after we reached Baghdad. I would suggest finding the original name... or at least saying ....later referred to as "Operation Iraqi Freedom"... etc.208.120.58.22 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: codename "Operation Iraqi Freedom" not original

message: As with the media section, the one on WMD is perhaps overly long and amorphous. I suggest what content need to be moved over to Iraq disarmament crisis be moved, and then a synopsis of that main article be reproduced here. Thoughts? Daniel Collins 21:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think that article is much more in-depth and doesn't have the problems (like mind-reading) that this one does.--csloat 20:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMD section 

message: While reading the article I found an inconsistency in the "weapons of mass distruction" section:
: [...]and in November 2005 David Kay, the head of the Iraq Suvery Group charged with finding Saddam Hussein's WMDs stated that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion[...]
This edit, from user Kulinda seems pretty old: 04:36, 14 May 2005. Somebody, with a funny sense of humour, had recently added (considered by some to be a month that hasn't yet occurred) right after "november 2005" .
Now the question is: how do we fix this? I suggest removing the whole edit by Kulinda, as it does not seem reliable anymore, unless it turns our he is a time traveler or - more likely - he just did a mistake confusing months or years. --Nova77 17:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was amused by the anonymous edit. I did a quick search for the relevant reference to correct the statement, but came up short. There is far too much here that is not cited. I support the deletion (besides, Kay said a lot more than [maybe] just this), and I encourage all to bring references to the table. Daniel Collins 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2005? 

message: In the section Results (2003 Invasion of Iraq) the term "Terrorist activity" in 
Terrorist activity in Iraq by insurgents seems wrong. 
According to wikipedia a terrorist is...
Terrorism, violence (especially against civilians) that is militarily insignificant but aimed at undermining morale.
Taking military action against invading armies of ones own country, is militia activity, or guerrilla warfare isn't it?
-Wolfe 00:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
:I think you are misinterpreting the statement.  Note that it is in the "results" section, and not about activity during the invasion.  Most Zarquawi led activities, after the invasion have been against civilians and the fledgeling Iraqi democratic government and its security forces, partially in the hopes of inspiring sectarian violance.  Of course the results section is arguably POV in noting this.  After all the coalition is not responsible for Zarqawi's immoral behavior, perhaps a different word than "results" should be used.--Silverback 20:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
*Get over it. Here in the new age, all revolutionaries/anti-government activists/etc.. will henceforth be known terrorists. Have you not noted how SDS/Weatherman, radicals, etc... are now terrorists. Tim McVeigh and his ilk were militiamen. Now they are terrorists. Wouldn't that make Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty the same? The U.S. and Confederate States governments (for their commando and unconventional warfare activities)? History is a funny thing. 74.255.67.146 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term Terrorist activity 

