Just as a matter of interest has any one noticed that all we hear is that the Iraqis have been freed from Saddam's terror. But no one has actually asked the Iraqis whether or not they're happy?

WTF? I asked them yesterday. They said yes, they are very happy. Graft 01:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Odd. I talked to them yesterday, too, and they mentioned that actually they were a little peeved about a city of 350,000 people being flattened and about its former inhabitants having to get identity cards from a foreign army in order to re-enter. They also seemed a little testy about the whole tens-of-thousands-of-dead civilians thing. But maybe they just had a bad day. Things like that wouldn't bother folks with clean consciences like you and me, right? BrandonYusufToropov 11:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources

This entry is impossible to present without coming from some perspective; what we can do is, when we make the editorial decision to include content, to mention the source of that content.

External links to news items should preferably be placed at the bottom of the page, with the title of the news item, source, and date, and a summary of relevant content if not apparent from the title.

Naming

The two reasonable titles for this entry are 2003 invasion of Iraq and U.S. invasion of Iraq (add alternatives if you strongly believe either is deficient). See Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan for a (possibly) comparable discussion.

The first avoids (potentially contentious) questions of the nature of the invasion and is permanently unambiguous.

The second follows the standard set by U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, makes a (potentially contentious) definitive statement about the nature of the invasion, and is unambiguous (as long as the U.S. doesn't invade Iraq in the future).

The naming issues affects other entries as well, and is discussed at - please use this as a central place for all your naming convention-related discussion.

Another possibility is Second Gulf War or maybe Third Gulf War. Or even "Fourth Gulf War" if you count the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 invasion of Kuwait/Iraq as separate military episodes. For this reason I (Cabalamat) consider all names of the form nth Gulf War to be horribly ambiguous and should not be used.

Nature of Coalition/Invasion

Is the phrase "U.S. invasion of Iraq" misleading or not? This question depends on the nature of the coalition and reasons for the invasion. The nature of the coalition is discussed at coalition of the willing.

if you think "U.S. invasion of Iraq" is on the right track, then I would argue that it does not go far enough. "U.S. conquering of Iraq" or "U.S. toppling Baathist Iraq" or "US-Iraq war" or "U.S. liberation of Iraq" is more normal. Nobody refers to WWII as "U.S. invasion of France".

I quote from Battle of Normandy: "The Battle of Normandy was fought in 1944 between the German forces occupying Western Europe and the invading Allies". I rest my case. Rama 20:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nature of Coalition/Invasion

content moved to

Many of these countries are supplying medical personel, chem/bio response teams, ships, airbases, overflight rights and other support.

this sentence needs more precision. What is "other supports". Besides, placed where it was give the feeling only coalition forces brings humanitarian help. Could we keep separate notions of war support, from notions of humanitarian support please ? ant

Considering the fact that some of the nations request not to be named - it'd be difficult to compile a "complete" list or to list exactly what every country is doing.

If some nations that alledgedly were part of the Coalition don't want to be named, then that's going to make it difficult to establish who did what, and we oughtn't to report something as fact unless we can get confirmation -- Cabalamat 15:51, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

re: humanitarian help.. feel free to add that other countries and organizations are also providing humanitarian help. I don't see how the above sentence suggests that its only coalition forces.

Dollar and the Euro

I reverted an extensive original research and speculation based on a single POV source, alleging that a major reason for the invasion of Iraq was to restore US dominance over the Euro. Aside from the fact that there is no general constituency for this belief, it flies in the face of ordinary economics. Currencies fluctuate based on economic factors that usually defy manipulation. In the past 20 years or so the GBP has been as high as about USD 1.85 and as low as about USD 1.10, IIRC. But more importantly, the US at this point has no reason to want to beat down the Euro. A cheap dollar improves trade positions for the US, and is probably contributing to recovery in the US while Europe is not faring as well. When US interest rates rise, so will the dollar, without the need for international conflict. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is much more then speculation - especially in academic circles it was one of the major explanations offered for the US war drive before the invasion. Importantly there is very good evidence that it was actually a considerations of the US government, from a source you'll respect I think.Republican-voting Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who was an analyst on the Pentagon's Near East South Asia department, later "Office of Special Plans" in the run-up to the war, started talking a lot about what went on in the Pentgon at that time: [1] (http://www.alternet.org/story/17952)[2] (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/). From an interview with LA Weekly :

So if, as you argue, they knew there weren't any of these WMD, then what exactly drove the neoconservatives to war?

KK: The neoconservatives pride themselves on having a global vision, a long-term strategic perspective. And there were three reasons why they felt the U.S. needed to topple Saddam, put in a friendly government and occupy Iraq. [...]

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 -- selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren't very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.

The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it's not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq's oil back to the dollar.

don't have time now to work on this unfortuntely.... pir 11:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not now (and have never been) a Republican, and insofar as some of my beliefs are similar to those of some neocons, the imprimeteur of a Republican and/or a neocon does not impress me, per se.

The flaw in including such material in an encyclopedic article is based largely on its source, and its recondite nature. If we are to include vaguely plausiable theories (especially sometimes quoting verbatim a long rant from a POV site) we can place a lot of material in a lot of contentious articles. These articles are of the "ah-ha!" variety (so beloved of many political radicals, left and right) where they read a heretofore novel explantion for an international incident, it appeals to them, and that must therefore be "the reason."

This argument reminds me of people who told me quite firmly, in the 1980s, that Japan was now the world superpower, at least economically, to which I responded: "when the Japanese economy has a problem, the world coughs, when the US economy has a problem, the world gets pneumonia; when those positions are reversed, then talk to me about Japanese dominance."

I expect, if the EU stabilizes to the point where the citizens of member nations begin to think of themselves first as Europeans, rather than French, German or Italian, that the Euro will be a reserve currency; but I don't see the currency denomination of oil sales as being an issue. Euros, like dollars, will always be purchaseable on the world market at market rates. U.S. dollars held in international depository have a limited impact on the U.S. economy, because they are always a liability. To see them as "providing goods and services for free" turns economics on its head. The U.S. economy is better off having those dollars purchasing export goods to boost the economy.

It is government instruments of the U.S. that represent short-term international subsidy to the economy, but that is not the same as "printing money." If the U.S. were to "print money" in the classical sense, the dollar would rapidly inflate, and this in itself would destroy the dollar as a reserve currency. -- Cecropia | Talk

I completely agree that the dollar/Euro thing was as unlikely the number one reason for the invasion as were weapons of mass destruction. However, the dollar as the main currency in oil trading has a great importance. Given the massive U.S. debt and the tremendous trade deficits we have seen for so many years it is counter intiutive that the dollar still serves as a reserve currency. The trading of a good with pivotal importance in that currency is a major reason why the trust in that currency has not declined more dramatically. There are two sides of the medal of a strong or weak currency. A weak currency is good if you have debt in it or if you want to sell your goods. On the other hand it is bad if you have to pay your imports and it makes you more vulnerable for foreign takeovers. Since the US are heavily dependent on imports it helps if it can pay a major import good in their own currency, without the risk of currency fluctuation. I think the point should be mentioned, not prominantly though. Get-back-world-respect 20:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You just have to ask "Why does the world want dollars?" The answer isn't in the first place "So that it can buy American goods". It's "So that it can buy oil, which is traded in dollars". If the world did not need US dollars to buy oil, it might start not to hold them. This would cause devaluation (because instead of everyone's wishing to buy dollars, they would be wanting to sell them) and the US' already enormous current account deficit would inflate. The adjustment that America already faces, which can at this point go either way -- painfully or easily -- would be excruciating. It's rather unlikely as the primary casus belli, because the Iraqis don't influence other oil-producing countries or those nations that hold large amounts of dollars all that much; but it would certainly have irritated the US. It would also have suggested to the US that were Iraq permitted to get back onto its feet under Saddam, the latter might seek to increase his influence over world pricing of oil.

Mental Health Problems after Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan

How do you think should we include the following article? Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13) [[User:Get-back-world-respect|]] 17:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Coalition order of battle

Hi, It would be a good thing to show the coalition order of battle during the 2003 offensive in this article. Indeed, it is very complicated to understand american ODB nowadays. Was the 3rd ID under V corps command ? Or just the 101st ? I don't know but I wish I would.

Iraq/Al Qaeda & 911 Commission

I am removing the following paragraph from the entry because it is false and misleading:

However, the 9/11 Commission has since confirmed that there was indeed a long-term relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. The report indicated that Hussein on numerous occasions after 1998 offered Osama bin Laden refuge in Iraq. Hussein also expressed his willingness in the future to possibly help al Qaeda in operations, but more generally gave his moral support to bin Laden, stating that the two groups have common enemies.

I went over the 9/11 Commission final report and do not see this claim anywhere. I realize some politicians and pundits continue to maintain it is true, but there is little in the final report to actually back this up. Below are a few passages that come close, but they don't support the claim above. If you want this in there, please be accurate about it, and I think there should be a sentence or two that notes that on balance there is no evidence of any significant cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that while Saddam may have made overtures, al Qaeda rejected Saddam as an infidel and even as an American stooge. In addition, al Qaeda was actively funding and training Kurdish terrorists in northern Iraq (an area controlled by the U.S. military, not Saddam) who were dedicated to removing Saddam Hussein. It turns out that most of the evidence the US relied upon to support the claim of such cooperation came from discredited sources like Chalabi and Libi. Quotes from the 9/11 final report follow:

p. 66: There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime,offering some cooperation.None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report,Saddam Hussein?s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

p. 134: Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin?s having met with Iraqi officials, who ?may have offered him asylum.?Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders,though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq

p. 161: In his interactions with other students,Atta voiced virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American opinions, ranging from condemnations of what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City that supposedly controlled the financial world and the media,to polemics against governments of the Arab world.To him,Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East.

p. 334: Responding to a presidential tasking,Clarke?s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled ?Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.?Rice?s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad,concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no ?compelling case?that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports,including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak,the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein?s regime.Finally,the memo said,there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

--csloat 18:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The following quotes are from Stephen Hayes' book: The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.

According to the Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." (Page 114.)

In what the CIA nicknamed "Operation Dogmeat," two Iraqi students who lived in the Philippines tried to demolish U.S. Information Service headquarters in Manila. Iraqi diplomat Muwufak al Ani met with the bombers five times before the attack. His car even took them near their target on January 19, 1991. Their bomb exploded prematurely, killing Ahmed J. Ahmed, but his accomplice, Abdul Kadham Saad, survived and was whisked to a Manila hospital. Saad, carrying documents bearing two distinct identities, asked staffers to alert the Iraqi embassy, then recited its phone number. (Page 39.)

Around this time, according to former high-level CIA counterterrorist Stanley Bedlington, Hussein paired Iraqi intelligence operatives with members of the Arab Liberation Front to execute attacks. "The Iraqis had given them all passports," he said, "but they were all in numerical sequence." These tell-tale passport numbers helped friendly governments nab these terror teams. (Page 41.)

"In 1992, elements of al Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein," Abu Aman Amaleeki, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, said on ABC's Nightline on September 26, 2002. Speaking from a Kurdish prison, he added: "And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri," bin Laden's chief deputy. "I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad." (Page 43.)

Former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi, reports a reliable foreign spy agency, supplied blank Yemeni passports to al Qaeda in 1992. (Page 66.)

Mohammed Salameh, a 1993 World Trade Center attacker, called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Salameh's June 1992 phone bill totaled $1,401, which prompted his disconnection for non-payment. After the blast ? which killed six individuals and injured 1,042 ? Yasin fled to Baghdad, where records and multiple press accounts show he received safe haven and Baathist cash. (Pages 11 and 50.)

Based on a 20-page IIS document discovered in Baghdad, the Defense Intelligence Agency reports that "Alleged conspirators employed by IIS are wanted in connection with the [June 25, 1996] Khobar Towers bombing and the assassination attempt in 1993 of former President Bush." (Page 180.)

In an October 27, 2003 memo, Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith explained Hussein's bonus pay for terrorists: "Iraq increased support to Palestinian groups after major terrorist attacks and...the change in Iraqi relations with al Qaeda after the [1998 east African] embassy bombings followed this pattern." A top Philippine terrorist also said Iraq's payments to the al Qaeda-tied Abu Sayyaf grew after successful assaults. (Page 120.)

ABC News reported on January 14, 1999, that it "has learned that in December [1998] an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden." Hijazi "went to Afghanistan in December with the knowledge of the Taliban and met with Osama bin Laden," former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro told National Public Radio's Mike Shuster on February 18, 1999. "It's known through a variety of intelligence reports that the U.S. has, but it's also known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place." (Page 124.)

On January 5, 2000, Malaysian intelligence photographed September 11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar being escorted through Kuala Lumpur's airport by VIP facilitator Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi recommended to Malaysian Airlines by Baghdad's embassy there. The pair soon were photographed again at al Qaeda's three-day planning summit for the October 2000 U.S.S. Cole and 9/11 attacks. Three separate documents recently unearthed in Iraq identify an Ahmed Hikmat Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in Uday Hussein's elite Saddam Fedayeen. (Page 4)

Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani is the former Iraqi diplomat suspected of meeting September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta in Prague on April 8, 2001, and possibly June 2, 2000, the day before Atta flew from Prague to Newark, New Jersey. Top secret Pentagon records cite a Czech intelligence report that al Ani "ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." During the summer of 2000, $99,455 was wired from financial institutions in the United Arab Emirates to Atta's Sun Trust bank account in Florida.(Page 129.)

After evacuating an al Qaeda training camp he ran in Afghanistan as U.S. troops approached, Ansar al-Islam founder Abu Musab al Zarqawi eventually had his leg amputated and replaced with a prosthesis around late May 2002. He was treated in Baghdad's Olympic Hospital, an elite facility whose director was the late Uday Hussein, son of the deposed tyrant. Zarqawi is implicated in ongoing attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and is believed to have sawed off American businessman Nick Berg's head. (Page 167.)

U.S troops inspecting an al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Islam camp in Iraq discovered, Hayes reports, "several hundred passports belonging to suspected Ansar and al Qaeda fighters, dozens of them bearing visas issued by the Iraqi regime." A passport found on one dead terrorist listed his visit's purpose as "jihad." (Page 172.)

The following quotes are from the 9/11 Commission's Report:

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.

Your very selective choice of quotes from the 9/11 Commission's Report is disingenuous and misleading. Perhaps you would like to rephrase the paragraph you deleted, rather than delete it out of ignorance. --G3pro 31 July 2004

I don't think my choice of quotes is disingenuous or misleading. What you have quoted tells us this: The 9-11 commission found that there may have been overtures but that these overtures amounted to nothing. It is not surprising that al Qaeda had contact with Iraqis and Iraqi intelligence -- importantly, not with Saddam Hussein, as was alleged in the passage I removed -- but it would be surprising if there were any direct cooperation between them. All you have established is that there were contacts, which nobody denies. (In fact, one can find far greater evidence of such contact between al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, etc.; some of this is in the report too). Hell, there were al Qaeda contacts with the CIA!

I'm happy to have something in there about what the 911 Commission found, and I quoted what I removed above precisely so that it would not be "deleted out of ignorance." That's why I looked through the Commission Report again and quoted that too. But the statement as it is written is false and misleading. If you want to say Stephen Hayes believes in the al Qaeda-Saddam conspiracy, fine, but I don't think that's worthy of attention in this entry. If you want to say the 911 Commission said something, I think it should be more accurate than what is there. The report did not find a "long term relationship" between Saddam and al Qaeda; at best it found sporadic contacts that never came to fruition. And most of the stuff in Hayes' book has been explicitly refuted by US intelligence analysts as well as journalists. --csloat 01:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Grammar.

Please note that a nation, such as Turkey, is not to be refered to as "They". Although a nation does consist of people who could be referred to as "They", the nation itself is singular, because it is one nation. Misuse of pronouns is quite a common error, but it should be quite obvious as well.

NPOV disclaimer

Sarge Baldy added a NPOV disclaimer without comment. Is the neutrality still disputed? If so, what parts are in dispute? If none, we should remove the disclaimer. Quadell (talk) 16:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Since there don't seem to be any updates on this even after a week, I'll remove the dispute notice. -- Schnee 10:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article should more closely resemble standard military battle/war article rather than focusing on minutiae of political arguments.

Saddam and Hamas??

