Talk:Opposition to the Iraq War/Archive 1

message: We need to make sure those Reuters and AP images can be used. Even then, only a handful should be selected for this article. Lastly, proper thumbnail syntax should be used. Kingturtle 03:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest image 

message: I don't recall the Tejio Food Silo being bombed in the first gulf war, unless it was that baby food factory that was suspected of being a chemical weapon plant?--Silverback 01:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All sites were chosen on the basis that they were bombed in 1991. Some sites were disregarded because they did not meet this criteria. -Christiaan 09:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the Tejio Food Silo bombed in the first gulf war? 

message: I am removing this statement from the text until it can be sourced.  It seems to be contrary to everything Chirac and Villepin stated, both before and after resolution 1441. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "France advised the U.S. that it (the USA) had sufficient UN support to launch a war and that it (the USA) need not return to the UN for a second resolution"

message: Not srictly about this page but I have made this page Cairo Anti-war conference. which is related by being about anti-war movment. I am planning to do some resursh on the egyption Anti-war movment generally at some point soon. It would be good if anyone could come and have a look at the Cairo Anti-war conference page as I am only one editing it so far.--JK the unwise 10:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cairo Anti war conference 

message: I have removed merge tag as this article is surely big enough/contains enough information to have its own page. Also the opposition to the war was a phenomena in itself worthy of indepth coverage. Still I do think we need to adress the overlap between the different pages about the war and about the opposition to the war. Some information might be worthy of migrating/duplication on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq page and vice versa.
here are all the anit war pages I know of Anti-war, Post-September 11 anti-war movement, Peace movement, Global protests against war on Iraq, Popular opposition to war on Iraq, Criticisms of War on Terrorism, Peace camp, World peace, Human shield action to Iraq and here are all the pages about peace groups (Some of these groups may not be exclusivly anti-war.)
American: Peace Action, ANSWER, Not in Our Name, United for Peace and Justice,Vietnam Veterans Against the War, War Resisters League, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam, Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee, American Deserters Committee
UK: Stop the War Coalition, CND, Committee of 100
Canada:  Canadian Peace Congress
Egypt: Cairo Conference
"International": International Campaign Against Aggression on Iraq
--JK the unwise 14:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article or section should be merged with 2003 Invasion of Iraq 

message: This article contains a sentence about a slogan, "No blood for oil", which was merged from the No blood for oil article  after a Votes for Deletion debate on it concluded that it should. That debate is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No blood for oil. Sjakkalle 13:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD-note 

message: The following was recently, anonymously deleted:
:Yet opinion polls showed that the Irish would support a war if it had United Nations approval. What they would not support was a non-UN-sanctioned war declared in defiance of the UN by the Bush administration.
Since it's uncited, and I don't specifically know it to be true, I haven't restored; someone may want to look into this. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't know what specific poll the user who posted that was referring to. But here's a Gallup-International Poll taken in 2003:  . In the attached documents which break down the poll Ireland's people when given this question: "Are you in favour of military action against Iraq?" and the polled person chooses between these 4 options: "1 - Under no circumstances(39% of Irish chose this)", "2 - Only if Sanctioned by the United Nations(50% of Irish chose this)", - "3 - Unilaterally by America and it's allies(8% of Irish chose this)", "4 - Don't know/ No opinion(3% of Irish chose this)". So Option 2 wins with 50%, and so yeah, the original poster was right. 68.199.46.6 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Irish 

message: I believe most or nearly all of the opposition was to the Allied invasion of Iraq and the Allies' attempt to unseat Saddam. Phrases like "war on Iraq" apparently refer to that invasion and that attempt.
The article should be called something more like Popular opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If nobody objects, I'll rename it next week. Uncle Ed 20:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:So it's on record on this page, I currently object. You have my concerns over at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq. Daniel Collins 11:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave as is.  The invasion may have ended but U.S. and coalition casualties are still happening, so the War from 2003 is still going, even if the politicians do not advertise the fact. --nirvana2013 09:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-war

message: Disagree: Someone has placed a suggestion to merge this article with the above.  Both articles are large enough on their own plus opposition to the War is still there even if the run of global protests in 2003 are not.  The articles over the coming months/years should reflect a similar pattern to Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and Protests against the Vietnam War.  The situation in Iraq is just as big a mess, if not more so.  If only we learnt the lessons from the past. --nirvana2013 09:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Global protests against invasion of Iraq]] 

message: Why the see-also link to Anti-Americanism? It seems to imply that opposition to the war is inherently anti-American. Given that polls suggest that majority opinion in the U.S. may now be against the war, it is absurd: how can the majority of the U.S. be anti-American? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Americanism? 

message: ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.18.106 (talk • contribs) 1 Oct 2005
:Indeed this page does not present a global point of veiw, this is not because the editors think that opposition in places other then America or Europe don't matter rather it is because most editors come from those places so have easy access to information on them. I have been working on giving the February 15, 2003 global anti-war protest a more global view, I will try to have a look for some more information on this soon.--JK the unwise 12:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about opposition in non-European countries? 

message: The title of this article is inconsistent with the article on "Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War".  My position is that this use of the word "popular" is improper.
The use of the term "popular" is a double entendre meaning "of the people", however many people that may be, and a term of bandwagon propaganda intended to convey that the stated position is the spontaneous preference of a majority.  In that light, it should not be used in the title of a general interest article implying an editorial position, other than in the proper name of a partisan group such as The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Failing changing the title of the present article, there should be a corresponding article "Popular Support for the 2003 Iraq War", including information about various "support the troops" rallies, the effects of U.S. talk radio and "conservative" blogs.  Support is never as sexy as opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.247.15 (talk • contribs) 7 Dec2005
:While I think that opposition to the war was 'popular', I agree with you that the word does not belong in the article. Unless anyone voices a disagreement I will move it.--JK the unwise 11:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved.--JK the unwise 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title: "Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq War", Use of "popular"

message: :Image:Amsterdam.jpg which has the caption "Protests in Amsterdam" appears to just be a picture of some boats? I don't think it was always this?--JK the unwise 11:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further exmainination seems to show that the orginal protests picture, posted by Get-back-world-respect was deleted by Alkivar on the 10 November 2005. The boat picture seems to have taken its place. In light of this I am going to remove the new innopropreate picuture.--JK the unwise 11:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protests in Amsterdam