message: I have problems with the introductory paragraph. It reads as vague and poorly written. Passive voice, etc... It is also POV (Saddam Hussein was President too, yet this title is only given to Bush). Furthermore, more than half the content is about the rationale/legality concern, not the actual event. The invasion was a very isolated event in this continuing saga that is U.S. involvement in Iraq, and this article goes far beyond the scope of its title. In the interest of not ruffling too many feathers, for now im willing to leave parts of it in. My suggested rewrite is as follows:
Initiated on March 20, 2003 by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and several other nations loosely defined as the "coalition of the willing", the "2003 invasion of Iraq" marked the formal beginning of the Iraq War. Swift in execution, the invasion followed the military doctrine of Shock and Awe.  Baghdad fell on April 9th, 2003 and on May 1, 2003 U.S. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations, for all intents and purposes terminating the Ba'ath Party's rule and removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from office even though he would ellude coalition forces until December, 2003. A transitional occupation began thereafter and among other topics, is covered under Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. Prior to the invasion, the U.S. tried and failed to secure a U.N. mandate to intervene in the interests of U.S. national security and international stability. Thus, the legitimacy of the invasion is a point of contention.  The request to the U.N. Security Council was based on intelligence reports showing Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The legal justification involved Iraq's implied violation of several U.N. Resolutions, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 1441. U.S. president George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that these weapons posed a significant and timely threat to the United States and its allies.  Much of this intelligence is now under scrutiny and of questionable veracity. In the days before the attack, the Iraqi government repeatedly denied the existence of any such facilities or capabilities and called the reports lies or fabrications. U.N. inspection teams, in and out of Iraq since the Gulf War, while willing to continue the search were ordered out as war loomed. This article covers the particulars of the invasion. For more general information see Iraq War, U.S.-Led Occupation of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005.
Please comment. I'll clean it up a bit and then make the changes if acceptable. ImagoDei
: This introduction will be a nice one for the article when we will be done with the work of switching the topic from the whole war in Iraq to specifically the invasion in the sense of  mostly pure military implementation.
: A few observations:
: * It is a little bit long 
: * "This article covers the particulars of the invasion. For more general information see Iraq War, U.S.-Led Occupation of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005"; I would put this as a disclaimer above the introduction rather than at the end of it
: * "Much of this intelligence is now under scrutiny and of questionable veracity"; hmmm, it is not "questionable"; it was bullocks. Even the White House and the British government recognise this. Diplomatic formulation is one thing, but this wording is too weak to reflect the extend of the dichotomy between the governmental declarations and reality.
: Overall, this is a nice proposal, which goes in the same direction than what was discussed previously, so probably another sign that moving away from discussing the whole Iraq war would be a good idea. Rama 12:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now the article Iraq War covers things from the "mostly pure military implementation" perspective. No reason to make this article into a mirror image of the main article on this subject. One of the three main articles regarding this subject needs to thoroughly cover the rationale/legality concern, as it's the reason this war is so unpopular, this article seems the logical place for it. Nice intro overall though. However, "Much of this inteligence is now under scrutiny" sentence needs to go. I suggest just deleting that sentence and inserting this one after "were ordered out as war loomed.": "Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction.". Or something of that order. 69.121.133.154 05:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Paragraph

message: Below is a quick summary of my changes; I think this covers everything:
1.  Kept RonCram's addition of the 1998 article in there.  I don't think it is necessary but if others do, it should stay.  I've changed the language and context for more POV and accuracy.  This article should not leave the impression that RonCram's version conveys that this was a big piece of evidence missed by the Commission and Committee -- it was a mistaken report by an Italian reporter (I'm not sure who said "alliance" but let's say two reporters) based on the prevailing wisdom of the time (1998), which turned out to be wrong.  In 1998 the NSA thought that Saddam and AQ were teaming up, and launched a "red-team" study of the issue (The NSA's position was different from CIA's, and the NSA goal was to prove the CIA wrong).  Well, they failed -- they were unable to find the connections they assumed were there (more info here).  So it is clear that people around the president at the time believed that Saddam was connected to AQ, but when they souught evidence for this they turned up dry.  I mention this because RonCram makes a lot out of articles from this time period, when many people believed there was a connection, but there had been far less investigation into the issue than there is today.  By now the prevailing wisdom of intelligence analysts and of the mainstream media around the world suggests that no evidence has emerged to support a Saddam-AQ connection.  RonCram has every right to disagree with all of those experts, but he is not correct to demand that Wikipedia make his case for him.
2.  Contextualize Powell quote with what he said in 2005, and add statement about the intelligence community's analysis of the "links".  I could add further detail here if people want but all this info is available at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  I am not sure how much duplication is necessary here; I would prefer to cut a lot of this section out completely and just refer people there.
3.  Include info on al-Janabi and the INC.  This stuff is also on the other page but if we are going to include this information here it should be put in context.  
4.  I removed the sentence "Evidence of the relationship is contradictory" because it is not backed up by the information on this page.  There is nothing contradictory about it at all.  There were some exploratory contacts between Saddam and AQ and they led to nothing.
5.  Contextualized the Senator Hollings thing.  I really think this does not belong here at all.  Senators and Representatives enter all kinds of things into the CR and it does not appear in an encyclopedia.  The fact that Hollings read an op-ed piece as evidence of foreknowledge is meaningless -- even if it were true at best it would prove that bin Laden's plans were an open secret in parts of the Islamic world.  But even that is not supported by the flimsy textual analysis Hollings offers.  But let's say this guy knew OBL was going to blow up the towers.  How is he connected to Saddam?  He writes an op-ed piece in a "state-run" newspaper?  I work at a "state-run" university in California; does that mean that if I know about a crime, it can be assumed that Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration was involved in it??  I feel ridiculous having to spell this out; it is difficult for me to believe that anyone can give this credibility.  
Look, if there was really a collaboration between Saddam and AQ, where is the money trail?  Where are the weapons?  The evidence of planning together?  The big things, not shadowy meetings that are disputed by other sources, or bizarre readings of op-ed pieces in local newspapers.
6.  Got rid of Able Danger.  Contrary to what RonCram thinks, I am not "afraid" of this information.  If it was relevant, someone besides Wikipedia editors would have mentioned it.  No article on Able Danger has seen fit to mention any of this.  If Able Danger turns out to prove that the Commission lied or covered up a connection between Saddam and AQ, that would certainly belong here, but so far that has not happened and nobody is even speculating that it will happen (except on Wikipedia).  This is not the place to explore such possible future worlds -- if mainstream newspapers start mentioning it then it belongs here.  Otherwise Ron's assumption that the Commission's credibility on this question will be tarnished is "interesting", but it is original research.  I've made this argument a number of times above and on the Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, but Ron does not seem to want to let it go.  Can others offer their opinions on this?  
--csloat 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am the one that speculated you were "afraid", although RonCram may have also.  What would the cited sources have had to say in order to make it relevant?  It is pretty clear that Able Danger, has politicians questioning the thoroughness and objectivity of the 9/11 commission, as well as Atta's timeline.  Reporters are reporting this.  We certainly are not claiming to be personal witnesses to it.  Your arguments fail to go beyond mere assertions.  Can you lay down your reasoning step by step, (assuming your assertions are the result of a reasoning process rather than mere intuition), so that we can perhaps reach an understanding and compromise?--Silverback 01:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First silverback, do not make such massive reversions without discussing the issues.  Second, Able Danger has not led to any questioning of the Commission's handling of the Saddam/AQ connection.  If you insist that it does why is it that you cannot explain why not a single reporter has reported such questioning?  I did lay my reasoning out step by step, silverback, I am not the one making inferences that are not sourced.  If I am it would help if you pointed them out rather than just insisting that I am making assertions.--csloat 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Qaeda section rewrite