Aside from the contentious allegations of Iraq?s relationship with al Qaeda, the former regime is know to have had strong relationships with many other terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East including Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Can anyone provide evidence to support this claim? I find this statement very hard to believe, as Hussein's regime and Hussein himself were secular; Hussein considered Islamic fundamentalists to be enemies, and vice versa. Revolver 09:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe that you don't know that Saddam rewarded suicide bombers and their families with large cash sums (around $25,000 I think). Saddam has many more ties to terrorism than you give him credit for. G3pro

Here are a few sources for the claim.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-i.htm

To dismiss charges Hussein's regime supporting Islamic militants on the basis that he is/was a secularist overlooks the fact that Hussien was an opportunist, not an ideolouge. Alliances of convience happen all the time. TDC 14:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I guess it depends how you interpret "strong relationships". Yes, there was connection and support between the regime and terrorist groups, (some more than others). I would say the way you put it is more accurate: "ties" or "alliances". A "strong relationship" to me implies something more, something like a shared goal or values. Replace the Baathist regime with the U.S., which was involved in supporting in many ways right-wing dictatorships in Central America in the 70s and 80s. We also openly supported Afghanistan against the Russians. Would you say the U.S. had a "strong relationship" with these dictators or with Afghanistan at the time? I wouldn't, even if I thought the support was justified. The U.S. has a strong relationship with the U.K., with liberal democracies of the West, etc., but had only "alliances of convience" as you put it, with Noriega or bin Laden. Revolver 10:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Somewhere between ties and alliances is where I would define "strong relationship". I also do not know where you are going with this. TDC 15:08, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Here's where I'm going: my point is that "strong relationship" may mean different things to different people, or leave differing impressions. I think it's better to talk in specifics. For example, I think it's better to say, "reimbursed families of suicide bombers" or "had known financial ties to <fill in>" or "provided refuge for <fill in>". These are much more specific. And, BTW, they're much easier to provide evidence for, because they're specific. Let the reader infer what they will from this. Many people might read "strong relationship" and assume an ideological alliance, esp. if they're unfamiliar with the region. Similar statements about the U.S. and Noriega, e.g. could theoretically lead unfamiliar readers into thinking we were once ideological allies. In this case, ideological differences could be mentioned, emphasising the alliancies are primarily strategic. And of course, that some terrorist organisations have refused to deal with Saddam. None of this undercuts the point you're trying to make, it just makes it more clear and more specific. Revolver 19:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see. Well there is quite a bit of info to intorduce here and I do ont know the most efficient way to do that. Let me see what I can do. TDC

Though Saddam supported and gave money to Palestinian fighters, as far as I know he never gave money to Hamas or its followers. Graft 15:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

France and Iraq

TDC, this article you gave as a reference is crap. It's full of nonsense. For example, Roland 2 missiles made in the past few months by a French-German partnership? The Roland 2 was developed in the early 80s, and was obseleted by the Roland 3 developed in 1988. It went out of production in 1993. Totally impossible for it to have been recently manufactured. Find a better source that does some actual fact-checking, or else I'm striking that sentence.[3] (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2137676) Graft 15:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

number of casualties

"157 KIA (approximation), 4,524 U.S. troops wounded in action [1]"

the site linked to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/ says 7,026 wounded in action and 1,154 killed (not necessarily in action). does this just need to be updated? - Omegatron 19:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

terrorist connections

someone just cut a lot of material on terrorist connections. while everyone but dick cheney now admits there was no operational al qaeda connection, i thought there were acknowledged connections with palestinian terrorists. shouldn't these be mentioned, as they were the technical basis for the terrorism allegations? or have they been discredited? Wolfman 02:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Iraq certainly did have connections with Palestinian terrorism, but had severed them by 2003 - except for Saddam Hussein's financial compensation to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The other stuff was all nonsense, and in fact very few people ever tried to claim that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11 - it wasn't really used as a pretext for the war.--XmarkX 10:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saddam had connections with al Qaeda, e.g., the conconclusion of PIPA is "Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.[4] (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf) --Silverback 14:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PIPA? Haha, sponsored by Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford & Co. A little conflict of interest don't you think. That a PIPA document mentions in passing that there is "some evidence" of, ohhhh, "contact", while presenting evidence that their respondents are very stupid really isn't an example of good evidence Silverback. Anything's worth throwing in the mix though ay? Something has gotta stick sooner or later!!! Christiaan 15:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was fun to use them as a source given their liberal bias, although they downplay the extent of Iraqi support for al Qaeda and their non-peer reviewed "study" was poorly done. 8-) --Silverback 15:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Liberal" bias, "conservative" bias. It's all the same Silverback. Some of us know it as "big business" bia. Christiaan 17:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to crash this party, but the PIPA report Silverback is referring to is called Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War. It's a 2003 poll of the US public's perceptions on matters pertaining to Iraq. I might be missing something here, but how does a result from a public poll tell us anything about the actual connections the Hussein regime had? confused=Plek 02:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't (it mentions "some evidence" in passing), that was the point I was making when I referred to their respondents. Christiaan 09:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

control of oil as a reason for invasion

This is an important POV and deserves more than just a sentence. I know of any "evidence" that US invaded to control oil but this is expected as it would look bad for the party in power. With the big Iraq debt and the setting up of American oil companies in Iraq, the US will end controlling the oil. 209.197.154.26 22:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

there can be little doubt that control of oil was the reason for the invasion, but you don't need some corporate conspiracy theory. The object was to remove the control of oil from a man of Saddam's demonstrated character. His resources were the threat, without them, Iraq would just be another Sudan. al Qaeda is contesting Iraq much more than Afghanistan precisely because of the oil, although the closeness of easily perverted human resources in the neighboring countries and in the parentless, irredeemable faydeen also make it easier to cause trouble in Iraq. Fortunately al Qaeda resources are being diverted against hardened US military targets instead of innocent US civilians.--Silverback 03:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me put my objection this way: Saddam Hussein's Iraq wanted to sell Iraqi oil. France wanted to lift the oil embargo so Iraq could sell oil. The U.S. wished to keep the embargos in place. How is this evidence of the U.S. coveting Iraqi oil? If the U.S. wanted access to Iraqi oil, all it had to do was agree to lift the embargo and Iraq would have sold all the oil it could pump. Yours is a kooky conspiracy theory that does not make sense. 208.54.14.17 22:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument, and a careful one at that. It's not about "coveting" oil, it's about controlling as was correctly and initially commented on. It's not surprising that you took pains to avoid this word. Christiaan 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sorry, but you have to do better than that: give us your argument why "control" is such an important word whose use must not be avoided. I don't seek "control" of the oil in my gas tank, I seek to burn it, and I seek to pay as little as possible for it. Please explain why "control" is so important to people who expect to buy it and burn it, when the people who control it want and expect to sell it at market prices anyway? I think you are making an archaic "Opium Wars" argument, but I have no idea since you don't say. A much stronger argument is the superficial one that does not entail a conspiracy theory: Iraqi oil was going to be sold on the world market, and the U.S. did not want Saddam Hussein to control the resulting money. It's simple, it lets you hate the U.S. just as you do, but it does not require fussy wording. In any case, to be honest and NPOV, you need to include my objections while making your POV argument.

Most of the petrol coming out from Iraq goes to Europe, Russia and Japan, not really to the United States. If you sit on the tap, you can threaten to close it anytime you want -- say, for instance, if you get too much competition on some markets for your taste. Another thing is the control of the currency in which the petrol is traded -- Saddam Hussein seems to have wanted to trade in Euros, which would have short-cut the exchange of dollars.

That's not to say this is "the" reason for the invasion of Iraq, but there are undoubtly things to say about this, and it makes a better case than some other theories. Rama 19:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You did not explain why "depriving Saddam of the cash so he could build nuclear weapons" is not a good enough theory. Why can't you accept the simplest, and stated, reason? Why do you insist on a hidden reason? I will, however, explain why your arguments are not good enough. Euro v. dollar? This is a subtle economic argument that even the world's leading economists would simultaneously dispute and admit they don't know the answer to. But, "Iraq oil goes to Europe" indicates to me that you don't even understand rudimentary economics since facts like that just don't matter in a commodity market, so I'm not apt to nod along when you make subtle monetary points. (There is one world price for oil, then it is shipped the shortest distance to cut costs. Whenever that does not happen, as with Alaska oil, somebody is losing money, but world oil markets are not affected.) In any case, the Iraqi oil tap had been shut off for more than 10 years, so how can you claim that the threat of turning off Iraqi oil is soooooo dangerous, and you seem to imply, dangerous to Europe, the same Europe that did not want to invade?

So again, my two points are: I don't get your argument, it doesn't make sense. And at a minimum, to achieve NPOV, you should be rushing to at least include my criticisms.

Photograph of Bush and Blair at Camp David

Where can this go? Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How to incorporate Charles Duelfer's final report

Specifically, his report states the following

At the time of the invasion Iraq had no WMD's, and had no production since 1993.
According to interviews with Tariq Aziz and other Iraqi intelligence officials, French influence in the UN was bought with bribes via the UN's Oil for Food program. A memo to Hussein dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."
Russia and China were also lobbied via Oil for Food bribes and contracts to oppose the 2003 invasion.
Iraq had plans to restart all banned programs after the lifting of sanctions.
Iraq had also targeted a number of activists, journalists, and diplomats to aid in the removal of the Sanctions.
Hussein convinced his top military commanders that Iraq did indeed possess WMD's, in order to use this threat to keep Iraqi dissidents in check.

TDC 18:31, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

That's weird... I though that Duelfer was an expert in weapons... So how comes his report includes things about Iraq relations with France, Russia and China concerning International diplomacy and the Oil for Food program ? I would have expected it to be very technical about weapon systems but nothing else (in the style of Hans Blix). One of the ideas I would drop is to explain this very clearly, because I find it quite non-intuitive (and therefore others might also be surprised).

the other thing I would be very keep to see is a classement of these informations accprding to the extend of their speculative nature , and good references to the underlying hard facts (sorry if I sound a little bit paranoid there, but I still have trouble swallowin the way this "mobile chemical weapon production facilities" story was pressed on the UN, the world in general, and the US public in particular) Rama 19:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although Duelfer is an expert in WMD's, several hundred people with various backgrounds contributed to the final report. The aim of the report, initialy was not only to find banned WMD's but also give a detailed account of Hussien's WMD program. The findings of a more speculative nature were gathered from interviews with regime officials as well as the many millions of documents captured after the invasion. You can read the entire report here [5] (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/cia93004wmdrpt.html). TDC 20:06, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for my clumsy formulation. I meant to rise the question of the mandate of this investigation team under Duelfer's orders. I would not have though they were mandated to investigate things like these alleged contacts between France and Iraq concerning votes at the UN, which have quite a distant relationship to a weapon engineering program. SO if it indeed the case, it might be interesting to explain, or least mention, the exact mission of this team. Besides, if the interviews of these Iraqi officials are cited as references (Tarek Aziz, for instance), would it not be revelant, for concistancy and for ensuring we have good sources, to mention the reserves with which the US had treated previous declarations by these same officials ? Rama 22:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The alleged contracts were, according to the report, relevant to the investigation because they had to do with the sanctions. After reading the report (the summary actually, the actual report is several hundred pages long) Iraq had intended to reconstitute it weapons program as soon as it could do so. This planned reconstitution had more to do with Hussein?s fear of Iran and his personal belief that the chemical attacks again Iran during the Iran Iraq war were the biggest contributing factors in turning the tide in the war. The report states that is why Hussein led outside observers to believe that he did indeed still possess WMDs. He also led the top leaders his armed forces to think he still had them because he believed that they would overthrow him if they believed that they had to fight the coalition in March of 2003 without them. It also seems clear from the report that he thought the international pressure applied through his allies in the UN would prevent the invasion.

Fundamentally, the bribes were about lifting the sanctions, which would lead to a reconstituted WMD program (within months after the lifting of the sanctions), which would defend Iraq against Iran.

As to the exact mission of the ISG: find WMD's, if none are found explain why pre-war assessments were wrong. TDC 06:17, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, this clarifies quite a lot of things to me. I think that including parts of this in the article would be nice. The bribe section still seems a little bit unclear to me, because on one hand we have quite "speculative" informations (the will of Saddam Hussein to restart his projects from scratch, so calculating right now to get the materials, so needing the sanctions to be lifted, so bribing France, Russia and China...), some thing, formulated like this, are unverifiable ("bribe", for instance, seems a very harsh formulation, France, Russia and China, along with lots of other countries, had supported the lifting of the sanctions (which some at the UN say were mostly a nuisance -- "Oil for food" was some way of bypassing these sanctions to re-create a normal, legitimate economy); these countries are all powerfull enough not to need assistance from Iraq in exchange of their support; accusations of personal corruption should be backed up with strong evidences and referances; and, by the nature of international relations and trade, it is not fair to qualify any deal as "bribery" -- else we're going to have people qualifying the implementation of US companies in Iraq of "looting"). Also, if these alleged plans have been told by people like Tareq Aziz, they are the very same people whose word was considered worthless when it was to be decided wether Iraq had weapons; are they now fully trusted ? If yes, why ? If not, what other proofs are presented ? As for the papers, here again, caution should apply... remember the contract about Iraq buying Uranium in Nigeria. And this all seems to dangerously mix the sanctions issues with the weaponry issue (it's probably my formulation which is clumsy, but we'll have to guard against mixing everything in the final article). Finally, these "bribery" things seem to suspectfully match highly speculative figures which had come up before the war at the most heated period of the discussions ; not that this could prevent them from being true, but again, backing them with hard and strong factual information and putting them into perspective seems very important to me to avoid any suspection of bias.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understood your last line...

Thanks again for the clarification Rama 07:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be sections comparing the invasion and the means by which it was fought to other wars

Based on my and Fpahl's discussions, I think there is a contribution to be made organizing the facts that would be used in a just war analysis.--Silverback 19:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As an example of an illegal and unjust war? Alberuni 11:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No as one of the most moral wars in US history, since conscription wasn't used and civilian infrastructure wasn't targeted (unlike Gulf War I and Kosovo), most of allies were fairly moral (unlike stalin), goals noble, etc. See the archive of my and Fpahl's discussion. --Silverback 15:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silverback - I had to laugh as well when I read this. As for conscription, you just need to wait until after the elections for the draft to be reintroduced in the States. From what you write it's quite obvious that you think the Iraq war is over.... I'm afraid - it's just beginning. - pir 02:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pir, if having to laugh is a source of information to you, you should retrain your intuition. It is a bias that distorts reality. Yes, it is meant to shock you that I claim to and believe I can defend the latest gulf war as more moral than most any in US history. As to the draft, you may be right if Kerry wins. He is a nationalist with the hubris to beleive he knows what is best for others. Look at his "100 Day Plan to Change America", he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school. He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service. His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not ...". The look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft. Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968. Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age. While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area. You have been duped by scare mongering. I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him. Bush is more predictible than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe for personal reasons. Note that he chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty". Now perhaps you think that is admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also.--Silverback 06:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hahahaha. You must be joking. Your American imperialist POV is not shared by most of the world. If war is ever justified, it justified only as a last resort and for self-defense against aggression or invasion. Iraq was not threatening the USA. The USA was not forced to attack Iraq in self-defense. Iraq was the victim of a concerted campaign of US lies and aggression. More than 12,000 civilians (so far) have been slaughtered by Americans using high tech weapons on civilian areas with callous and heinous disregard for human life. Many thousands more innocent Iraqi civilians have been maimed, injured, incarcerated, tortured and humiliated by American "liberation" forces. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq represents a blatant series of war crimes. That anyone could consider this sordid chapter in US history as a moral example of "just war" is a sad example of brainwash. Alberuni 15:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see you didn't look at the archived discussion. You forget how many lives the sanctions were cost. So the war is justified on a net-lives-saved basis also. Why not protest the US "War on Drugs" instead, it is far more unjust.--Silverback 15:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Iraq sanctions regime was imposed by the US, with a UN fig leaf, and enforced by siege conducted largely by the US military. The imposition of "No-Fly Zones" and continual bombardment of Iraq over the past 13 years were also acts of war conducted by the US against Iraq and those crimes were not even carried out with a UN fig leaf. To spuriously compare the human costs of US war crimes before the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq with the human costs of the war crimes committed by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in order to minimize the atrocities committed by the US represents a failure of logical reasoning. It's akin to a murderer claiming that breaking into the house of his victim is not as bad as murder so he shouldn't be charged with breaking and entering. Read the definition of Just war and think again about why the US invasion of Iraq does not qualify. Hint: "War can only be waged for a just cause, such as self-defense against an armed attack." Alberuni 20:43, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I already read just war theory and contributed to the page, and I disagree with it. It is a sad commentary that it is the best thing Christianity could come up with after 2000 years, Christain pacifism is far more inspiring. I see no reason why the standards for taking innocent life in war, should be higher than in peacetime, when net lives saved is the standard. Your limited standard for war leaves dictators in power. The US had every bit as much right to rule Iraq as Saddam, which is of course, none. The US just had more power and a world of good intentions, which is more than can be said for Saddam and the UN fig leafs he bribed. Perhaps we should compare the 2nd Gulf war with the 1st one, which slaughtered over 100 thousand innocent Iraqi conscripts in the bunkers. That is what happens when the UN is considered to qualify as a legitimate authority under just war doctrine. I think a comparison section, even applying just war theory, on the page would show this latest Gulf war in a remarkably good light, which is probably why it will be vehemently opposed.--Silverback 23:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion probably will be opposed because Wikipedia is not the place to promote your POV. Aside from that, the invasion of Iraq was an act of unprovoked military aggression, a war crime. You see it as a noble act of self-sacrifice by big-hearted, well-intentioned civilized Americans bringing freedom and democracy to a world you think you own. Most of the rest of the world sees the US invasion as a high-tech slaughter of thousands of civilians by arrogant, oil-hungry American imperialists. Neither POV has a place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia endeavors to present facts, not opinion. Alberuni 23:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Saddam's treatment of Iraqi's, harboring of terrorists, rewarding of the families of terrorist bombers, attempt to assassinate an ex-president, failure to comply with sanctions, and firing upon places implementing the no fly zone were "provocation" enough. The attempt to bring freedom to an Iraqi people that you think Saddam owned is noble.--Silverback 01:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni's point is valid, though. Judgements of right or wrong, moral or immoral, have no place in an encyclopedia seeking as factual a stance as possible. It doesn't matter how skillfully you may be able to defend your opinion that this is a just war, it would still be your opinion, which has no place in the wiki.--Blackguard 04:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blackguard. This encyclopedia is no place for uncritical hagiography (nor for blanket condemnation). We should try to set out the facts. The US government has put out so much self-serving propaganda here that I think some of its supporters have begun to accept the nonsense as fact.

