Talk:Gulf War/Archive 3

message: The page was changed to "Persian Gulf War". This is POV, even though most people are not aware of it. Persians and Arabs dispute whether the Gulf is the "Arabian Gulf" or the "Persian Gulf". To call the war the "Persian Gulf War" instead of the "Gulf War" transforms the neutral title into one that adopts the Iranian/Persian POV. It is telling that the user who appears to have done the move, Mani1, is from Iran.
Please note that this Gulf naming issue is so controversial that wikipedia even has a page devoted to the controversy! Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf Why allow the nasty fighting over the Persian Gulf page to spill over onto this one? The best thing to do is restore the NPOV "Gulf War" title.
Kaltes
Just leave it at Gulf War and stop playing with it.  I dislike the name (IMHO Liberation of Kuwait would be much better), but it is the name the media used, so we are pretty much stuck with it. Gadget850 13:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should not be about the name, but the events.  We have a whole new article where this particular issue can be discussed.  As I noted before, I personally don't like term Gulf War, but this is the name the Western media commonly used.  I think the term is about as neutral as we can ever get, but it will not satisfy everyone.  --Gadget850 22:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change from "Gulf War" to "Persian Gulf War" 

message: My apologies if this has been discussed before.  I have a question about the casualty figures, which only cite the Keaney study -- why is the Daponte study (which estimated 205,000 deaths during and immediately after the war, with I believe a during-war-only casualty figure much higher than the Keaney study) excluded?  Someone made comments earlier about a much lower casualty figure being "laughably" high, but I don't see any evidence refuting the Daponte estimates (other than that she may have been attacked politically for having done the study).  Does the Keaney study specifically refute Daponte's figures or somehow build on them?  I also think any discussion of casualty figures should mention the postwar casualties that are most directly attributable to the war itself, such as those who died as a result of deliberate targeting of the Iraqi water supply.  I think the sanctions and the dispute over how many died as a result (and how many as a result of Saddam's corruption of the sanctions regime) should have its own page, if it doesn't already. --csloat 06:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties (revisited) 

message: In the first paragraph of Ground War, the second sentence reads
US forces pulled plows along Iraqi trenches, burying their occupants alive.
I'm not disputing that this happened (although some evidence should be provided), however its placement within the paragraph (the flow is completely disrupted by it) suggests that, at best, it was added by someone with a POV.
:It definitely isn't "vandalism", and it might just be an example of a horrible tactic of war. I don't know enough about the ground campaign to say that this was a critical component that deserves such primary mention, but that might be the case. Step one, bury Iraqis in their trenches. Step two, push on. Etc. Graft 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This did happen, according to credible reports, and stipulated by most of the mainstream media at the time (as well as by most Gulf War scholarship I am aware of).  It probably was not a "critical component" of the ground campaign in any military sense, but it certainly was critical in terms of political perspectives on the conflict and on American tactics.  I don't think the inclusion of this fact is POV here, and in fact I think it is an important part of history (in that many made a big deal out of it at the time), though the above poster may be right that it should be in a different place. --csloat 08:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guys could you stop back and forthing on that sentence? Please discuss why you are adding the text in the fashion you are and lets try to find a resolution. --Ebralph 22:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: This article makes it rather clear that Germany could not formally participate in the coalition against Saddam Hussein, even though it did participate in certain activities under NATO auspices (with ally Turkey--in other words, deterring a potential conflict under allowed conditions and performing no role in expelling Saddam).
"There was no dispute about the fact that, in the political circumstances, and in view of the provisions of the German Basic Law, no German army units could be despatched to join the allied coalition, in other words, to take part in military operations outside the NATO area. However, the fact that leading exponents of German policy had nothing to say, temporarily leaving the international image of the Republic in the hands of a noisy minority which was critical of the allies, was surprising and indeed damaging to Germany. What was expected of Germany concerning participation beyond its borders, was not just measured in terms of the possible. That level of participation was taken as read, and was indeed provided, and in no small measure, ranging from the provision of German territory for coordination centres for supplies to the Gulf, to the delivery of massive quantities of weapons and materiel and, after some discussion, the payment of considerable sums of money."
It goes on to mention German minesweepers though they did not perform a combat role and came after hostilities had ended.
Therefore there is a discrepancy not only between the two previously existing statements of this article, one which says both Germany and Japan were not part of the coalition (since edited to refer solely to Japan), and the other a mention of Germany in the official coalition; there is a discrepancy between the current article and the seeming realities of German foreign policy at the time.  Is there a solid reference to the precise construction of this coalition which would most reasonably resolve the manner for the purposes of inclusion in this article?  --TJive June 30, 2005 03:35 (UTC)
This portray is a bit slanted in favor for Germany as being supportive of the war. The amount of people in Germany refusing to join *any* war unless the territorial integrety has been violated is quite large - based on history - which explains the stance it takes today even more so, now that a more left leaning party is in power. I have always hated the silent majority bull sh** from any party. If people don't voice, they don't care enough. I also have no recollection of that stance being damaging to German intrests at the time, especially under the impression of reunifaction. Indeed at the time most were probably very happy that the Germans didn't become active because many feared a reunited Germany. It's good that passage has been dropped but I couldn't resist my piece of mind here either. --Ebralph 22:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Information regarding Germany's role during the war