message: User Silverback just reverted all the changes I made with a cryptic edit summary.  He has been doing this kind of massive reversions on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page as well, and he does not respond to arguments or discussion in talk.  I spent a lot of time rewriting this entry in good faith to include the arguments introduced by RonCram, even though I did not agree with the significance of those arguments.  I also spent time writing my justifications for every change, which are listed above.  Silverback reverted almost all of it without responding to a single of the justifications above.  I have implored Silverback to stop this behavior on his user:talk page.  He is not only reverting here; he is deleting relevant information wholesale.  I hope I am not alone in perceiving such edits as highly problematic.--csloat 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverback's revert 

message: Hey, um, why do we have this page whereas there's the much nicer, and NPOV, article at Iraq War?
: the two pages do not cover the same topcis. This page talks about the invasion of Iraq as a military operations, Iraq War is more general. Rama 06:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is this one much more POV then?  Just compare the opening paragraphs even. JG of Borg 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: The provide citations don't support Spains 90% opposition figure in the article.  I haven't removed that figure yet, perhaps someone can come up with the citation.  We need to be careful with the language, to avoid giving the wrong impressions by mixing polling results from different time periods with different questions and circumstances.  For instance, the gallup polls which are cited are from January, before the invasion of course, but many then were still hoping that the UN would act responsibly.  The poll results might have been different just before the invasion, after the UN had not responded good faith efforts at a new resolution by the US, UK and Spain.  Of course, we will never know what the pre-war poll results would have been had there been general knowledge of the oil for food corruption's possible influence on the UN decision making.--Silverback 14:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what cites support 90% opposition to the war in Spain? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_2003_Invasion_of_Iraq
--Theo Pardilla 13:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is the link for editing Template:Infobox_2003_Invasion_of_Iraq

message: The header and the link to the main Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda would remain, here is the proposed replacement text for this messy section:
*In 2003, the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on America, and used this allegation, among others, to persuade Congress and the American people to invade Iraq. Prior to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror, many believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to al-Qaeda. Reports of contacts between the two were published in various newspapers and magazines, but none of these are considered concrete evidence that Iraq conspired with al Qaeda in the past to commit terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.    This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA.  The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.
--Silverback 09:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the text to address your concerns.  If the Shahab story has merit is should be in the "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda" page.  Is there any sign that his tale was taken seriously and relied upon by the administration?  If not, I'm not sure how notable is, just a case of nuts coming out of the woodwork.--Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, like all of these stories from bogus defectors.  If we leave the story out someone will accuse us of censoring relevant information that helps prove their conspiracy theory.  (You might be familiar with this line of argument).  People who believe the conspiracy tend to insist on every tiny detail being included no matter how little credibility any detail has... Things like poorly worded articles from Italian newspapers from 1998, or local Iraqi newspaper articles with vague references to something or other... Anyway my point is I don't think the story has any merit whatsoever but it nonetheless belongs on that page if we erase it here (actually, whether or not we erase it here).csloat 09:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to replace the text of the al Qaeda section with this summary 