Is this the "main" article?

Is this the "main" article on the Iraq war? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 06:38, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

yep. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:08, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Report of the International Institute for Strategic Studies

I deleted the statement about this report, because the article pointed to did not support the statement that the Iraq war increased the risk of terrorism. It stated that it had helped recruitment and increased motivation, but also stated that al Qaeda had to learn to get by on less money. Even though the article called the 1000 foreign fighters a "minute fraction of its potential strength", it should be noted that the study put the potential strength worldwide at 18,000, so this minute fraction is over 5.5% In order to actually increase the risk of terrorism, at least of the kind cared about in the United States and Europe, it is not enough to consider the quantity of the terrorists, but also the quality and the article does not discuss that. Absent such evidence, there is no reason to conclude these new terrorists, probably produced in wahabi run madrosses are comparable to the sophisticated, multi-lingual, US or European educated cadre that planned the 9/11 attack. No specific skills other than bomb making, frugality and use of the hawala system were mentioned.--Silverback 08:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Guardian article is entitled "Thinktank: invasion aided al-Qaida". The report itself says, in part, "Overall, the risk of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003". (source (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/20/content_2113192.htm)) That's pretty unambiguous. A look in Google News (http://news.google.com/news?ncl=www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/10/ad25a4f1-47dc-4006-893c-6e1645824491.html) shows many news outlets that have similar headlines to the Guardian's. ("Westerners at greater risk after Iraq war, says UK think tank", "Westerners at greater risk after Iraq war: report", "Report: Iraq war increases terrorism risk", etc.)

I also think some of your statements above are misleading. The Guardian article doesn't say that al-Qaida "had to learn to get by on less money", but that they now need less money to carry out terrorist activities. That's very different. Also, your 5.5% figure is way off. The article says "up to 1000 foreign jihaddists" infiltrated Iraq, and that al-Qaida "has more than 18,000 potential terrorists." 5.5% is would only be correct if all foriegn fighters in Iraq are al-Qaida members (they're not) and if all al-Qaida members were potential terrorists (they're not), and if the 1000 maximum and the 18,000 minimum were both exactly right. So how many al-Qaida members are fighting in Iraq? A minute fraction, as the article says.

Because of all this, I'm going to put the statement back in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

This think tank is so biased that if it could have said the invasion increased the risk of terrorism, it would have. Instead I have qualified the statement, as against westerners and assets in arab countries. You appear to be being fooled by this groups spin, they did NOT say that al Qaida now had MORE money but could get by on less. As they stated it, the statement is meaningless, other than the information that al Qaida now had less money. What do you expect al Qaida would look like with less money, if the COULDN'T get along with less? Would you expect them to file for bankruptcy or something?.--Silverback

Do you even know who the IISS is?? It is a very conservative think tank. Any bias they have is far likelier to get them to lean in the other direction, and claim that the Iraq war helped the fight against terrorism. --csloat 11:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No I am not familiar with it. So I went by the supplied link, it that article did not support the original wording, but this latest wording is acceptable. If you look at the quotes in the article, with words like miniscule, it did not seem unbiased. BTW, I have since looked that their web site, and found this quote in their newsletter, "As with last years launch, many journalists seized on and some misconstrued or exaggerated the IISS assessment that al-Qaeda was gaining strength."--Silverback 12:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lancet Study of Iraqi excess deaths from 2003 invasion

Silverback removed this:

A more recent study published in The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9446/contents) gave an estimate of 100,000 deaths in eighteen months based on a survey of 990 households; the mortality rate in the sample in the Falluja area, where the US forces had conducted repeated aerial bombardment in a built up area, was very high, and this sample was discarded in constructing the estimate.

Reason given: See discussion of lancet study in talk current events. There was no methodoly for distinguishing bombardment from air defense from motar damage.

I accept that the study's methodology should be subject to criticism (this is how science works), however it's the best we've got to date and it should be taken at least as seriously as any other estimate currently listed--not just ignored. I propose restoring the text and adding a statement of the following form.

Although this is the first attempt to produce a scientific estimate of excess deaths caused by the Iraq Invasion, the methodology and conclusions of this study are subject to ongoing critique.

--Minority Report 18:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The study is already referenced on the page, you were merely adding it again in a different section, with less specific links to the study itself (you only linked to the lancet home page), apparently with the intent of supplementing a 100,000 death estimate with a criticism of the methodology (the excluding of Falluja) that would make that estimate higher. While it is admirable that research was attempted in such dangerous conditions, the results are not encouraging, with a 95% confidence range of 8000 to 194,000 based on random sampling assumptions alone, without even taking into account the possible sources of error in the data and mothodology. You attempted to bring in the aerial bombardment issue which was also among the conclusions of the study. Note that the study had no methodology to base that conclusion upon, since it is based on the recall of civilians, when even people more experianced people would have difficulty investigating whether "bomb damage" was due to the aerial attack, falling air defense munitions or errant motar attacks. Despite considerable flaws, the Lancet chose to publish this paper, apparently with influencing the US election instead of research in mind.--Silverback 19:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like the Lancet study. Certainly the study is not perfect. A more accurate count could have been done by U.S. forces in the region, but they stubbornly refuse to give any estimate of civilian casualties. ("We don't do bodycounts" is the infamous quote.) So the Lancet study gives the best, most accurate estimate that we have available. The Lancet study is "referenced" already on the page, in a footnote, but it is not mentioned in the article text. It should be. It's certainly noteworthy, whether you like its conclusions or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:45, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, there is no dispute that massive aerial bombardment has taken place. Your criticism that the study provides no "methodology" for distinguishing aerial bombardment from mortar fire seems to be an attempt to cast doubt on the fact that aerial bombardment is a significant cause of death. And whilst it is true that mortar shells can be mistaken for rockets, use of mortars seems unlikely in the context of an ongoing aerial bombardment. What would the mortar emplacement fire at? A jet plane?

Motars might fire at marine enplacements and miss quite wildly, especially since it is safer for attackers to stand off at the limits of their accuracy and their training and equipment are not up professional standards. Recall how ineffective Iraqi air defenses were during the conflict, yet still they sent up explosive munitions that had to come down, many munitions that landed in civilian areas far away from any military targets could be mistaken by the civilians for US attacks, especially when Saddam regime propoganda refused to accept blame for immorally firing inaccurate and ineffective munitions (an unjust means). Even when an attack or explosion was due to US munitions, it is probably unlikely that any civilians near the explosion saw the planes, since they can standoff many miles and even over the horizon, so they would get accustomed to attributing attacks to planes without any evidence to support it. --Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You refer to "a 95% confidence range of 8000 to 194,000" . This is rather better than anything else we have. Iraq Body Count is based on press reports and cannot pretend to account for unreported deaths. The Project on Defense Alternatives is also limited in its data sources, taking data from journalistic compilaitons from hospital and morgue visits, and the reports of military commanders. Only the Lancet study attempts to interview a representative sample of Iraqi households, and a respectably large one at that, to find the familial mortality rates and causes.

The 95% confidence interval is the statistical evidence for how "respectably large" the "representative sample" was and such poor statistical strength does not justify the risks to the interviewers even before the methodological errors are taken into account.--Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You say "you attempted to bring in the aerial bombardment issue." But clearly we cannot discuss civilian casualties in the context of a war fought with a large aerial component, without discussing aerial bombardment. And I only brought up aerial bombardment to explain the much higher mortality rate in the sample around Falluja. I do so because Falluja has been bombed very heavily and is the most likely cause of death in this outlier.

Air "defenses", errant motars, etc. are just as likely to be the cause.--Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And the paragraph in question is about civilian casualties. Two estimates are given, and their flaws are well known. Please explain why you think this section is best without listing a third estimate, whose flaws you rightly list. I have no objection to adding words to the effect that "some have criticised not only the methodology and conclusion, but also the timing of this publication as an apparent attempt to influence the results of the US Presidential Election."

This qualification would make it much more acceptable, but I still don't see the point in bringing up the Falluja sample which was specifically rejected by even the authors of the study (perhaps under pressure of peer review). It might be appropriate to bring it up in a fully discussion of the study, but to mention it in this context and not other problems with the study, seems POV.--Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The question, as far as I'm concerned, is not whether the article gives much weight to Lancet study in a paragraph on mortality. It's whether that study is mentioned at all alongside the other estimates. I think that if they are mentioned, then it should be too. --Minority Report 20:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is mentioned in the table below, along with the confidence interval, I'm not sure I see the point in mentioning it again, but properly qualified it could be acceptable.--Silverback 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

errant motars, etc. are just as likely to be the cause.

You have not supported this claim, merely asserted it. Whether or not the Iraqi civilians can see the planes is immaterial; the planes are bombing and heavily so. To try to write this off as careless use of mortars isn't really defensible. Nevetherless it does not justify your excision of the reference--you could have added your observation.

The article is mentioned in the table below,

And it should also be mentioned alongside the other estimates. I don't understand why you want this particular estimate to be omitted from a paragraph that includes the other two--do you not see that this incorrectly summarises the state of research?

--Minority Report 21:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although we clearly won't all agree about the report itself, I think we can come to an agreement on how to mention the report in the article. I'll attempt to insert the information in a NPOV and mutually-acceptable way. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:36, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to the Falluja sample is at best superfluous. --Minority Report 21:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Story about BBC directive. Source?

I'm moving this out until we can establish its veracity. A brief Google search didn't give me much reason to believe it.

Last December, after Saddam Hussein's capture, the BBC issued a directive to all of its journalists that Saddam Hussein no longer be referred to as the "former Dictator" and be referred to as the "deposed former president" in all news stories. The BBC's reasoning for this was because Hussein had been elected with over 99% of the votes, it would not be accurate to refer to him as a dictator, since according to the BBC, he was the elected president of Iraq.

On the other hand, it's easy enough to find counter-examples:

"He said the capture of the Iraqi dictator was an important day for the country - as the figurehead of oppression had been removed." -BBC News, December 15, 2003.

"The London based organisation Indict, which has gathered evidence against Saddam Hussein and his associates, has published one eyewitness account of the dictator's personal behaviour." -BBC News, December 16, 2003.

"And unlike Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden does not have to answer for years in power. The latter was a deposed dictator with many enemies." -BBC News, December 17, 2003.

"Mufid Madisaleh says the capture of the former dictator brings hope" -BBC News, December 18, 2003.

"The end of freedom for the Iraqi dictator could not have been more ignominious." -BBC News, December 26, 2003.

Opposition irregardless of the merits?

In a recent edit by summarized as "the intellectual dishonesty [sic] of the UN extends far beyond oil for food, it is definitely more a political than a deliberative body" this sentence in section 4.2 Legality of the invasion:

has been changed to:

"In the countries whose governments supported the invasion, governements and media have called the good faith of the Council into question on this matter, on the grounds of the issues raised by trade with Iraq in violation of the sanctions, the corruption of the Oil for Food program and a resentment of the dominance of the USA that led to opposition irregardless of the merits." [emphasis added]

My question is: is that a neutral point of view to so strongly state in the encyclopedic article that the opposition to the invasion was meritless, even notwithstanding the outrageous comment about "the intellectual dishonesty of the UN" in the summary clearly showing a very strong bias? I am asking this question not only because that seems factually incorrect, I am mostly asking about the loaded pejorative style.

Well, I claim no responsability for the part you mention, but I think there are arguments in favour of the sentence, provided it is featured in such a way which makes it clear that it presents one side of the question. The "Oil for Food" question in arguably an important component of the popular understanding of the matter in the US.

I would more frankly worried if the informations were vastly more favourable to the invasion, or if the information was mixed in a series of contradictory arguments contradicting each others (like it is a little bit in the part about Kofi Annan. I would be in favour of removing the end of this paragraph from "However, non have..."). Rama 12:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that it is presenting one side of the question. It should come as no surprise, since there is broad support within the USA for the war, that public opinion here assumes that the USA was correct and justified on the merits and therefore the UN must have been corrupt and have ulterior motives. It is more informative for readers to see that both sides can articulate and defend a view that they were right in their actions. If the coalition nations don't believe that the UN security council opposition was intellectual dishonest, the likely alternative would be to see the opposition as stupid. The coalition nations do not believe they were doing something wrong, so when their positions are presented it should in terms that show they thought they were right. Merely mentioning the corruption of the Oil for food program, does not capture the sense of betrayal, backstabbing and dishonesty felt by those who thought the war was necessary.--Silverback 13:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, don't you feel that this perticular example of a view is rather extreme ? feelings of "betrayal, backstabbing and dishonesty", as you mention, are usually traits of people who are unsure of their own position. More nuanced positions, like explaining the opposition by a slowness of action, binding by local popular opinions or bad information, for instance, might improve the presentation of the side favorable to the war (I believe that people like Colin Powell or Condolezza Rice are likely to develop such points). As it is, I tend to feel that the article would present the supporters of the war as very simplistic people, which all were not . Rama 15:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, you say:

"there is broad support within the USA for the war, that public opinion here assumes that the USA was correct and justified on the merits and therefore the UN must have been corrupt and have ulterior motives. "

I'm sure that you're right in characterizing US majority public opinion in this way. However, the US and one or two other countries are really out on a limb in claiming that the war was justified in international law. Resolution 1441 had resulted in the setting up of a process of inspections. The inspectors were asking for "months, not years" to complete their task, and the USA was in a minority within the Security Council in wishing to deny the inspectors the time they requested. Chirac, much-demonized in the USA, plainly said that the inspectors must come back and say either "we're happy to announce that verified disarmament is being achieved", or "we're sorry, we cannot achieve disarmament." Then the Security Council should decide whether to go to war. This is in the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory. Most other members of the Security Council agreed with that line--hardly surprising as it's the basis of international law.

