Talk:Criticism of the Iraq War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well it's 2007 and Iraq War has grown to 141 KB with literally dozens of WP:SUMMARY subarticles. I made a bold decision to un-redirect this from Opposition to the Iraq War, which primarily discusses who, and SUMMARY the section from Iraq War into this article, which primarily discusses why. Additional notes on the articles might be necessary to make this clear. ←BenB4 11:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This article was formerly listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iraq occupation mistakes, in violation of the WP:VFD policy. I have removed the vfd tag, and applied the npov tag in its place, in enforcement of the original policy, which is dominant in relation to the "do not remove" notice on the sticker. -==SV 22:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As the article has had the VFD template for 17 days, I've removed it. I counted the votes as 10 delete to 8 not delete (mostly keep), so no consensus. Unfortunately move to Criticism of the Iraq War on Wheels! got no votes. --SPUI (talk) 14:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Edits
I've cut out a chunk of the rambling intro and a few of the bullet points that seemed vague and unsupported. Also removed the wikilinks to articles that have not been created. There are already other articles that cover these topics so it's not so likely that articles with those exact titles would be created. --Lee Hunter 01:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] No need for this page
This is easily debunked. Just use the Justification for the War in Iraq signed by both parties in congress and your done. Also add the Sept. 18th 2002 speech by George W Bush to the UN that documents Saddam's failed compliance with 16 Resolutions. Iraq's ties to Al-Queda are well documented in the 9/11 Commission report (despite several ommissions only now being covered), although the ties were never opperational, the Bush administration never said that there was a working relationship with Al Queda, only ties. The huminitarian intervention was also used as reason, and it cannot be denied that Saddam was brutal to the people of Iraq, especially the Kurds and Shia population. President Bush in his State of the Union speech in Januraury of '03 stated that he believed that Saddam was not an imminent threat, but a grave and growing one. President Cheney repeated these words several months before Bush went to the UN to ask for international appeal. The Deufler(sp?) Report stated that while no weapons were recovered that none the less, Saddam was in violation of several UN resolutions including 1441. David Kay also agreed in his testimony before the Senate. The Report also confirms that Iraq was reconstituting his plans for WMD programs by manipulating the Oil for Food program. Several Iraqi Nucleur scientists have come forward and testified that they were forced by the Saddam siblings to hide important documents and blueprints for a Nuke device in thier homes and backywards. Saddam could've reconstituted his nuke ambitions within months after inspections and sanctions were lifted. Two bi-partisan committees have overseen the WMD evidence and terrorism ties, and have concluded that thier assesments were fair and balanced at the time.Ther was no manipulation of the evidence, for the onus was squarely on Iraq to comply with UN inspectors to prove his case. So in essense the whole debate over Iraq is useless. The matter was concerning if Iraq would full comply with Iraq after 12 years of defiance or be disarmed (as in taken out)from office to let the inspectors do thier job. It didnt matter if he didnt have WMD's at all, what mattered was that he had to comply with UN Resolutions. There have been several instances where the administration said that it was not looking for a smoking gun at all, but a fair compliance by Saddam Hussien. Even anti-war inspector Hans Blix addmitted in his book Disarming Iraq that Saddam did not meet the standards set by compliance. His removal was just under international law and the treaty he signed from the 1st gulf war.
Easily debunked or not, they are criticisms, and they do exist. Therefore, make your page debunking them.
- Some people rely too much on FOX news. :|
- Debate is "useless" when people are too busy maintaining their point of view to entertain any information that might conflict with it. When you are taking the word of ANY "side" as proof without examining their "proof", while only demanding burden of proof for anything the other "side" is presenting, I'd say there needs to be a hypocrisy check.
- I've seen enough evidence to suggest that there is enough motive for governments to want control over areas like Afghanistan and the Middle East. If there is another motive that hasn't been ruled out that's in line with the actions of the US government, I'd say it bears some examination. Much of the criticism of the war/occupation of Iraq stems from this. There is even evidence that is cited when you only look at news from big media corporations.
- And why doesn't anyone sign their posts?
- AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 12:52 pm [Pacific Time], 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Keep this page please
If anyone thinks that mentioning cases of Criticism of Iraq War is POV, they must be mad. There is always plenty of criticism for any war by the public, and there is definitely plenty for this one. If you take away this section, then readers in 100 years time that nearly everyone thought this war was a great thing, which is arguable. The majority of Wikipedians probably support the war, as the majority are British or American, but the oppposite case should be made too. This is called NPOV. Wallie 07:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, the latest polls show that a majority of Americans consider the war to be a mistake, and an even larger number consider President Bush's handling of the war to be poor.
- What exactly is POV about the article? Unless someone can cite something substantive, it seems NPOV enough to me to remove the POV tag. Michaelbluejay 17:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Michaelbluejay and Wallie. This article is an objective list of opinions of a single point of view as there is for the other side of the arguement elsewhere on wikipedia. It is ridiculous to mark it POV, let alone delete it. -Haon 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- NPOV isn't creating pages explaining both sides. It's one article expressing a neutral view of events on a topic. --EatAlbertaBeef 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. Arguments for and against the war should be on one page, not separated. Integrate this into the main page or create a separate "Views on the Iraq War" article. --Mmx1 02:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- This page will never be NPOV compliant. It simply represents the views of one side. I don't see why everyone is arguing about it. There is a section of justifications for the war on the main "Iraq War" page, and that has no non-NPOV warning. Actually, I think either this page should be merged with the main Iraq War page (its actually just a copy of what is on that page, btw), or a page with arguements for the war should be created. There is no sense in saying that each side is non-NPOV; that much is obvious.
Fuzzform 20:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] More can be added
Several Years ago Kofi Annan stated in an interview for British TV that the Iraq War was Technically illegal (I can't recall his exact words) this should be included in the section "Claims That The War Is Illegal", just thought I'd mention it.