message: The header and the link to the main Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda would remain, here is the proposed replacement text for this messy section:
*In 2003, the Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on America, and used this allegation, among others, to persuade Congress and the American people to invade Iraq. Prior to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror, many believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had links to al-Qaeda. Reports of contacts between the two were published in various newspapers and magazines, but none of these are considered concrete evidence that Iraq had conspired with al Qaeda to commit terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.    This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA.  The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.
--Silverback 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to replace the text of the al Qaeda section with this '''revised''' summary 

message: "Coalition of the willing" is a loaded phrase which includes the implicit judgement of "willing" and the misleading "coalition". The impression given is of a large number of nations in alliance toward a common purpose is at odds with the invaders constituent sources being primarily the United States and Britain with a numerically minor component from other nations.
This is in comparison to the first Iraq war which could be more fairly described in its essential character as a coalition.
--Theo Pardilla 13:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern is better addressed by an appropriate usage of quotations marks. Rama 13:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda terminology "Coalition of the willing" & "Coalition"

message: Where are the observations of Iraqis on this subject?
No i mean really this seems like some sort of self indulgent uni frat debating.
It sort of reminds me of the Blues brothers film when Jake and Elmo are in a bar and one of them asks a patron what sort of music she likes and she replies "oh I like both types, Country and Western". It seems like the priviledged elite are locked inside of an incestuous echo chamber endlessly banging on, fighting and slappping each other on the back. Yes the posers  are all so concerned with bringing democracy to Iraqis or preventing them from being slaughtered by foreign invaders that it would be beneath their social station to actually ask them what they want or their observations or opinion or to include it on these pages.
--Theo Pardilla 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly wouldn't be against adding an "Arabic popular opinion on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq" to stand with American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq. If you haven't already, you should take a look at Al Jazeera or ArabNews or the multitude of Iraq-based news sources: . - Mr. Tibbs 20:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraqi viewpoints

message: I have a question.  Since everyone seems to refer to this as the "Iraq War" now.  How would everyone feel about renaming this article to "Iraq War" or "2003 Iraq War".  I mean, techinically, an invasion is what happens in the first days of a war.  that was 3+ years ago.  So I would think that using this nomenclature would be more accurate for the current state of affairs.  Feedback is welcome. Thank you .  Joetheguy 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about the invasion specifically, the overall war is at the Iraq War page. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War 

message: I'm shortening the section on "deaths" to just the link, for two reasons.
*It includes casualties in the occupation, which is a little off-topic.
*It seems a little involved for such a small and short conflict, although this is arguably necessary with the uncertain tallies.  (Frankly, it seems almost POV.)
I am also changing the title to "casualties" and adding such a field to the infobox, following the pattern set in other conflicts.  Are there any objections to these three changes?  Twin Bird 02:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the Coalition death toll was inaccurate: 3000+ instead of 170 --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths 

message: The casus belli in the infobox currently says "Official allegations Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and had ties to terrorists have been proven false." (emphasis added). While it is certainly a likelihood that these allegations are false, they have not been proven so, and cannot be proven so without some sort of evidence that the Bush administration knowingly lied regarding WMDs. The source cited discusses not evidence of absence but absence of evidence, and I have changed the sentence in question to reflect that. I believe it is now less biased and more logically accurate. If anyone disagrees with the change, let's discuss it here. Also, the cited website is no longer active, so if someone could find a similar un-broken link, that would be good. AdamSolomon 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of WMDs "proven false" 

message: I took the liberty of removing the line "(Later on, during the invasion, it was rumored that Turkey itself had sent troops into the Kurdish part of Iraq.)" from the second paragraph under "Military Aspects." There are alot of interesting rumours floating around but, as far as an encyclopedia goes, facts with sources seem more fitting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.138.34 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alterations