message: I just ran over a sentence in "Air campaign": About one third of the Coalition airpower was devoted to attacking Scuds. In addition, it targeted facilities useful for both the military and civilians: electricity production facilities, nuclear reactors , telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges. I wasn't aware that Iraq had a nuclear reactor. AFAIK the last one they tried to have built by a French company was bombed by Israelis in 1982. Kann someone please verfiy? --Ebralph 09:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Research reactors. See the Wash Post, Jan 21 1991, "U.S. Claims Iraqi Nuclear Reactors Hit Hard; Saddam Minimizes Losses, Shows Off POWs" by Rick Atkinson and Ann Devroy. First line: "Allied bombers have "thoroughly damaged" Iraqi nuclear research reactors while virtually destroying the country's air defense radar network and most of Iraq's Scud missile launchers, the commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf War said yesterday." Apparently the only time an actual working reactor has been bombed (Osirak was merely under construction in 1981). Graft 16:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Reactor? 

message: This section seems rather unbalanced.  MIM-104 Patriot performance is well detailed in it's own article.  Abrams, Bradley, MLRS and Copperhead, Hellfire, Apache were just some of the systems that were used in combat for the first time.  LORAN was actually used more than GPS (at least in 1st Cav), because GPS was issued so late- maps were already marked up in degrees for LORAN, where GPS used UTM.  This could potentialy fork to a new article.  Thoughts? Gadget850 14:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology

message: This section is pretty much US centric, and could be tightened up to their main articles.  Any info on awards for other coalition forces?  Or; even for Iraqi forces.  Gadget850 14:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military awards 

message: I was just reading the page on the Mig 25, and was surprised to read that Iraq claimed an F/A-18 during the Gulf War. I didn't know that the allies had lost any planes at all (I assume this is the one plane alluded to in the "air campaign" section). Were any other allied planes lost? Can someone add some details about this, and perhaps about Iraqi losses? -Lommer | talk 05:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Fixed-Wing Aircraft Combat Attrition which shows all losses and damaged coalition aircraft. This F/A-18 is the only dogfight loss but there were a larger number of anti-aircraft losses. Rmhermen 23:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Campaign losses 

message: How many countries in the Coalition, and at what point in the Gulf War timeline?
There are conflicting statements out there on how many countries were in the coalition, how many of these actually committed forces and vagueness about how this number changed over the course of the conflict timeline:
* CNN has the number at 34
* This Arab media site has the number at 36
* The US conservative thinktank, the Heritage Foundation puts the number at 38, citing a July 1991 DoD report to Congress
* This Arab anti-Gulf War polemic page has the count at 31
* This BBC news report has Bush Snr. praising the 32 nations of the coalition
* This article from the UK's Hutchinson encyclopedia (which is actually a published reference book) says there were 28 countries.
* There are also claims that there were as many as  39 countries - including this authoritative seeming table from a US Institute of Medicine report on Gulf War Veterans' Health that includes countries which did not contribute troops (perhaps they contributed equipment or landing rights etc. etc.). 
* There are also claims that there are as few as 19 (perhaps at the beginning of the war? but then to correspond with the bbc report of bush's comments, 13 countries would have had to join in during the actual war?!).
* This US General Accounting Office report says that 25 countries contributed ground forces, 23 contributed naval forces, and 14 contributed air forces
Can anyone cite a *definite reference* for this?
Bwithh 13:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Given that this war was overwhelmingly a story of US/Coalition air power,
it seems strange that there are 2 pictures of land forces on this article, a picture of the campaign map for land force movements, and even
a picture of a US navy ship, but there are no pictures of air forces. perhaps someone can find a suitable picture? Bwithh 17:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. - SimonP 22:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a photo for the air campaign section