Talk:History of the United States/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

War in Iraq (2003) NPOV Dispute

I was reading through the History of the United States (1988-Present) tonight and got up to the 2003 War with Iraq section when I noticed a biased paragraph. The paragraph reads as follows:

With casualties mounting, and the cost of the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq estimated at over $200 billion, the war has lost about one-third of its supporters in the U.S. since the end of major operations was announced. Favor has also weakened worldwide; in the first third of 2004, governments in Spain and South Korea which had endorsed the war were voted out of office, replaced by parties that had opposed it. Recent polls suggest that international displeasure with the United States is at an all-time high, with a majority of people in Europe believing that the country is too powerful and acts mainly in self-interest, and a vast majority in predominantly Muslim nations believing that the United States is arrogant, belligerent, or hateful to Islam. [1]

This paragraph doesn't mention other facts that led to Spain and South Korea leaving Iraq, such as the 3/11 Madrid bombing attacks in Spain days before the election (which the incumbent party was expected to win up until the bombings), and possibly South Korea's impeachment proceedings against its President.

If anybody could tell me a good, un-bias way to include these factors, please feel free to respond with your ideas.

--Mrbrown 07:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to include mention of the Madrid attacks or the South Korean impeachment proceedings as factors in those respective countries' decisions to withdraw. Three reasons:
  1. The subject of the article is History of the United States. Terrorist attacks and domestic politics that take place in other countries should not be included in the article unless they have a direct, first-degree impact on the United States itself (as opposed to just having an impact on a U.S.-led overseas military action).
  2. A mention of the March 11 attacks and the ROK impeachment proceedings, and the effects they had on their governments' decisions to withdraw, would be more appropriate on the War on Terrorism page.
  3. I'm not clear on which point of view you think is advanced by intentionally excluding these details, or how including them would fix it.
Regards, Andrewlevine 21:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Andrew - I'm going to go through each one of your points and point out my argument.
  • The subject of the article is History of the United States. Terrorist attacks and domestic politics that take place in other countries should not be included in the article unless they have a direct, first-degree impact on the United States itself (as opposed to just having an impact on a U.S.-led overseas military action).
A US-led overseas military action is something that has an impact on the United States itself. The removal of troops (3,000, I believe, by Spain) has an impact on an overwhemingly U.S.-majority led coalition. These actions can result in a greater amount of American lives lost, which DOES have a direct impact on the United States.
  • A mention of the March 11 attacks and the ROK impeachment proceedings, and the effects they had on their governments' decisions to withdraw, would be more appropriate on the War on Terrorism page.
The War on Terrorism is part of the history of the United States and the pariticipation of these countries in the War on Terrorism is part of the history of the United States.
I was looking over this article with my liberal girlfriend (just in case there's an "conspiracy" that I'm trying to put a conservative point of view of this) on the phone, and she agreed that there is definitely something wrong with this sentence in the article: . Favor has also weakened worldwide; in the first third of 2004, governments in Spain and South Korea which had endorsed the war were voted out of office, replaced by parties that had opposed it. In my opinion, this sentence suggests that the people of Spain voted the Populist party out directly because of their support of the Iraq war. We know by the facts of things like polls before the bombings that this is not true: The Populist party was expected to win, even though they did support the war in Iraq. The 3/11 Madrid bombings changed this outcome, which led to the Socialist party winning in Spain, which led to the decision of troop pullout.
This isn't neutral - it doesn't state all of the facts, it SUGGESTS (in other words, doesn't right out say it but makes people think) that the previous governments of Spain and South Korea were thrown out because of their support of the war in Iraq... it can be sucessfully argued that they weren't, and hence, the neutrality dispute.
Regards,
--Mrbrown 04:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I have a problem with the following statement-
"Nevertheless, the fighting continued and escalated through the 2004 US national elections"
Namely, that the 2004 elections have yet to occur and I didn't think prophesy was the realm of wikipedia.