The US public can be as sure as they like about rightness of their cause, but in such circumstances it is pointless to discuss at length their sense of betrayal, which is clearly stems from their ignorance of international law. I appreciate that you're trying to articulate a feeling, but it's really not one worthy of discussion because it is not logically defensible. It flies in the fce of the known facts. --Minority Report 15:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The US public is no more sure about their rightness than the leftest elitism of Europe and the American left. You are wrong about the inspectors asking for months not years, you are neglecting the context of a dozen years of Saddam's non-compliance and the inspectors being thrown out in 1998 which many in the US thought also justified enforcement (see PNAC). The inspectors were only allowed back in, in response to a USA troop build-up and the inspectors interim report showed that Saddam was still not forthcoming and was trying to delay and frustrate the inspectors. Chirac was demonized for even trying the inspectors again after the years of non-compliance. He was part of the reason the UN had lost credibility. That said, the real blame belongs to Saddam, Chirac was just an enabler. Iraq could have been peaceful and prosperous years earlier, if Saddam had been willing to step aside, and give up his sovereign right to oppress, corrupt and obfuscate (which evidently the UN respects). With the UN it clear that a "few more months", was more likely a prelude to another "few more months", based on past performance and a loss of credibility. Unfortunately, law is implemented by humans, and when they are corrupt, one is only delaying the inevitable, by giving it undue respect. The US made the mistake of forming an "international consensus" in the first gulf war, that murdered over 100 thousand innocent Iraqi conscripts, but left a dictator in power that we had to fight again. Europe should have learned the leasons of appeasement long ago.--Silverback 20:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"leftest elitism...appeasement " Could we have a little less of the extreme rightwing party line here? Your claim that I am "wrong about the inspectors asking for months not years" is bizarre. That is precisely what Hans Blix asked for in his speech. Please, a little less rhetoric, a little more factual discussion. And if you're going to claim that someone is wrong, please do try to provide evidence to support the claim. --Minority Report 01:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As bizzarre as it may seem, Saddam's lack of cooperation and intimidation and attacks on anyone who cooperated, gave the distinct impression here in the US, that the next few months were not likely to be anymore productive than the last few and that more time would be requested ad infinitum. During his captivity Saddam revealed that he wanted neighboring countries to believe he still had weapons of mass destruction, to explain his lack of cooperation. Several of his scientists have revealed that the intent was to restart the programs once the sanctions were removed. So even if the inspectors had discovered that his obfuscation was a ruse, in the grand scheme of things, it was better to take advantage of the troop deployments that had already taken place, rather than to have to go through the whole process again later.--Silverback 02:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, the PNAC is most definitely not a NPOV, seeing as the list of founders includes almost all the current Bush Administration, the President himself excepted. I think that citing it as a source when describing US popular opinion is inaccurate. Furthermore, seeing as that body advocated invasion of Iraq as far back as it's formation in 1997 in order to lobby Clinton's Administration, including it in the discourse automatically undermines any of your own assertions, re: rationale for the invasion, by implying that ANY rationale is merely a justification for an event planned a half decade before the Bush Administration even came to power.--Blackguard 02:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blackgard, the PNAC view was broadly popular in the US, in the immediate aftermath of the first gulf war at least a significant minority in the US thought the job was incomplete, that leaving Saddam in power was immoral, and the US would just have to fight him again. Some have looked at the PNAC publications and the high positions the members of the think tank were given within the administration as indications that war with Iraq was inevitable even if 9/11 had not occurred. The war clearly was not inevitible, yes, Bush's appointments indicate he was not going to let Saddam continue to defy the no fly zone and fail to comply with sanctions, however, the war could easily have been avoided if Saddam had changed his behavior. Those who maintain that war was inevitable, must also be making conclusions about Saddam's character and his likelyhood of reform. I agree, but then I was suprised that Kadafi changed. You fail to present your reasoning, how are my assertions undermined?--Silverback 09:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you took the PNAC view, where Iraq is the staging point for a larger campaign against all the problem nations the US faces and culminates with 'broad spectrum global dominance' of the US over all other nations, including US allies, you are worlds away from a simple moral justification for taking out Saddam. Does the US public know the extent of their plans? No. Virtually all US citizens would be hard pressed to name the group, find their web site or quote some of their policy stances, so linking the PNAC with a sizeable minority opinion simply based on both groups wanting Saddam out is disengenious. A claim could be made that the 'reason' the Bush Administration invaded Iraq was to further the PNACs stated goals for global spectrum dominance, but that the 'excuses' were Saddam's beligerence, WMDs and supposed ties to Al Quaida. Citing the PNAC in your post invited people to learn more about their policies, which can only weaken the validity of the excuses, because at the site they find the reason explicitly stated. The point is moot, though, and was an aside from me to you - the PNAC is stil not a NPOV, seeing as they support one side of the argument. As such, my recommendation would be to exclude any value statements they may have to make on the issue.--Blackguard 18:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find it interesting that so many people say that the US attacked Iraq against UN because Iraq failed to comply with UN sanctions (just like Israel, nota bene, only to a much lesser extend). Actually, every supposed reason of this invasion would be almost funny if we weren't talking about a war. Failing to comply with UN sanctions--what about Israel? Weapons of mass destruction--what about China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, et al.? Removing an evil dictator--again what about China, North Korea, et al.? -- Meanwhile, no weapons of mass destruction were found (surprising only to those who said "UN inspectors didn't find anything, therefore Saddam must have hidden it"), the supposed links to Al-Qaeda have already been disproved countless times, the evil dicatator has already been removed irregardless of the merits, and yet the Iraqis keep dying and those who are alive are hardly "free"... What I find the most depressing is the fact that people still keep making up excuses. Personally I blame the cognitive dissonance resulting from the "we are good, they are evil" bifurcation fallacy, but understanding the underlying mechanism doesn't make it any less depressing. 83.31.25.90 21:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Popular view

This looks a little odd.

Although Iraq was known to have pursued an active nuclear weapons development program previously, as well tried to procure materials and equipment for their manufacture, these weapons and material have yet to be discovered. This casts doubt on some of the accusations against Iraq, despite previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons, and that Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production. However, some believe that the weapons were moved into Syria and Lebanon.

Firstly it is my impression that the only nuclear weapon development program "previously" pursued was some time ago--before 1991.

Secondly, the situation has gone beyond "doubt on the accusations". They've been discounted by every person and agency that has been given the task of looking for those weapons. The most that can be said, according to the US's own inspectors, appears to be that Saddam Hussein, like nearly every head of state in the world, had the intent to obtain weapons of mass destruction.--Minority Report 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Really now, "nearly every head of state"'?--Silverback 02:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you question this; I almost omitted the word "nearly". New countries join the nuclear club regularly, some in violation of the Non-proliferation treaty to which they are signatories. All major victor nations of the Second World War obtained nuclear weapons inside the decade, and most have hydrogen bombs. Yes, I think we can state that it's the intent of nearly every head of state to obtain nuclear weapons. --Minority Report 03:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Really, which european union countries besides those that already have them (France and Britain) do you think are seeking nuclear weapons or even would bother with them if offered them on a platter? Which countries in north or south america? There might be Islamic countries with a militant bent that would like to have them, but most third world countries can barely keep their social fabric together and can't afford to even think about nukes. The only democracies that might be tempted are those that are threatened by existing nukes, such as S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc.--Silverback 09:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What nonsense. Britain, France and the USA obtained nuclear weapons when they were democracies. And as you admit yourself, democracies may have good reason to obtain nuclear weapons. India is the most recent pertinent example. Israel also, though it has never been threatened by existing nuclear weapons, obtained them and even spread them to the odious apartheid RSA. You're living in cloud cuckoo land matey.

Thirdly, the claim that there were "previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons" seems a little far-fetched. Has a UN agency ever claimed that it was likely that Iraq had usable nuclear weapon technology?

Fourthly, on the claim: "Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production"

This was not the case in March, 2003--at least according to El Baradei.

Finally, some people may think that Iraq shipped the WMDs out to Syria and whatnot, but it might be nice if we could muster some evidence for this opinion. I mean, some people think there are little green men from Mars, but their opinion amounts to doodly squat without some justification. --Minority Report 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That line serves to illustrate the possibilities. Absense of proof is not the same as proof of absense. Given that the total access of an occupying force can't provide much reassurance that some of the chemical and biological weapons don't remain, a few months of inspections wouldn't make much difference. --Silverback 02:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. I've changed the line "However, some believe that the weapons were moved into Syria and Lebanon." to read "Some believe, based on the circumstances, that the weapons were originally present in Iraq but were moved into a sympathetic country (or countries). However, there is no hard evidence supporting this theory." --Ben 19:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your wording is acceptable, thanx. Yes, the inspectors would never have been able to prove a negative, but Saddam could have opened up "his" weapons programs and country in such a way that credibility and trust could be engendered.--Silverback 01:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy with the present wording. Although I have reservations about giving credence to what I consider to be crackpot theories, I think the reader can make that evaluation --Minority Report 03:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now I'm not looking for a debate on the politics; I don't expect to agree with all opinions expressed in an encyclopedia entry, but we're supposed to be adopting a neutral point of view here, not peddling somebody's party line. I do think it would be nice if we could be sure that the truth of the statements of fact can be established and are an accurate and full account of the known facts. --Minority Report 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you talk about Powell intervention at the UN ? He was stating that he has evidence about WMD in Iraq, and all the document he showed were proven falsified. This is a major issue in the cause of the war, and shows how USA lied to the U.N.

There is something about this in The UN Security Council and the Iraq war. It is true that some info is not very evident in this article, notably the rationals which led to the war. I had seen an article about it in the past, but couldn't find it... comments anyone ? Rama 16:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Senate Committee on Intelligence Report

I think this article should include information from and reference to the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, part 1 of 2, which was released July 9, 2004. One of the main conclusions of that report is:

"Most of the major key judgements in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularily in the analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

I think it is just as important to include this report as it is Duefler's report. --Ben 18:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) This was also one of the conclusions of the Butler Report on British use of intelligence prior to the Iraq War, 2003. --Minority Report 03:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Second study

Silverback asked "where is the second independent study?", and reverted the text from saying "Two independent studies" to mentioning only the Lancet study. The second study is a John Hopkins University study. It's linked to from right next to where you reverted: [6] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?ex=1100494800&en=98a258b1c2ea35d8&ei=5070). I'm going to change the text back to refer to the other study as well.

If wish you would ask any questions you have here, and wait for an answer, before reverting. It's rude. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:31, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been reverting while you were writing the above, or at least before my watchlist was updated. However, you have made an inadvertent mistake, the two studies are one and the same. The John Hopkins study is the one published in The Lancet.--Silverback 07:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um. . . oops. I was misinformed. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:45, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of chart

Silverback, why are you removing the entire chart? You said you thought it was POV; please explain. It doesn't seem POV to me to say that the commander of the coalition forces was Tommy Franks, or that Iraq had 300,000 soldiers. If there are parts you find POV, let's discuss them here. But don't just unilaterally delete an entire chart without an explanation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

The titles don't make sense. "Opposing parties", "Invaders", "Defenders", for casualties among the "Defenders", the Lancet estimate of civilian casualties is used. Why not have the "Opposing parties", be "Liberators" vs. "Oppressors", and the Iraqi army other than the republic guard, for the most part did not fight, why are they listed on either side? Where would the Kurds and Shiites go, however they feel about the occupation, they were not supporters of Saddam. I just don't see the chart as useful or reparable, nearly every entry would have to change, what is the value of it?--Silverback 03:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see your point Silverback, but "Invader" and "Defender" are a lot less value laden than "Liberators" vs. "Oppressors", seeing that not everone regards the coalition forces as liberators and the point is generally up for discussion in the public at large. I agree that the Kurd Militia should be listed with coalition forces seeing as they were a large part of the action in the north, but as far as I know, there were no Shi'a forces dedicated to the conflict, but I can definitely be corrected. I don't see the problems you have with the chart being insurmountable, so what do you say to placing the chart back and working on some mutually agreeable solutions, i.e. removing the Lancet study or clearly defining it as civilian in nature?--Blackguard 20:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should be able to work out something. I only proposed Liberators and Oppressors, as an example of how POV the existing titles might seem to others. I don't see why casualties are needed in this chart however. It duplicates the chart below and duplicates the effort required to keep them consistent. Since civilian casualties will have an admixture of irregular fighter casualties among them, it will be difficult to come up with an equivilent figure to the coalition casualties. For the most part the civilian casualties, as presumably innocent third parties, should not be in either category. Anyone who restores the chart, should have an idea that they implement at the same time that is an attempt to make it less POV. I can see the motivation and usefulness of having something succinct like a chart at the top of a longer article like this. Perhaps this chart is overloaded, why not move the casualty chart up there also, instead of overloading this two column chart?--Silverback 23:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion One: "Coalition Forces" vs. "Iraqi Forces". More or less neutral and the list will show the few coalition members with actual troops on the ground, so there would be no need to further clarify with a title like 'US-led Forces'. If we were ambitious, this could become the Order of Battle requested above in the talk. Suggestion Two: captions of a sort on the entries, so that you can indicate which forces barely participated, where we have made estimates of numbers for irregular troops, etc. Suggestion Three: Keep troop casualties on the chart where they are relevant. Suggestion Four: Small chart nearby (underneath?) so that it is linked visually, citing the population of Iraq (perhaps broken down by ethnicity) and the estimated civilian casualties to date, but with a disclaimer on the accuracy of the data. I would suggest 'estimate based on best possible data available as of x date' and include all the referenced estimates (Iraqi Body Count, Lancet, etc.) With the disclaimer, we shouldn't have to go into detail on how each estimate is flawed specifically. Just seeing the wide range of numbers will be enough to show how inaccurate civilian body counts can be. Comments?--Blackguard 08:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check my suggestion on the disclaimer. I re-read the one already there and consider its wording acceptable. I still think two charts are necessary (military and civilian) but that they should be kept together in the same section. Including the troop numbers in the chart would allow a re-write on the section about the "Coalition of the Willing" to be more concise.--Blackguard 09:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a disclaimer is even necessary, disclosures of the sources are the disclaimer in a sense. The 100,000 estimate is so outrageous that I oppose its use without the confidence range, but I think you were intending that anyway. If the chart is to include the occupation as well as the initial invasion, then I don't think the "Iraqi Forces" label captures the significant foreign component of the insurgency, and the participation of the provisional Iraqi government forces as part of the coalition. Frankly, I am concerned that the situation is too complex to do justice to capsulize in a table, although success in such an accomplishment would be an admirable contribution to the page.--Silverback 11:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we need to stick to a date, though, seeing as casualties are still coming, even if we omit the disclaimer. The disclaimer was an olive branch seeing as you have issues with including the Lancet study and I personally don't like assuming that people are intelligent enough to understand confidence intervals, myself. I see your point about how Iraqi forces are now part of the coalition, in a way, and can cause problems. How about a separate Order of Battle chart prior to the invasion listing forces and then a comprehensive chart on casualties with two entries for the Iraqi military, during and after the actual invasion? I don't think it would be THAT hard to do.--Blackguard 16:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about Bush's Cessation of Hostilities date splitting the casualty chart into two charts, pre and post? Pre would have the Iraqi miliary in the con position, post would have them in the pro position.--Blackguard 17:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a format that could accomodate any objections. It also sounds like it'll take some work, but you appear to have a vision, best wishes. On the lancet study, I ordinarily don't think statistical details like the confidence interval add much, but in this case, it is so wide that even the naive will percieve that the 100,000 is not a statistically strong number. If the Lancet had published it, despite its weakness, out of respect for the dangerous work the researchers had done, I could understand it, but to also rush it out in advance of the election diminished the journal.--Silverback 17:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You call confidence interval a detail ?? Rama 17:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chill, dude. Just because it's a detail doesn't mean it's unimportant. We all think the CI should be included. Think lovely thoughts. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I added this page to {{NPOV}} because right away in the first few paragraphs the article seems to draw a connection between Iraq, September 11th, Saddam, and bin Ladin. It should be made very clear that no such connection exists or existed.

I've reviewed the first few paragraphs, there is not even a mention of 9/11 or bin Laden, this must be anonymous vandalism, there is a connection between Saddam and Iraq, but that is not POV.--Silverback 01:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You right-wingers, always trying to allege links between Iraq and Saddam when none have been proven to exist. ;) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:08, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanx, sometimes we even get agreement on that one. 8-)> --Silverback 03:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Major NPOV problems upheld only because Rama has more time than anybody else. First off, articles should inherently not have "absence" statements. Whether the invasion had UN approval or not is a debatable point. Inherently, one doesn't put debatable points in articles. Moreover, stating something didn't have something can be done for any and all war/battle pages even if absence is acknowledged. For example, World War I did not have UN Security Council approval=that is, technically, a true statement. Should statement be included? Next: Article should inherently be about the invasion, including military and political details as necessary, but not a point by point debate of every argument against the war. Put all the political debate on a separate page, and retain article as standard military battle article. Rama your work elsewhere seems pretty professional. Try to acknowledge your own strong anti-war bias.-Naif 13:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UN Sanctions Usefulness

I largely rewrote the last paragragh in "Weapons of Mass Destruction", replacing:

However, the facts also remain that the sanctions could not be kept in place indefinitely, and that Saddam's ongoing efforts to sway certain UN Security Council members with oil bribes were almost certain to, in the absence of American intervention, result in the dropping of the sanctions by 2006.

because it a) does not mention the humanitarian crisis that prompted fresh approaches to the sanctions, b) projects a date for the raising of the sanctions, which can only be conjecture (as would the reasoning for them being raised) and c) implies that US intervention was the only solution to prevent the raising of the sanctions, even though other alternatives like directed sanctions had been tabled by other parties. As it sat, this passage implied that the US was the only ethical actor in a corrupted system, which isn't particularly a NPOV. I also added links showing international discussion of the sanctions and showing evidence of the Oil for Food bribery. Suggestions are welcome.--Blackguard 10:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

casualty charts on both pages look good

I think you found the right balance [Quadell]. Footnotes do the trick on the small chart, and on the other page, having the qualifications in the chart itself, because footnotes would be too far away. --thanx, --Silverback 23:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

April 15

I notice that the summary box gives the end of the invasion as April 15, 2003. Why is this date used and not, say, President Bush's May 1st announcement? --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 17:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TDC's edit 06:17, 17 Dec 2004

I looked at this edit, which is described thus: "(Causes of the Invasion - removed POV irrelevant material)"

The removed sections are as follows: 1. Removal of section describing the context of Kay's explanations of the pre-war US perceptions in the media.

either Iraq did or did not have WMD programs, the Kay report and the Duelfer report both conclude that Iraq did have WMD development programs, but was not producing WMD's. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

2. Removal of section describing Kay's political donations, which clearly provides context for his current stance.

Kay's personal and private activities and political leanings belongs in the David Kay article, not this one, it is a not too subtle insertion of POV and is designed to question Kay's objectivity. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

3. Removal of mention of Rumsfeld's meeting with, and praise of, Saddam Hussein as Reagan's special envoy.

Once again, Rumsfeld's meeting with Hussein is not relevant, or that is to say it is of no more relevance than Hugo Chavez's or Jacques Chirac's meeting with Hussein and the position they took on the war. TDC 06:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

These omissions are factual in nature and not obviously counter to NPOV. Accordingly I am reverting this edit for now, pending discussion of its rationale. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response.

