Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 5

message: : This article may contain material merged from a duplicate article, now archived at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Other, along with its complete history; its Talk: page has similarly been archived at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Other-Talk. Noel (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives, etc

message: I don't want to get involved in editing this due to the atmosphere reflected on the discussion page, but it's very clear this line:
It was originally coined "Operation Iraqi Liberation"[2][3].
Shouldn't be in there, especially if the cited source explains it to be an Ari Fleischer speaking error and confirms that with the dates from the web page.69.255.134.133 05:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Iraqi Liberation

message: This page needs an archive. --andreasegde 17:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Is Wikipedia a serious reference resource? I just read this article and nowhere does it mention that the U.S. motivation for invading Iraq was to secure the oil in that nation (which has the world's second largest oil reserves). You don't have to be Noam Chomsky to believe this is the case. I mean, let's just skip all the bullsh*t for a moment and admit that oil was really what this war was all about. Are there ANY rational, clear-thinking adults in America who don't seriously believe that oil was a major, if not THE major reason, for this war? Surely we can agree on this fundamental point (that is, with the exception of the Kool-Aid-drinking Bush fanatical partisans). I'm not even saying that there's necessarily anything WRONG with invading a nation to secure its oil----all I'm saying is: c'mon, let's get real and include this truth in this article, instead of letting the Bush partisans (once again) control what gets mentioned in Wikipedia.
:While I certainly believe that oil was at least one of the main motivating factors, declaring it factually to be such would be POV. The article of course needs to address the widespread assertions by opponents of the war that oil was the reason for the invasion, but NPOV means we can't declare those assertions to be right or wrong.
::The same standard, of course, should be applied to rationales such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism."  That guideline does not seem to have been followed here.  As for oil, of course it should be mentioned, but the claim that oil was a major or "the" reason for the war is oversimplistic at the most generous.  Obviously, Iraq would not be a such a focus of international concern if its main claim to fame was that it sat on 36% of the world's reserves of pomegranates.  At the same time, it's quite ludicrous to claim that the US went to war to "secure" Iraq's oil.  For one thing, the war failed to do that.  Iraq's oil is far less secure by any measure than it was before.  Saddam Hussein did not have a choice regarding Iraq's oil.--csloat 06:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How About At Least A Mention of Oil As War Rationale?

message: Despite the seemingly clear consensus in this talk page about removing the "Part of U.S. War on Terrorism" label from the infobox, I'm told that a different consensus was later reached in Talk:Iraq War. The thing is, that article covers the entirety of the conflict in Iraq, including the post-invasion insurgency that includes foreign terrorist operatives. This article covers only the invasion itself, which was fought not against terrorists but against the army of a sovereign nation that, contrary to various false claims, was not allied with America's terrorist enemies.
Also, the Iraq War article follows "Part of the U.S. War on Terrorism" with the disclaimer "Disputed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.". At the very least, we should include that disclaimer in this article as well. Redxiv 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That disclaimer is bogus. The link indicates that the Senate report indicated dispute from the Intelligence community about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda; it does not indicate that the Committee took a stance on anything, including ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda and the Iraq War and the WOT. --Mmx1 23:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War on Terrorism, revisited

message: I find nothing at either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war about congressional resolutions that led up to the original Persian Gulf War.  This winds up being very salient later on inasmuch as it was widely observed that representatives who opposed conferring war powers over to President Bush (41) in 1990 wound up losing their seats in subsequent elections for precisely that reason.  And that dynamic becomes an essential ingredient to any complete understanding the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", giving U.S. President George W. Bush (43) the authority, under US law, to attack Iraq, which passed with nary an objection on October 11, 2002, just 3½ weeks before the mid-term elections of November 5, 2002.
I would also cite the Frontline documentary, entitled “The Dark Side” right at this point.  There is already a link to that at the bottom of that page (the Iraq War page) under “external links”, but I think it would also serve a useful purpose to tie that in to those parts of the story where that documentary has a real bearing.  “Political and diplomatic aspects” would seem to gain from that linkage.
Actually, just tracking this stuff down has proven more of a challenge than I would have guessed.  I am able to locate S.J.RES.385 and S.J.RES.386, which seem to be the two joint resolutions sealing the deal back in 1990.  But I am not able to zero in on any of the debate that led up to those resolutions.  I would think that in particular would be of note in the history of the Persian Gulf War.  And it returns as a ghost that looms over the progression to the War in Iraq.
C-U RPCV 18:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More political and diplomatic aspects