On point 1, the removed text states: "when it actually had minimal to no programs concerning mass destruction." That is, is it not, an accurate description of the findings on the state of affairs in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion.

On point 2, I think you must have misread the section in question. Kay's position is contrary to that of the administration. His prominent support for the administration disposes of the suspicion that he could simply be axe-grinding.

On point 3, I don't think any of those matters can be described as irrelevant. In particular, the Reagan administration was attempting to get bigger loans for the Iraqis at a time when Congress was pushing through a bill condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons at Halabja (the administration opposed the bill). Rumsfeld's praise for the Iraqi government at that time is, I think a highly significiant part of the history of US-Iraqi relations. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

significant in that it points to the embarrassing compromises made when one embraces enemies of one's enemies (Iran), certainly Roosevelts meetings with Stalin, etc. should also be mentioned in those articles, and are of far more significance. The policy significance of the meeting was not significant. Embraces and complements are common in diplomatic circles.--Silverback 00:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kazvorpal's edit

The following text has been reverted by TDC, with a request for documentation.

Before the attack, the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq, and doubted they existed. Former top American weapons inspector to Iraq, Scott Ritter, an long an advocate of more thorough weapons inspections previously and considered an anti-Iraq hardliner, said that he was now absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, most of the international community outside the US/UK came to some form of this conclusion, or at least were ambivalent. The Bush administration, though, said they had additional, secret intelligence they could not yet make public which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq had such weapons.

TDC, would you perhaps state which parts of the text you think need explicit references ?

Most of the text is confirmed in Hans Blix's book Disarming Iraq. I suggest the possible following links for the above text :

Before the attack, the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq, and doubted they existed [7] (http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0375423028&view=excerpt), [8] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html). Former top American weapons inspector to Iraq, Scott Ritter, an long an advocate of more thorough weapons inspections previously and considered an anti-Iraq hardliner, said that he was now absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction [9] (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/4.3.03/Ritter_cover.html). In fact, most of the international community outside the US/UK came to some form of this conclusion, or at least were ambivalent. The Bush administration, though, said they had additional, secret intelligence they could not yet make public which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq had such weapons.

As for the "The Bush administration, though, said they had additional, secret intelligence they could not yet make public which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq had such weapons" part, there are several instances in speeches by Georges Bush Jr. Significant parts of the President Bush's State of the Union (http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/n_012903_president-bush-state-union.htm) (28th of January 2003) address these question, quoting extremely dubious intelligence (to say the best), including allusions to chemical materials which should have been decayed by the time; "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"; "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."; "From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves"; "From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."

A few other quotes follow :

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." --President Georges Bush Jr., 17th of March 2003 [10] (http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_031803.htm))

"Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one" --President Georges Bush Jr., 12th of September 2002 [11] (http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president-bush-speech-091302.htm))

We also have declarations by Colin Powell:

"There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth. One of these lies is graphically and indisputably demonstrated by intelligence we collected on June 27, last year." --Colin Powell, 5th of February 2003 [12] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889550,00.html)

If there are other parts of the text which you think are not factually established yet, please report them. Otherwise, do we consider the problem solved ? Thanks ! Rama 10:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I searched on "weapons" in your Hans Blix links and did not see him explicitly say he did not believe they had any. If he says it in his book, was that published before or after the attack? The statement you propose states he "says" that before the attack. In the same sources you site, Blix does say that if Saddam had make a stronger statement and resolved some "issues", the war could have been avoided. --Silverback 12:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to make sure we understand each other, I do not propose any statement; give to Kazvorpal what belongs to Kazvorpal.

As for Hans Blix, he did say that until quite late, his personal feelings were that Iraq did have some sort of forbidden items [13] (http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/010968.html) (the originial LA Times article unfortunately requires subscription). However, his opinion on this subject might have somewhat weakened immediately before the war (I'd have to re-read Disarming Iraq about this); this is suggested by statements like "it would prove paradoxical and absurd if 250,000 troops were to invade Iraq and find very little." [14] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3544889.stm)

Also, Blix questionned the further operations in terms which suggest doubts on the existance of significant prohibited items : "I think the Americans started the war thinking there were some. I think they now believe less in that possibility." (Hans Blix, about US officials [15] (http://truthout.org/docs_03/041203A.shtml)). By September, Blix was convinced that Iraq had not been in possession of forbidden items [16] (http://globalsecurity.com/weapons_of/hans_blix.htm).

The question of when exactly Blix changed his mind might be addressed in Disarming Iraq (I'll check); if we don't find conclusive informations, or if we find that Blix's opinion changed after the war, we might alter the sentance in the article to something like

"Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq, and retrospectively doubted they existed".

Would this sound acceptable ? Rama 14:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the curiously broad reverted segment, making the changes (suggested here) to the actual areas apparently in question, at least until I can find a way to document the statements I watched Blix make on CNN. Specifically, he said that the teams had been unable to find any evidence, that he doubted the existenced of such weapons, but (this could be what lent an impression that he thought there were weapons) that the Hussein regime had not sometimes dragged their feet in cooperating, and that it was therefore possible they were hiding something. "Something" need not be actual WMD, of course. Kaz 16:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Silverback has commented on one of my questions already, specifically when did Blix state with certainty that Iraq had no WMD's and whether his past incompetence in Iraq could also be called into question here. See Hans Blix for a primer on Iraq's nuclear program slipping under Blix's radar when he was inspector in the 80's.

That would definitely be an NPoV problem, especially since Blix passed the test of prediction. It's a bit late to call into question his competence, when it turns out that he was correct. Kaz 19:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also have a problem with In fact, most of the international community outside the US/UK came to some form of this conclusion, or at least were ambivalent.. It was my understanding that the vast majority of the worlds intelligence community did indeed believe that Iraq was hiding WMD's. TDC 17:19, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any agreement with the Bush administration position, outside of Britain and Poland...which is part of why nobody else was willing to send troops. One fact I had actually left out in an effort to keep the article neutral is that on a couple of occasions a Bush official claimed to show some national leader the "Secret evidence" which I mentioned uncritically, only to have that official then say "I've seen no real proof at all". Kaz 19:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"revert, please learn how to be selective if you have problems"

(moved from )

Look who is talking, you revived the old "regime" issue that the community had settled long ago, and you mixed it in with some html fixes, and your derogatory portrayal of the insurgents as "guerillas". Please learn to be selective if you want to really make a contribution.--Silverback 12:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as the word “regime” is concerned, quoting from the article:

This campaign has featured a variety of new and weighted terminology, much coined by the U.S. government and then repeated by the media… Also notable was the exclusive usage of "regime" to refer to the Saddam Hussein government…

Then using the word in the article is an admission of POV.

As for doing changes in bulk, that was done to save load on the servers. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will remove that. It is obviously an untrue statement, the use of "regime" is by no means new. Also the use of regime is not exclusive to Saddam, it has been used with American presidents. Regime does have a sense of personality, but then government has negative connotations at times in American politics.--Silverback 14:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have complete confidence that larding articles on American politics with references to "the Bush regime" would be quickly reverted. The word carries strong negative connotations as applied to a government. It's unacceptably POV except in direct quotations or in a reference to a specific program, such as "the sanctions regime". JamesMLane 15:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was last raised only by Susvolans back around Oct 29. If you look at this talk page and the Popular_opposition_to_war_on_Iraq talk page, you will find both sides comfortable with the term regime, this article uses "Allawi regime". The fact that you classify "Bush regime" references you found as perjorative, doesn't mean the language has changed, although if it gets used enough in a perjorative sense, it may change. Language is not static. In the US we happen to use "administration" more. The Iraqi government doesn't have a long history of regular change of leadership, so governments are more identified by personalities, because it isn't as if there is a tradition of general Iraqi policies that transcend their administrations. "The main achievements of the Bush regime have been the liberation of the Afghan and Iraqi peoples and a medicare drup program." That doesn't sound perjorative, and the dictionaries don't say it is perjorative. It may be attributing more credit to Bush than we usually do in our strong cabinent based system, which is why we are more likely to use administration.--Silverback 17:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Bush government" would be more likely to get reverted. Regime is not POV or perjorative, look in the dictionary. When used perjoratively orally the voice must be inflected to convey the perjoration, "regime" alone does not carry it. Note, that the US uses the term "regime change" even though the new regime they intend is democratic. They would hardly do that if they considered it perjorative.--Silverback 15:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Responses:

OK, I looked in a dictionary, "our" dictionary in fact, and found this: "Note: This word is often used as a pejorative." -- Retrieved from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Regime Following up with a Google search for the phrase "Bush regime", I found all the hits on the first page to be pejorative. Skimming the next couple pages suggested that the same is true of them. The top hit is for "The Bush Regime Card Deck" (http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/bushregimedeck.html), which concerns "the emergence of a new regime that threatens Liberty in America and Peace in the rest of the world."

This has been corrected please see the discussion on talk:Regime. No authoritative sources label it as perjorative, there is a secondary definition in one source that says it sometimes implies an "oppressive" government. This may be why it is sometimes viewed as pejorative when applied to governments you like, but this is being properly applied to Saddam's regime.--Silverback 14:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your example of usage will be more persuasive if, after the Iraqi elections, Bush is using a phrase like "the Allawi regime" to praise the new government. In the meantime, while we await the flowering of Iraqi democracy, how often has Bush actually used such a phrase about a particular government he supports, as opposed to one like Saddam's that he's decided to overthrow?
You said that Susvolans had 'revived the old "regime" issue that the community had settled long ago...' I didn't see this point addressed in the talk here. Was there a prior discussion that ended in a consensus that "regime" is NPOV? If so, can you direct me to it? JamesMLane 16:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I find checking the available Wikipedia pages:

You're correct that, on October 29, Susvolans edited this article by changing "regime" to "government", noting that the former was POV. You reverted a few hours later. Susvolans chose not to get into an edit war with you (and in fact didn't make any more edits to the page until January 11). That history hardly makes it an "issue that the community had settled long ago" -- and even if it were, such points are open to reconsideration. The listing on RfC by Susvolans is a good initial step.

It was settled if all sides were using it without objection, the community settled on that term with no problems associated with it.--Silverback 21:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article Popular opposition to war on Iraq doesn't use the word. On Talk:Popular opposition to war on Iraq, there's no discussion of whether "regime" is POV. The usage of it on that page is that it's applied to Saddam's government by people who are hostile to Saddam. Its only other usage is with reference to the coalition governments, in a comment by Christiaan criticizing them: "It's not just that our regimes ignored the plight of Iraqis, it's that they actively oppressed them ...."

Thus, it's still clear that the word is used exclusively or at least overwhelmingly to express disapproval. Your hypothetical example ("The main achievements of the Bush regime....") struck me as strange. I wouldn't expect to find an actual Bush supporter writing that except, for example, as an ironic usage in response to someone who had criticized "the Bush regime". JamesMLane 19:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorise war. Therefore it did not."

Hmmm, more than these three passed the resolution. Why do these three and not the others get to decide what it meant? Acts of war, like the no-fly zone and the sanctions had already been authorized and were still being "implemented". Are you saying there was no threat in 1441? The UN when it uses sanctions commits itself to follow through and back them up every so often, otherwise its threats become meaningless.--Silverback 22:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) I added that paragraph. It is a simple matter of legal interpretation. All contracts in normal civil law and in public international law are to be interpreted according to what the parties intended. It's a basic tenet of legal reasoning. I'm afraid you're wrong about the Security Council (which I expect you mean when you say the UN). The charta requires explicit and positive sanction for an invasion. It did not take place.

A simple matter of legal interpretation. So, you are a fan of strict constructionism then? As in, you agree with the methodology used by Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in "interpreting" the United States Federal Constitution? Excellent.

The debate around this always is between people who do have an understanding of law (ie. war was illegal) and those who do not (ie. split between both opinions). But an opinion of moral rectitude is not the same as legal right. Sorry.

What is law? More so, what is law without the ability to enforce it? Is it law? Then, what is international law if that international law cannot be enforced? Who should/may/must enforce it? What so many people refer to as international law is not law in any legal sense of the word. In particular coming from my American point of view regarding law, in that the mere fact that a legislative body passes some statute does not make it law. Rather, it is the application of that statute to particular facts in a particular circumstance by a court which makes law. Law is grey, mutable, and only of concrete meaning in concrete applications. The fact that the international police aren't going to come and haul you off to the international pokey to await trial before the international court prior to your incarceration in the international prison points convincingly to the fact that what is popularily called international law and considered to be a concrete, understood, black and white thing is not. International law is a complex web of voluntary treaty obligations amongst sovereign nations, each of which has sovereign immunity, and is anything but a simple matter of legal interpretation. Except to the simple.

...Oh, I see what you just complained about. Then I should add that contracts wouldn't bind people to something EXTRA that they hadn't intended, but would fall on the side of not obliging people. Pick up any good Public International Law book. Promise! (and I agree that Kofi is a bit of a tool. He could've objected earlier!)

(Dunno who wrote the above -Tony Sidaway|Talk)

To interpret the wording one has to look at former resolutions legalizing war under Chapter VII. None of these use the wording "serious consequences". They include "by all means necessary" and often explicit authorize the use of force to "restore international peace and security". This fact is also recognised by the US, as they legally justified the war not with res1441 but claiming breach of the 91 cease fire. Here's an article discussing res 1441. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0317sorryblair.htm A lot of other law resources regarding the Iraq war can be found here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

UK ambassador to the UN: "the matter would return to the [UN Security] Council"

Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN, made it plain that in the view of he UK government, 1441 was not war-enabling:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities. Jeremy Greenstock, 8 November, 2002, addressing the UN Security Council.

I was told the US ambassador at the time said something similar. I'll try to track it down if it's true. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An online source for the Greenstock statement quoted above is:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/FCO/uk-fco-greenstock-110802.htm

Oh, even better, you can get both the Greenstock and Negroponte statements, in full context, from the UN website:

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.4644&Lang=E

This was the 4644th meeting of the Security Council, on November 8, 2002. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John Negroponte, US ambassador to the UN, "no hidden trigger"

I found it.

"It is a resolution that sets out two stages, that if there are reports that Iraq is not complying then that matter will come back to the council for consideration." John Negroponte, US State Department communique, November 6, 2002.

So it wasn't just the other members of the security council. All of them agreed that the Council itself would have the last word, should it decide that Iraq was still in breach of its obligations (which Blix and El Baradei were not reporting in any case). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not reporting", Blix stated that there were still issues. What is the "last word", the security council did get to consider it, and Iraq still was not in compliance, that is why some wanted the US threat maintained on the border so that inspections would continue, and the U.S. and U.K. decided they needed to act before the full heat of summer.--Silverback 04:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The last word is of course the decision to go to war--a decision that, under the UN Charter to which the USA and UK are signatories, only the United Nations Security Council is empowered to authorize in the circumstances pertaining prior to the invasion. Blix described Iraqi cooperation as "active or even proactive" and in no way stated that Iraq was not in full compliance--indeed the USA and UK were reported to be furious with him for not presenting them with a case for war. The coalition clearly believed that Iraq was still in breach, but this belief did not find much support in the Security Council and indeed was convincingly refuted by the final reports of Blix and El Baradei. Both specifically requested more time so that full compliance could be verified. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This information about what the U.S. and U.K. ambassadors said contemporaneously is very interesting and should be included in the article. Do you have hyperlinks to an online source for either? Failing that, can you provide a fuller cite for a printed source? The simple "US State Department communique", with a date, wouldn't enable most readers to find the document easily. JamesMLane 02:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry I took so long to get back. I picked it up from this document in, of all places, the website of the US Embassy in New Delhi:

http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/wwwhpr110702a.html

See the Greenstock section (above this one) for the original source of Negroponte's statement.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please document the source of Kofi Anan's "formal invalidation" power.

Is his power a "veto"? a peer reviewed formal proof? What? How does he exercise his power, does he do it by answering a question in an interview? Does he have to issue a formal statement the meets certain standards and has gotten certain approvals? Does he also have powers as a "judge" to determine matters of international law?--Silverback 17:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kofi Anan has no formal power of invalidation. Like anybody else, however, he is free to observe that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to the United States' commitments under the UN charter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just realised I might have unwillingly created confusion here; I meant something both "official" and "with no ambiguity"; it seems that my formulation was not adequate and actually had a different meaning, sorry for this. The present formulation ("Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the UN charter, declared ...") is quite close to what I intended to say. Rama 15:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments about use of "regime"

I have not followed this page at all--just came over in response to a request for comments about whether the term "regime," when applied to Hussein's government, is excessively POV.

"Regime" is sometimes applied to connote an authoritarian government, or to suggest the changable, temporary, nature of a ruling individual or group. So I can see where someone might have an issue with it. But strictly speaking, the term is accurate, and even if you agree that it connotes an authoritarian state, I don't think there is much dispute that Hussein's government was authoratarian (is there?). So my impression (again, wihout a detailed knowledge of the history here) is that the term is a fair and acceptable one, and this page is doing astonishingly well if disputes are limited to such fine shades of meaning. --BTfromLA 18:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. It strikes many people as having a pejorative connotation, and is almost always used with reference to a leader or government that the speaker dislikes (for whatever reason). How is the reader worse off if "regime" is changed to "government", which is certainly accurate? Would any information be lost? It would be reasonable to note at some point that one of Bush's stated justifications for the invasion was that Saddam's government was undemocratic or dictatorial or repressive or authoritarian or whatever term Bush used. Then the point has been conveyed and it doesn't need to be brought up, by implication, every time reference is made to the government of Iraq before the invasion. JamesMLane 19:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Favor. Please see the discussion on talk:Regime. No authoritative sources label it as perjorative, there is a secondary definition in one source that says it sometimes implies an "oppressive" government. This may be why it is sometimes viewed as pejorative when applied to governments you like, but this is being properly applied to Saddam's regime.--Silverback 21:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I understand that "regime" is not necessarily negative, especially in Britain, but I think "government" is a better term that is more neutral. I would also object to a reference to "the Bush regime". A statement like "The Baathist government was widely refered to as the 'Saddam Regime' by the American press" would be fine. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 21:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Whilst "regime" might not be a negative term by definition, its practical use mostly is (at least, here on Wikipedia). Take a look at the English Wikipedia articles using the word "regime": [17] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=regime+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org). Then take note of the adjectives attributed to the word in these articles. You'll find words like: harsh, brutual, oppressive, corrupt, Nazi, Marxist, fascist, authoritarian, puppet, dictatorial, apartheid. Most of these terms would be considered "negative" or "bad" by a majority of people. After that, try to find articles that use "positive" adjectives with "regime", like open, successful, friendly, peaceful, etcetera. You'll be hard pressed to find any.

My conclusion: "regime" is predominantly used in a negative context to describe an unwanted form of government. That makes "Iraqi regime" a perfectly valid choice of words by the current US government, but IMHO not for an NPOV encyclopedia. --Plek 22:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If regime was that negative, it would not need all those other terms with it, "regime" would be able to stand as negative on its own. Of course, the Saddam regime was an "unwanted" form of government for the Kurds and Shiites at least. Also, take note that if you change all those references to "government", then government will have all those negative terms associated with it. Governments and regimes are both coercive organizations, so perhaps it is not surprising that their associations are negative. I notice you had to do original research to reach your conclusions rather than go to authoritative sources for word meaning, like dictionaries.--Silverback 02:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you that governments and regimes are both coercive organizations. That's why it's interesting to find out whether the two words are used interchangeably in the spoken and written language, or that there is a certain contextual preference for one over the other. As English is a living, native language (as opposed to an extinct language), the way people use the language says as much about the meaning of a word as the formal definition in reference works. If we find, as I did in my puny Google search, that one of the two terms ("regime") is used primarily in a negative context—despite the fact that the reference works tell us that the two could be used interchangeably—one could conclude that the cultural prepossession is to associate the word with something bad. For me, that is enough reason to avoid the word when a strict NPOV policy is to be adhered to (as on Wikipedia). I hope this clarifies things. --Plek 14:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another example is the word "propaganda". Its use prior to the Cold War (or thereabouts) was strictly benign, and the formal definition of the word in the dictionary still is. However, it has acquired a negative connotation in "The West" over the years due to the selective use of the word to describe the spreading of ideas by "evil" institutions (i.e. the Soviet Union). --Plek 14:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The American Heritage dictionary is known for being up-to-date, in dictionary terms that is probably within 10 years and describes no negative connotations, so this NPOV move against "regime" is original research and equating NPOV with a nihilistic moral equivilence. Are we going to ban "Saddam" and "Hitler" next because of their negative connotations?--Silverback 19:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: the term seems to carry a negative connotation. While there are obviously plenty of negative things to say about the Saddam Hussein period, I fear that using the term "regime" only for Saddam Hussein convoys the premices of a simplistic "black and white" description of History (the Iraqi governement put in office by the USA is even less elected than Saddam Hussein was, but noone serious would call it a "regime"). Eventually, I fear that this "black and white" description would tend to fade the fact that even ruled by a dictator, Iraq was a sovereign nation at the time of the US-led invasion -- very negative thing if one should attempt to get a subtle and complete understanding of the events. Rama 23:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the current Iraqi government is called a regime in this very article, search "Allawi regime". --Silverback 19:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose --Christiaan 9:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose The English word is cognate with the French word for a system of government and probably acquired negative connotations through the spread, in English, of the phrase ancien regime to refer to the pre-Revolutionary French monarchy. Government is the preferred word in neutral reporting. It does not imply legitimacy, only the power to govern. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Favor Accurate depiction of the government of the country at the time. Johntex 00:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Then you'd also favor terms such as "The Bush regime", "The Carter Regime", "The Blair Regime" and so on? Or could it be that this term is not in fact an accurate, neutral description of a governing power? Personally I'd favor dictatorship, which is an accurate and honest description of the Ba'athist government under Saddam Hussein. I can refer to the Blair government as a regime (but would not because I don't like the negativ connotations). I could not refer to the Blair government as a dictatorship. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - A qualified yes. You probably know (but others here may not) the dictionary.com definition:

  1. A form of government: a fascist regime.
  2. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.

Webster's online is similar, but uses the example of a socialist regime. So, the definition would fit, even for those governments. It would be an especially good fit in an article about an effort to oust one of those goverments (whether by election or war).

To the extent there are any negative associations with the word "regime" they are justified by the nature of the "regime" in question. In conclusion, the word is technically appropriate for the govenments you mention, more so if the writing is about changing the government. It is even more appropriate here. As you know, words are not black and white. The fact that the word may not subjectively seem quite as good a fit for the Bush or Carter administrations, does not prove it is not a good fit here. Johntex 01:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, to describe the fall of Saddam's "regime" but not to describe it as being taken down by Bush's "regime", would be an example of systemic bias, which is far from appropriate. Christiaan - ☎ 11:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would think that the term is especially not appropriate "if the writing is about changing the government", since there is a great risc of inducing passive acceptations of the "good versus evil" rethorics of the Bush governement; it is not that these rethorics have to be fought here, but they must be exposed in the clearest possible way. Refering to "regime" in the context of the invasion of Iraq is especially slipery in this optic. Rama 13:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Favor Government implies some form of law based regime in which rullers offer security to its citzens IMO. Regime has a wider meaning and is hence more neutral in this context.

Dejvid 21:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning doesn't seem to follow; if there's one thing Saddam "offered" it was security (there's about one hundred thousand dead Iraqis who could vouch for that). In any case 'government' has a very clear definition and Saddam most definitely headed one. Christiaan 23:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What you are saying that the current regime in Irak has also failed to provide security for its citizens. I wouldn't argue with "Bremmer regime" - that's descriptive. Do you really claim that Saddam offered security? Kanan Makiya (Cruelty and Silence) on the anfal campaign against the Kurds "The real hallmark of the operation was the bureaucratically organized, routinely administered mass killing of village inhabitants for no other reason than that they happened to live in an area that was now designated as "prohibited for security reasons".Dejvid 14:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid, just for clarification, you're saying that any government is a regime, but not every regime is a government? If so, then it would be accurate to refer to "the Bush regime" -- indeed, it would be more neutral, because it wouldn't imply that it's a law-based regime, and some people argue that there are respects in which Bush's rule is not law-based. Would your reasoning therefore support the phrase "the Bush regime"? JamesMLane 20:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well yes you're right. Only this. If someones says "It is far from clear to me if America is a law based state" they making quite a serious accusation. Indeed in relation to Guantanomo bay such an accusation has been made. However, at the end of the day, I would have no problem with Bush regime. Indeed I can think of several contexts when Bush regime would be the most appropriate term and not even by implication negative. Dejvid 21:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, if you Google for the phrase "Bush regime", you'll find it overwhelmingly used in a negative context. His admirers don't use the phrase. Several people made the same point on Talk:Bush regime, which is why Bush regime is now a redirect instead of an article. JamesMLane 12:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

People, we're moving backwards (or in circles, which is the same thing). We've established that "regime" doesn't have negative connotations, according to the dictionary. "Government" doesn't have so, either, according to the same dictionary. Then we have a lot of people who "feel/think/know" that "regime" carries a pejorative undertone with it. What I'd like to determine is (sources, please) what the criteria are for calling a government a "regime", and when to call it a "governement". --Plek 22:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well this is a request for comment, right ? Obviously we are not going to solve the matter by convincing people -- else the request would not have been asked for in the first place ! So we now have 6 against and 3 in favour, and I'd rather ask wether this is a decision voting, wether other people are interested in voting (even without a 12-line explanation ! ;) ), and when the vote closes. Rama 22:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the purpose of entering an article in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process is to help form a consensus on the dispute in question. So far, I've only seen people either vote or state their opinion, which is why I'm trying to summarize and move the discussion along, hopefully entering a consensus state without the need to count votes. --Plek 23:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was asking. :p But if I had something to comment about the discution above, I'd say that dictionnaries are fine, yet don't always describe the twsists of language as quickly as they appear. If someone could make a quick review of the use of "regime" and "government" in various media (say, compare Foxnews to CNN or the BBC, or the US governement to the German one, or to the UN), it might be an indication. Rama 23:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Favor since my comments at the top don't seem to have been included in the vote count. --BTfromLA 03:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose "Regime" is inappropriate in most instances. "Government" is correct and will always be more neutral regardless of popular views of the connotations and dictionary defintions, especially when one considers popular usage and historical basis of the word. Related words all involve rigid structure and harsh control, as a king (regis) would. Think "Regiment," and its military structure connotations, "Regimen (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regimen)": Governmental rule or control. and "Regimented (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regiment)": To subject to uniformity and rigid order.) Every country has a governing body, and that governing body can always be called the "government" of that country. Similiarily, "regime change" should be changed to the simpler "overthrowing the government" and/or "military coup." Those in favour of keeping "regime" may want to consider the use of "Bush administration." Like "regime," "administration" is a vague representation which can have perjorative connotations and is likewise inaccurate in describing government actions rather than actions performed only by the so-called members of the Bush administration. The player is instead the bureaucracy--unless you want to change most of the instances of US government to the "Reagan administration," the "Clinton adminstration," to ascribe group responsibility to government action, and to further acsribe responsibility to every single person involved, rather than a reified government which is simpler and in popular usage. Yes I went off on a tangent. Anyway, I oppose "Iraqi regime," "Iraqi government" is more neutral.--Ben 00:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have to make the discussion jump backward, but I don't understand how "regime" doesn't have a negative connotation:

I haven't seen people here agree on this
The Oxford Dictionary say " a government, especially an authoritarian one" [18] (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/regime?view=uk).
A trivial googling on online dictionaries gives results such as "A form of government: a fascist regime. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime. "[19] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regime).
The everyday usage is apparently quite consistent with these definitions: it mean "government", with a negative connotation ("Bush regime" thing, etc...).

So to me it would seem that the term is tendencious and should be avoided. And in any case, the term "regime" was obviously repeated and hammered by the Bush government, which was a party in the war (the UN said " Government of Iraq", [20] (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/index.html) for instance); this alone would make it wiser to avoid a politically loaded word. Rama 08:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original issue was not whether is was negative, but whether it was pejorative. No evidence has been presented that it is pejorative, and no authoritative sources such as dictionaries classify it as such. If it was pejorative, that would make its use with Saddam's regime mere name calling. The question people appear to be answering here is whether they consider regime "negative". It is not clear to me what the consequence of concluding that it is negative would be. Does this mean we can't apply negative terms to Saddam? If regime does imply an oppressive or authoritarian government, wouldn't that merely be properly descriptive of Saddam? Can Saddam be called a dictator or a violator of human rights? The strange thing is, it is not even clear that regime is negative, not every dictionary gives it negative meanings, and in those that do, that I am aware of, it is not the first definition. Thinking of regime as primarily negative would seem to be original research, since that is not yet reflected in authoritative sources. If this is the case, then this is not something that can be resolved with a vote, since original research is not something wikipedia allows, whether people vote for it or not.--Silverback 09:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My point is that "regime" being negative, using it in the article would be a little bit like systematically replacing "... government..." by "...governement, which was a dictatorship,...". The point is not wether the government of Saddam Hussein was or was not a dictatorship, but the constant use of a word like "regime" might load the whole article. I think there is a risc of making the article look tendencious and unprofessional.

And in any case, the objection related to the systematic use of "regime" by the Bush governement stands: even if the Bush government had decided to use something like, say, "Ancient Babylon" for Bagdad, it would be wise to avoid the term just not to look like parotting them. Rama 10:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, as to "original research", that rule means that Wikipedia articles contain information that's already part of human knowledge. It doesn't mean that we can't do "original research" (if you can even apply that term to some Google searches) in order to make our own decision about how we'll present the information. Assessments of notability on VfD are frequently made through Google searches.

Second, the issue isn't whether we can apply negative terms to Saddam. Whatever facts are relevant to the article can be included, even if they reflect badly on Saddam. The problem with the frequent use of "regime" is that it's a way of harping on those facts over and over. It's as if every reference to Bush were to say "the minority president Bush" or "the controversially elected Bush". That Bush finished second in the 2000 election and that there was controversy about the vote are facts. We state those facts where appropriate. Having stated them, we don't keep referring to them every time Bush is mentioned.

No one has explained what information is lost, or how the reader is shortchanged, if "Saddam's regime" is changed to "the Iraqi government" or whatever else is appropriate in the context. Using "regime" doesn't do a good job of conveying information because, as this very discussion shows, some people think it implies an authoritarian government, and some think it doesn't. JamesMLane 00:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

U.S./International spelling

Please see Manual of Style#Usage and spelling regarding spelling. Of particular interest, If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. This article is predominantly written in International English. Christiaan - ☎ 02:09, 18 Jan 2005

Actually, it was written in American English, but the Guerilla English trolls have been visiting the site, intentionally "provoking conflict by changing to another". Kaz 02:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm afraid I am the culprit here, sorry. Actually I just reverted a "defence -> defense" edit which was not documented. Usually this sort of edits is done by people who are not aware of the "Manual of Style#Usage and spelling" and is only an honest mistake. The later argumentation of Kaz sort of puzzled me. Of course if he had said that the article was mostly in American English I wouldn't have reverted a second time. Mea culpa and sorry about this. I actually did a quick survey: "defense" is used mostly in American titles (such as "Defense Secretary") but there are lots of other Americanism everywhere, so I agree that it is safe to say that the article is indeed "American English". By the way, the "Guerilla English" is a joke, of course. I'd just like to finish by saying sorry again for the unintended increase of heat, no harm meant, not to much done I hope, and happy editing to all ! Rama 09:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Security Council consultation (lack of)

Silverback has changed my note on consultation on invasion or Iraq being forestalled by US and UK abandonment to read:

Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers", no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council; in the event such consultation occurred before the US and UK's eventually abandoned of the Security Council procedure and invaded Iraq.

I don't think this claim is supported by the facts. While I believe it's true to say that the US and UK planned to consult the Security Council on the invasion, they openly abandoned this path once it became clear that they wouldn't get a Security Council majority for a resolution authorising invasion, and on top of that at least two Security Council members thought that, in the light of the inspectors' very positive reports, the inspectors should be permitted to continue the verification of disarmament--in short, they would vote against, which would automatically veto the proposal.

Chirac had said (I translate loosely from memory) "It is necessary that the inspectors say either 'we can continue and we're happy that in a period of some months we shall be able to verify the disarmament of Iraq' or else 'we're very sorry, but it is impossible to guarantee disarmament; Iraq is no longer cooperating fully.' In the latter case, it would be for the Security Council to decide; but of course in that case war would be inevitable. That isn't the case now." (interview in French with France 2 reporters at the Elysee Palace, Paris, March 10, 2003 (http://elysee.fr/cgi-bin/auracom/aurweb/search/file?aur_file=discours/2003/I030310.html))

I'd like to revert to my wording, but would prefer to get agreement first. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the revelant part you cite is

Mais ce n'est pas à vous ou à moi de le décréter, c'est aux inspecteurs à qui l'ONU a confié la charge de désarmer l'Iraq de le dire. Il faut que les inspecteurs nous disent : "nous pouvons continuer et, dans un délai que nous estimons à quelques mois, je dis quelques mois parce que c'est ce qu'ils ont dit, nous aurons achevé notre travail et l'Iraq sera désarmé". Ou alors, qu'ils disent et qu'ils viennent dire au Conseil de Sécurité : "nous sommes désolés, mais l'Iraq ne coopère pas, les progrès ne sont pas suffisants, nous ne sommes pas en mesure d'atteindre notre objectif, nous ne pourrons pas garantir le désarmement de l'Iraq". Cas auquel il appartiendra au Conseil de Sécurité et à lui seul de décider ce qu'il convient de faire. Mais dans ce cas, naturellement, hélas, la guerre deviendrait inévitable. Elle ne l'est pas aujourd'hui.

Which translates into (no responsibility is taken for the correctness of this translation)

It does not lie upon us the decide on this [wether the cooperation of Iraq is sufficient], it is the inspectors, to whom the UN has given the task to disarm Iraq, to say it. The inspectors must say : "We can carry on and, within a few months, I say a few months because this is the figure they produced, we will have completed our task and Iraq will be disarmed". Or else, they say and come and speak before the Security Council: "We are sorry, but Iraq does not cooperate, we are unable to complete our objectives, we cannot guarantee the disarmement of Iraq". In this case it will belong to the Security Council, and the Security Council only, to decide what has to be done. But is this case, of course, war would become inevitable. It is not today.

Now for the matter itself, I think that it is, as often, a matter of wording. Like it is now, the article is not blatantly wrong: it is true that "such consultation occurred before the US and UK's eventually abandoned"; hey, I remember, back in 1991... Of course, this is not revelent.

I think we need something like "Such consultation, immediatly before the invasion, was innitially planned by the USA and UK, but was eventually forestalled by US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and invasion of Iraq." Rama 15:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The US and UK did far more than "plan" to consult, they worked very hard both openly and behind the scenes, to get the votes necessary for security council approval. If was a full court press, for several days.--Silverback 15:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thats' common knowledge. But still the did not make the consultation. They chickened out when they realised that even with pressions upon some countries, they would not gather a majority, not even a significant minority, which would have allowed them to claim that they had been blocked by a veto only which had countered the legitimate will of the international community. What happened is that, it the USA and UK had indeed made the consultation, they would have been diplomatically slaped in the face AND would have blatantly countradicted the Security Council with their invasion. By refraining from doing the consultation, they still can argue that previous resolution allow them to strike. It is actually very important or the US rethorics that the consultation did not happen. Rama 16:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I certainly cannot agree that the US and UK (and Spain, to be complete) engaged in the consultation that they had been promising back in November. Yes, there was a lot of maneuvering, a lot of discussion as well as a lot of arm-twisting, but in the event the Security Council was not consulted prior to the invasion. Rama's summary above amounts to a statement that, had the US and UK put it to the security council then the invasion would have been unequivocally illegal. This indeed appears to be the gist of the advice that UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, gave to Mr Blair in March, 2003. The US and the UK settled instead for an invasion of very questionable legality, with the consequence that the other Security Council members of the time tend to regard the invasion as illegal--and this belief is certainly justifiable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you using "consultation" in some technical sense? The plain english meaning is little more than a discussion of the issues or an exchange of views.--Silverback 17:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, this is not "plain English"; this is diplomatic talk. In the context of the Security Council, a "consultation" means requiring a meeting of the Council; submitting a text; and then vote about the text. Mere corridor talks and phone calls to presidents of the countries of the council do not qualify for "consultation of the Security Council". Rama 17:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is what Negroponte and Greenstock told the Security Council on 8 November, 2002:

As the sponsors pointed out in their statements earlier, the purpose of the resolution is to achieve the disarmament of Iraq through effective inspections. The text no longer includes automaticity for authorizing the use of force. According to the resolution that has just been adopted, only upon receipt of a report by UNMOVIC and the IAEA on Iraqs non-compliance and failure to cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution, will the Security Council consider the situation and take a position. -John Negroponte.

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about automaticity and hidden triggers the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities. -Jeremy Greenstock.

In particular, Mr Greenstock could not have been more clear. In order for a decision to take military action to be taken, two things had to happen:

Iraq must be found in further breach of its disarmament obligations
The Security Council in session must discuss the matter under Operational Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441 and (Negroponte's words) take a position.

As a body, the Security Council can only take a position by voting.

Paragraph 12 said:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Paragraphs 4 and 11 read as follows:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraqs obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

I believe that the conclusion that both Mr Negroponte and Mr Greenstock were fleshing out a clear pathway leading to disarmament, backed up by a mechanism in which the Security Council would make a decision on enforcement of compliance, is inescapable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"France advised the U.S. that US had sufficient UN support..."

FYI, here is the passage with wikilink, that used to be the header:"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". --Silverback 11:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rama, my source is the reference wikipedia article. I don't know who put that in, but I recollect hearing something similar on the news, so it does not seem incredible.--Silverback 09:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The text was added around Sep 23, 2003 by . Unfortunately, he does not appear to have been active since Dec of that year. It was not controversial at the time, i.e., no edit wars or talk discusion, perhaps that was when it was in the news and generally known. We should assume good faith, absent a thorough search to dispute it. If you read the quote in its context in that article, it seems plausible. France may not have wanted to go on the record more explicitly, it was Blair and the U.K. that needed more explicit language for domestic consumption. --Silverback 09:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been leafing through Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack to find any indication of France's acquiescence that resolution 1441 was sufficient to launch a war. I don't think the information in the book supports that assertion:

Pp. 221-227 describe in some detail the bickering between Powell and de Villepin about the exact wording of 1441, during October-November 2002. It says that "It got so tight and so tense that the final disagreement boiled down to the use of a single word. For about five days Powell and de Villepin argued. As participants remember it, and records indicate, the French position was that a false declaration "and" a general failure to cooperate could constitute a material breach. The "and" meant Saddam would have to fail two tests. Powell's draft said a false declaration "or" a general failure to cooperate could constitute a material breach."
P. 225 describes that Rice, the principals and Bush all wanted to stick with the "or" version. Powell argued, however, that unanimity in the Security Council would be seen as a victory and that France could come on board if they went with the "and" version. In the end, Rice and the others relented and then "and" version became the offical one that was approved by the Council.
Pp.234-235 picks up the thread: "On December 7, Iraq submitted an 11,807-page weapons declaration... Cheney proposed to the NSC that the president declare it a material breach... None of the other principals including Rumsfeld and Rice seemed to agree that the declaration on its face was sufficient grounds to abandon inspections and start a war... The U.N resolution required a false declaration "and"—the word Powell had allowed the Frence to include in the final resolution—a faillue to cooperate. On the surface Saddam appeared to be cooperating. It was just wat Cheney feared. They were in the inspections business."
On p. 240: (about Bush's December 18 conversation with Aznar) "In fact, the five permanent members of the Security Council always have a veto, and the French especially did not think they had made an agreement that Resolution 1441 locked them into war."
Pp. 284-285: "On January 20, Powell attended a United Nations Security Council meeting... In a press conference after the session, French Foreign Minister de Villepen declared, "Nothing! Nothing!" justifies war."
P. 315: (February 10) "Chirac, Putin and Schroeder issued a strong joint statement the same day calling for extended weapons inspections. "Nothing today justifies war," Chirac said. "Russia, Germany and France are determined to ensure that everything possible is done to disarm Iraq peacefully." So much for Chirac—and Putin and Schroeder."
Pp. 357-358: (about the March 16 Azores meeting) "Chirac had taped an interview for the CBS television show 60 Minutes to be aired that night, and someone handed the British prime minister a summary of Chirac's remarks. Blair told the others that Chirac was calling for U.N. weapons inspectors to be given another 30 days in Iraq. Forget it, Bush said, it's a delaying tactic."
P. 365: (March 17) "At 8:55 A.M. Bush met with the NSC. Powell reported that nothing had changed overnight. The French were not going to bend."

And that's about it. If all this is accurate, I don't really see when and why France would have said that they thought 1441 alone was enough. Of course, other sources might shed some more light, and I for one would be very interested to read about it. --Plek 10:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course I don't know what source King brosby was relying upon, but the news stories I recall were based on an unidentified administration source, who claimed that France thought that 1441 was all that was needed, and that at that time had wanted deniability and did not want to go on the record with more explicit authorization, and was angered when the U.S. was trying for something more explicit in order to aid Blair. Of course, the desire for deniability shows that France never intended to participate in the coalition and does not present them in a favorable or courageous moral light, since they were unwilling to do the right thing despite the opinions of their population. Subsequently, France and the others have not pressed their claims of illegality, they got to keep their populace happy and a free ride while others took care of Saddam.--Silverback 12:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All the public statements that I have read by Chirac and Villepin from before and after Rsolution 1441 are pretty unequivocal: the Security Council decides. We should not ignore this statement by King brosby if it can be sourced and shown to be true, however at present that is not the case. A guy on wrote it in an article on Wikipedia and you recall the Bush administration making a similar claim (needless to say the US would not presume to speak for the French government). Earlier in this talk page I cited (and Rama quoted and then translated) an interview given by Chirac with France 2 reporters where he said what (to the best of my knowledge) he has always claimed. US administration sources may well have wanted to put their own gloss on this, they certainly wouldn't be the only government to engage in damage limitation and spin doctoring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the report was a garbled version of this:

Chirac pledges to veto new resolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,897754,00.html):

Tony Blair's options for going to war on Iraq were shrinking last night after Jacques Chirac publicly pledged that France would veto an early second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising military action.

"There is no need for a second resolution today, which France would have

no choice but to oppose," Mr Chirac said.

It was then, the newspaper reports, that Jack Straw the Foreign Secretary 'appeared to be moving to the government's fallback position, saying that resolution 1441 "gives us the authority we need".'

It still puzzles me why the US and the UK pushed so hard for war; the inspectors were clearly of the opinion that progress was being made. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to have a citable source for it too. It should not be a surprise that Chirac's statements and ambassador press conferences contradict it and play to their public. This french "position", if true, was specifically not for public consumption. It doesn't promise any public support for subsequent U.S. action, and perhaps could even be interpreted as fair warning that this was all the U.S. was going to get from them to hang its hat on, a disputable resolution that each side can read it's intent into. After all, the U.S. didn't need a clear authorization, just something that gave it some cover for what it wanted to do. 1441 has served that purpose admirably. I am reading a lot into this obviously.

As to why the US and UK pushed hard for war, I think it was because the inspectors were not even allowed back in until the buildup for war began and was continuing. The no fly zone had been stretching US resources for years, and now an expensive buildup. There was no guarantee that Saddam's cooperation would continue if the build up slowed or was withdrawn, and he had a past history of jerking the coalition around, only backing down in response to threats. Only full and transparent cooperation was going to prevent the war, because allowing Saddam to cooperate for awhile and then turn resistant again, only hurt US and UN credibility, and encouraged others to try the same game. What cooperation was being obtained from Saddam was basically with a gun to his head, and France and Germany made sure the trigger would be pulled by giving Saddam false hope that he could keep playing his games. Thus he prepared another incomplete and unresponsive report and continued imposing conditions upon interviews and airborne monitoring. Frankly, we had achieved what cooperation we got only through threats, threats that were supported by the security council. Once you threaten you have crossed the moral bright line, even if you don't go to war this time, you will have to every so often or else there is no point in threatening, because it has no credibility.--Silverback 16:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Er yes, I think it's fair to say that you're "reading a lot into this." :) I just don't see that France had any reason to pussyfoot in private while saying the opposite in public. France absolutely did not agree with unilateral action by any country on this, or any other issue.

You're wrong to claim that "the inspectors were not..allowed in." The inspectors were never expelled, they withdrew on the eve of bombardment in 1998. You describe the response of Iraq as "incomplete and unresponsive" but you must know that this is not what Blix and El Baradie told the Security Council. Looking at the inspectors' final reports it is difficult to see why the US and the UK continued to claim that Iraq was still not cooperating. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The inspectors thought they were making progress despite the lack of full cooperation, for instance they thought they were getting to sites that did not have warning before the got there, and were discovering things Iraq did should have disclosed but didn't. Despite this Blix in his book admited that "issues remained". Of course, since the war we have learned from his scientists that Saddam intended to restart his WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted, and he also was not complying with the oil for food program requirements.--Silverback 17:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Lack of full cooperation" was not the message the Security Council got. Both El Baradei and Blix were very clear on this, but the US and the UK inexplicably kept making preparations for war.

You've often used the term "issues remained" and it's been wielded rather ambiguously as if it were some kind of get-out clause. I note that following the Iraqi WMD declaration Blix said that "issues remained" about which he would be tackling Iraq, concerning anthrax, Scud missiles and VX nerve gas. Is that what you're referring to? The claim that Saddam Hussein "intended to restart his WMD program" is neither here nor there. Nobody doubted for a second that he would have to be subjected to constant random weapons inspections. Neither that nor his maladministration of the oil for food program makes up for the grandiose claims made by the US and UK about the existence of mobile WMD labs, the ability to launch WMD attacks on Cyprus within 45 minutes and the like.

But we're getting off the topic here. Evidently we have no source for the extraordinary claim about France's opinion of 1441, while we do have a good public source for the US and UK's UN ambassadors' concurrence, in November, 2002, with Mr Chirac's position of early March, 2003. All that had changed in the meantime was that inspections had resumed, the inspectors were happy and the US and the UK decided to go to war anyway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who was going to supply the military buildup to achieve Saddam's cooperation with the "constant random weapons inspections"? Did France or Germany step forward to volunteer? Saddam, absent threats, was very jealous of his ill gotten sovereignty. If the US and UK were to have to continue to threaten, then they might as well give their threats credibility right away, so they don't have to have military build-ups outside every country the UN decides to sanction.--Silverback 18:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I kindly suggest you people continue your discussion about who did/didn't save the world on your personal talk pages? I don't really see it leading to any clarification about the issue this section was created for (then again, I might be wrong). --Plek 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Popular view...some contentious unsourced statements

, despite previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons, and that Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production. Some believe, based on the circumstances, that the weapons were originally present in Iraq but were moved into a sympathetic country (or countries). However, there is no hard evidence supporting this theory'

I have problems with these unsourced statements.

I think it matters which UN statements those were, and who said them. A Security Council resolution is different from an inspector's report, etc.
"Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production" is a false statement as far as I am aware. The inspectors in March reported great satisfaction with the procedures for access and the degree of cooperation.
This speculation about weapons being moved, I think it should be there but it should be much more specific. As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong on this) nobody outside the Bush administration's closest apologists could be said to have given this idea a moment's serious thought.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

David Kay said it [21] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html) TDC 22:39, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

This January 17, 2005 Associated Press story, reported by MSNBC (among others), might yield some additional clues: [22] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/). Note that the sources that deny there was any evidence of the Syria move are all anonymous. I guess we'll have to wait for Duelfer's report to get some more data.--Plek 22:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'll wait a while for this plum to drop in my lap. I'm a patient guy. Number 3 was only one of the points I queried, though. There are the other two. And they're stated as fact in our article--which isn't right if they're not known to be fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fourth unsourced statement:

Some individuals have claimed that European coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not as unbiased as leading European press agencies led their readers and viewers to believe, claiming that people in the US were generally not too terribly surprised by the swift victory of the Coalition over the Iraqi army, and that most people in Europe and the Middle East were "dumbfounded" that despite "a steady stream of negative press coverage on the Coalitions successes", the Iraqi army was defeated in just over three weeks. ... It is not clear on what basis the critics claim that the US was not surprised by the swift end to the war, nor on what basis they claim that Europeans were "dumbfounded."

What "some individuals" are we talking about here? Journalists, politicians, WP editors? Grandma's cats? If it's just a couple of people then they should be named, so the reader learns about the context of this claim.

Also, the primary source should be linked to; as it stands, it reads like an editorial. has stated that the text is sourced in the talk page archives somewhere, but that's not good enough. A talk page is not a reference. A reader shouldn't be required to leaf through stacks of archives to find out where a particular bit of information is coming from (especially when it is as vaguely worded as this one). --Plek 06:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've snipped the quoted text from the article, for now. Let's try to clean it up. --Plek 06:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps TDC or someone who remembers the discussion about this on the Talk page can point us at the right part of the archive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please. By the way, I have tried to deconstruct this piece of text into its basic factual components. All I can come up with is: "Some people were surprised that it took the Coalition only three weeks to defeat the Iraqi army. Others were not. Some people thought the media were biased. The end." --Plek 12:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well it looks like it has broken down into an edit war over unsourced statement number four, despite attempts to reason with TDC on his talk page. If people are still edit warring about this in six hours or so, I'll ask for the page to be protected (which would almost certainly be granted). It would be up to the admin who protected, in the light of the behavior of the different participants, to decide which version to protect (needless to say he always chooses The Wrong Version). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really hope that we can produce a discussion on this; I actually couldn't even really understand the point which is made in this part... perhaps it would need a serious reformulation, beside the references. Rama 16:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just scanned through Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive1, Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive2, Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive3, Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Fpahl vs Silverback and Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage and read all 's comments. I truly can't find the discussion of the text he is referring to, nor the sources of it. I don't think it's very productive to delete the text again right now, but given the lack of evidence I'd say it is eligible for deletion when things have cooled down a bit. In the meantime, maybe we can start looking for sources of the other statements mentioned in this section. --Plek 17:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been protected. When we get editing control back, I'd also like to either properly source or remove unsourced assertions 1 through 3. I'm prepared to wait for a good wording. Assertion 1 I'd like to cast in the appropriate context. Assertion 2 I suspect cannot be supported (but I could be wrong). Assertion 3 should be more specific (that the ISG under Kay and Duelfer worked on this hypothesis). Does that sound reasonable? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am quite sorry about the protection. But now back to the copy... Perhaps we can dismiss point 2) easily with a quotation of Hans Blix's book, Disarming Iraq, which happens to be publicly available on the Web [23] (http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0375423028&view=excerpt):

"Although the inspection organization was now operating at full strength and Iraq seemed as determined to give it prompt access everywhere, the United States appeared determined to replace our inspection force with an invasion army". One could of course search for more examples in the book itself, but I suppose that this is more friendly to people who don't have immediate access to the paper copy. Rama 22:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the first part of the sentence is useful, but the second part needs independent verification and sourcing. Hans Blix was authoritative about the UN inspection process, but had no way of knowing the true intentions of the US policy makers (unless, again, substantiated by other sources). --Plek 23:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

@Tony: yes, I'd go along with that. On a general note, I think the "External links and references"-section as a whole needs an overhaul. "References" should contain the links that are actually used to provide content for the article. "External links" should list everything else. Right now it's all cobbled together (i.e. a mess). --Plek 23:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you quote which bit you think is useful Plek? Christiaan 23:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the part before the comma, versus the part after it, basically. What I mean is that Blix would be an authoritative source for the information that the "organization was working at full strength" and "Iraq seemed as determined to give it prompt access", because that concerns his daily job at the time. The "US appeared determined..." part, however, is just an observation by Blix. If it's put in the article, it could only be in a form like: "Blix thought the US was determined to replace his inspection force." It is not evidence that the US was, in fact, determined to do that. More sources, preferrably from within the US Goverement, would be needed to turn that observation into fact. Yes, I'm anal about attribution and citing sources, but I think that's the only way to prevent the daily edit wars around here. --Plek 00:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way I read Rama's quote, it's intended to counter the belief that the inspectors were not happy with Iraqi compliance. I'm sure anyone who actually listened to the debates live on radio, as I did, would appreciate how devastating to the US case for war were the later inspection reports. I don't think this is fully appreciated by some US commentators; perhaps the US news bulletins only broadcast Powell's speech (which was met with much eye-rolling in Britain). I must admit that my contemporaneous readings of US commentary were but slight. I guess I'll have to subscribe to some US new sites and go through their archives for a full appreciation of why it didn't really hit the US public that the inspections of El Baradei and Blix had completely scuppered the case for defensive war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I submited this quotation in the context of the discussion on the collaboration of Iraq. I don't mean to bring the discussion on US policy, the formulation was only such that I found it more convenient to simply quote its entirety.

To go along with Tony, I might say that informations submited by the US government (like, say this famous mobile laboratory story, which sounded implausible in the first place) strongly contrasts with the measured position of people like Blix (who was inluenced by his diplomatic and scientific background, likely). The impression that there was no real opposition (to quote our own article, a mere lack of "explicit backing") might well be at least partly caused by the strong and carefully crafted rethorics of the Bush administrations: the "smoking gun --which could take the form of a mushroom cloud", the Office of special plans, lots of indices tend to suggest that a great deal of energy was invested into "public diplomacy", while on the other side, waepons inspectors were attempting to provide an exact accurate and dispassioned version of the events. In the absolute, their position was probably closer to the truth, but in the context, they might have been far from sufficient to cancel out this rethorical pressure. Rama 00:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huzzah! I've found the likely source of our "fourth unsourced statement", quoted above. The original text was inserted by on 17:54, 23 Feb 2004: diff page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2003_Invasion_of_Iraq&diff=2498134&oldid=2498087). Note that the paragraph at the time read: "Many individuals have noted that European coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, was not as unbiased as leading European press agencies led thier readers and viewers to believe.", and that it was used as a preamble to the text about Alain Hertoghe's book. The paragraph got seperated from the book review over time and organically evolved into the mess we've got today.

The talk page discussion that I was looking for is here: Removed edit about the French press. I missed it earlier because the section is about the Hertoghe review, and does not list a source for the "Many/Some individuals..." statement.

I have to conclude that the only verifiable piece of text is the Hertoghe review. The "fourth unsourced statement" as it stands does not have any sources listed, neither in the article itself nor in the talk archives. I suspect that it is the result of original research by a lot of editors over the past year. --Plek 01:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, there was a small discussion about this yesterday on the French IRC channel, which globally led to the impression that this statment is not really accurate. There were indeed a handful lunatics who might have developed the idea that Iraq would offer a serious piece of resistance (proably there were such week-end stategists everywhere in the world), but everybody knew that the Iraqi army had all but dispeared since the 1991 war. Statements by French officials leave little doubt as to their evaluation (I paraphrase, it was things like "peace is more difficult to win than war"); if necessary, I could document the fact that Iraq was not expected by the French public opinion to offer a serious resistance; however, like it is, the whole paragraph might as well be dropped outright, if we don't want to expose ourself to the impression that the whole paragraph was an attempt to put "biased" and "European media" in the same sentance. Rama 09:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe most Europeans expected the actual result, but what about most Arabs? I remember a scene in Control Room where the al-Jazeera staffers are watching the invasion coverage. My recollection is that, although they're not Saddam partisans by any means, they express a certain amount of surprise and consternation that their fellow Arabs in the Iraqi armed forces are getting rolled up so easily and quickly by the Western invaders. That one brief scene wouldn't be a reliable source for a generalization about public opinion, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the Arab world could add some information about expectations and reactions there. JamesMLane 00:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the page was unprotected today I have removed the clause ", despite previous UN assertions that Iraq likely harbored such weapons, and that Iraq failed to document and give UN inspectors access to areas suspected of illegal weapons production" as discussed above. I'm leaving in the speculation about arms being shipped to Syria but I think we should source that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, on some primitive level.... unsourced conclusive statements

This text just restored by Rama: " Indeed, on some primitive level, this "clash between civilizations" is understood by many. That said, a more nuanced and sophisticated analysis reveals certain problems with this approach. " Can you cite an sources for it? If not it should be removed.--Silverback 08:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll take no responsability for this: I was restoring the state of the article before the "without the explicit backing of the United Nations Security Council" (and a few other things like this) were removed (I don't think that anyone will contest that this is an extremely important information -- actually the "explicit" is already a little bit tendencious by my criteria, and one could add "NATO neither").

Indeed, this "clash between civilisations" thing looks a little bit speculative, if you ask me. Rama 08:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. We're not in the business of producing our own analysis, sophisticated or otherwise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Naif has reverted again and me too, so I think it'd be a good idea to address the issue here. I do not find it acceptable that references to the "lack of explicit support" of the Security Council be removed. This is very obviously one major features of the whole affair. Lots of other things I find tendencious or badly formulised in this edit:

"allied forces composed primarily of United States...": "allied" to whom ? this formulation tends to refer to a historical continuity with the Allied forces of the Second World War, or something like this, which I find highly debatable in this case, to say the least
"There was widespread opposition to the invasion from many (see worldwide government positions on war on Iraq) as well as considerable official support.": "considerable official support"? From whom ? The US and UK governments ? Come on !
Removal of "The United States also took numerous illegal or questionably legal steps" and other similar changes; I will not say that the formulation of the revelant parts is ultimately perfect, but ouright removal of these parts is not appropriate I think; on the whole, this tends to remove the balance of the article into suggesting that there were noor minor legal or political issues with the invasion, which (I think) does not adequatly pictures the reality

There are other little edits all thorugh the article, I would be glad if Naif could discuss these issues a little bit more in detail. Cheers ! Rama 13:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a known systematic bias for intellectual analysis over the reality of strongly-held if irrational nationalistic/cultural feelings. I propose that the mass media reported widespread (erroneous) belief by Americans in links between Al Qaeda/Iraq is proof enough that this war is seen as a clash of civilizations, regardless of whether said belief is correct. I accept my original wording per se was flawed, but something of this sort should be put in to reflect the actual reality of most people's beliefs regarding the war vs. what (well-informed) intellectuals may put in. Cheers. -Naif

The title of the entry is not NPOV!

The mission of the USA was to liberate Iraqis. I am not saying we must change the title to "2003 Liberation of Iraq," but invasion is not NPOV!

Well, the liberation, if it was a liberation, involved an invasion. So did the liberation of Europe. The Battle of Normandy says so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also: Invasion --Plek 22:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nontheless, Merriam-Webster defines invasion as: 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder [24] (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=invasion), so using only that as a source, I can see anon's point about NPOV issues. However, I think at the moment this article has more pressing issues than the exact wording of the title. --Plek 22:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apart from it being only one definition and that it is a secondary definition qualified by the word especially, I still don't see how that would be a contradiction. They may have a good propaganda system but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not there for conquest and plunder. —Christiaan 23:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Conquest", our inaccurate article notwithstanding, is the act or process of winning a war (http://www.bartleby.com/61/77/C0577700.html). The title is a good NPoV one. --Jerzy(t) 15:11, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

What word do you suggest instead though? Incursion, offensive, assault, storm, onslaught? I think invasion is the best word to use here. This particular "liberation" (a characterization of the actions, not a description of the actions) involved the military entering the soveriegn state of Iraq, and then fighting the military there. Invasion is accurate in terms of the action and I don't think you can find a simple and less negative word.--Ben 20:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, how they can tie themselves up trying to reconcile what's going on in their heads with actuality. —Christiaan 22:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Invasion" does have a negative connotation, and seems pejorative. Perhaps "2003 Bathist Roundup in Iraq", or "2003 military assistance of Iraq", or "2003 removal of the usurpers of Iraq". Invasion seems more negative than "regime", but less negative than "dictator". --Silverback 21:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're surely joking. Do you honestly believe those are less POV than the comparatively dry "invasion of Iraq"? Graft 21:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear... I envision a trend of "Pearl Harbour preemptive strike", "Pacification intervention in Poland", and "Riot control in Varsovia"... Understatement party, anyone ? Rama 21:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Rama, Pearl Harbor's in the U.S., so I'll thank you to use the American spelling when you create your new article. :) As for this article, I think the title's fine. JamesMLane 23:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If people really think that "invasion" has NPOV issues, then 2003 Attack of Iraq might be an alternative. --Plek 23:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If invasion were POV (just taking a let's suppose), replacing it with the loaded word liberation is not a step forwards. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A quick look at List of invasions can probably convince everybody that this particular event has its place there. In particular, you'll notice "1944 invasion of Normandy", "1944 invasion of Germany" and "1945 invasion of Japan": the goodies can invade the badies ! Rama 23:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not too late to create a List of usurper removals. Yes, I am kidding... --Plek 23:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

heh, "2003 Bathist Roundup in Iraq", that's pretty good. ;) —Christiaan 23:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"2003 not-yet-successful WMD hunt" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haha —Christiaan 01:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll put my vote in for "conquest". --Tothebarricades.tk 03:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Bathist Roundup": is that a new Monsanto product? --Plek 05:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree the title of the article is not perfect from a NPOV perspective. However, I think it is within the bounds of acceptability, as would be the use of the word "regime" to describe the former government of Iraq. Johntex 17:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most countries just call it an invasion, because the name "hostile armed assault without a reasonably good excuse against a sovereign nation with an inferior military", while fairly neutral and accurate, is simply too long. OK, so "invasion" does have a negative connotation, but the situation is not very positive, so that seems only fitting. Still, it is definitely good that those who see it differently have this page, where they can discuss the issue and try to promote their views.

--Verdlanco (talk) 18:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If anyone seriously objects to the word "invasion", other acceptable alternatives are "war" and "attack." Maurreen 05:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No one seriously objects, not reasonably anyway. Christiaan 08:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I seriously think that "invasion" is as negative and POV as "regime" was and that those who objected to "regime" are being inconsistent if they don't also object to invassion. I did not object to "regime".--Silverback 08:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm becoming a big fan of "Bathist Roundup™". Just look at the amazing ~~can of worms~~ range of metaphorical headlines that can result from this title:

"Bathist regime mutates into Roundup Ready Insurgency"
"Liberal application of Roundup in Iraq leads to resistance; US considers sending more troops to eradicate weeds"
"Iraqi citizens saving seeds of democracy face patent infringement lawsuits"

See? "2003 Bathist Roundup™" is the way to go! ;-) --Plek 08:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that "baathist roundup" at last makes the case for the weapons of mass destruction, since we manage to put "Baath" and "chemical products" in the same sentance ! I am almost certain that this somehow justifies the invasion of Iran, too. :p Rama 09:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's not forget that the conquest of Iraq did not have as its primary motivation the liberation of its people. It was mainly about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear weapons program, which the Bush administration guaranteed (based on secret evidence they couldn't release for security reasons) that Hussein had and said needed to be removed/disabled because Hussein was going to give them to Al Qaeda, despite the latter denouncing Hussein's secular government as Satanists who should be overthrown. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of invading a country because one doesn't approve of its form of government, not even Bush supporters seriously claim that they would have been allowed to do so if they hadn't presented WMD removal as their main goal. Kaz 15:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi - what about just "2003 Iraq War"? It's simple, non-controversial, googles well. Graft 17:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

US and its coalition allies did in fact invade, and placing a euphemism in the title in order to suggest that they didn't do so is not only POV, it's delusional. Wikipedia clearly acknowledges facts of the matter in Bay of Pigs Invasion, same deal with US Invasion of Afghanistan. People aren't seriously considering replacement titles for Iraq article, are they?

"2003 Iraq War" would be a terrible replacement in my view. As though Iraq started it! As though it stopped in 2003!

Why US and coalition allies invaded is a different question entirely, and a divisive one that need not be addressed in the title. But they did invade, and title should reflect that fact, as it does in articles on Bay of Pigs and Afghanistan.BrandonYusufToropov 17:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'War' makes it sound like Iraq is attacking America while America attacks Iraq. 'Invasion' is more accurate.

Surely, the recent election makes you realized that American did not attack Iraq, it attacked the Saddam regime and the apparatus, including the Bathists and feydaeen. The coalition rescued the people you saw voting in that election. "2003 rescue of Iraq".--Silverback 20:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but we just say that the USA invaded Iraq, it's just shorter; just like the attack on Pearl Harbour is generally not refered to as "preemptive strike on the naval forces of the USA to obtain a wider diplomatic margin of manoeuver for the Empire of Japan". Also, the official reasons for the invasion never was the liberation of the people of Iraq, but the search for Weapons of Mass destruction. Should we say "2003 rescue of Iraq by mistake" ?

By the way, the results of the election are not yet known. It would be safer to waid a few weeks and see what will come out of this, just in case... with the Sunni boycotting the elections, and most of the lists being more motivated by the tribal tradition of the country than by real political programs, there are still chances that we'd be heading toward an Afghanistan-like situation. Rama 23:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop kidding around Silverback. Christiaan 23:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the entire current discussion page now - sheez - and reached the conclusion that Silverback is merely joking - much like it is presumed IZAK was doing throughout the recent Policy discussion on wether or not a nipple-photo would be offensive in the nipple article. He has to be pulling everyone's collective legs, so I suggest to end the joke now. --TVPR 20:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about "2003 intervention in Iraq" Galloisian 13:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

unprotect

I've asked for the article to be unprotected because the discussion about unsupported statements seems to have reached a conclusion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unintentional humour?

The article notes "Continuing hostilities in that country under military and civil occupation, which is due to end after elections from January 28th to January 30th, 2005"

Presumably, the continuing hostilities aren't scheduled to end between January 28th and January 30th? The paragraph refers to the date of elections, but reads as if the hostilities themselves have been "scheduled to end" -- although with the propoganda war as it is, I might just believe that interpretation ;)

Ojw 00:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to: This term is also used to refer to the continuing hostilities during the Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005. By the way, the entire opening section is badly in need of some copyedit action, I think. Right now it's a jumble of factoids, strewn about in no apparent logical or temporal order. How about rewriting it so the opening becomes a good summary of the article? --Plek 00:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copyright 2009 WordIQ.com - Privacy Policy :: Terms of Use :: Contact Us :: About Us
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the this Wikipedia article.