Rewrite needed

This article needs a complete overhaul. Social and economic history are almost completely ignored... I admit to neglecting this article for a while. (I mostly wrote the majority of articles in this series, but I just started editing this one.) Before I make any major changes, I may propose a draft outline on this page. 172 12:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bias in Wikipedia

The section on "A New World Order" seems to have dissolved the essence of an encylopedia and instead puts forth a clearly bias'd op-ed. I note the phrase "the United States has attempted or been perceived as attempting" is insufficient caveat for listing a litany of onesided charges without fair balance.

The "Persian Gulf War" section is even further afield in the early paragraphs, where it demonstrate cynicism at the view that the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was unacceptable. It even sound approving!

I am not a historian nor have the capacity to do proper literary treatment to the subject, else I would recommend a better approach. But I am sufficiently well read to recognize thinly veiled op-ed. Whatever the authors political issues, the articals should strive to avoid contaminating what could be a useful educational reference.

The most obviously biased part of the section was "classifying certain countries as 'rogue states' because they don't grovel before our wishes." The work of a professional historian, to be sure. Neo-Comm 01:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "new world order" section is basically going "Well after the end of the Cold War, the Imperialist States of America needed to find new excuses to maintain its power." And then to top that off we get a detailed "it's just not that simple" rationalization for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which doesn't even belong in an American history article in the first place.

I'm not trying to make a FOX News version, just a non-Chomskian, non-Left historian, non-Saddam defense version. Prole 06:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One of the huge chunks of the article that you've been deleting includes a reference to Samuel P. Huntington. If he is your idea of a 'Chomskian left historian', I am going to have a hard time taking you seriously. 172 08:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea who that is. I deleted what in general read like an editorial, not anything in specific. EDR 08:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's the problem. Since Wikipedia happens to be an encyclopedia, you cannot remove huge chunks of factual data (with authoritative references) in an article without doing any research just because certain aspects of history make you feel uncomfortable. 172 08:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
BTW, if you want to be taken seriously, shifting from one sockpuppet to another (Trey Stone, Supreme Moolah of Iran, Neo-Comm, Prole, and now EDR) won't help. 172 08:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What the paragraph did was imply that the U.S. was pursuing these policies solely in order to preserve its "hegemony" and "dominance," which I know someone like you might view as an obvious fact, but to others it doesn't quite meet that standard. Given your definition of a "rogue state" in earlier versions, it's pretty clear where you're coming from.

Also, everything has the U.S. label all over it, which is completely unnecessary -- for example, human rights. The international community generally follows a particular definition of human rights, so the quotes are not needed. Another -- preventing certain countries from acquiring weapons only because that would threaten U.S. superiority. Your definition of "rogue states" (sorry, but I think North Korea has done more "rogue" things than just refuse to agree to U.S. wishes); the quotes around "terrorism," "free markets" and "human rights" as if there is a special U.S.-only definition; the stuff about attempting to gain some kind of monopoly for U.S. weapons companies; implying that anti-Communism was an excuse for U.S. global dominance; that "Munich" bit in the Saddam section; etc, etc. I don't need to know who some historian is to know this is obvious POV. Chomskoid 10:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you challenge the factual standing of any of the statements-- backed up by a reference to a Huntington article-- as opposed to making the claim that the content implies things that are not stated? This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for back and forward rhetoric. 172 03:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes this is an encyclopedia, but this does not mean you can just fill a section of an article with facts (according to you at least) meant to portray the subject in a decidedly negative light. It'd be like if I went to the Stalin article and dumped a bunch of stuff in it about how he killed millions of people, while minimizing other facts about his leadership. That's what you essentially do with this article, as any objective observer can see -- you essentially put forth a thesis about "American hegemony." Raghead-in-Chief 10:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to block your latest sockpuppet account. "Raghead" is a bigoted epithet directed at South Asian or Middle Eastern persons. Wikipedia has a policy against offensive usernames. Names that promote racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred are the most inflammatory and unacceptable of them all. 172 11:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I apologize to any South Asians who were offended. No apologies to dem Ay-rabs though. Master Sockpuppet 03:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Watch it. If you spew racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred, I will block you again and make sure that you're sockpuppets never reappear. Try to become a legitimate user or at least stop wasting your time on Wiki. 172 12:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Easy there now. Trey Stone 01:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we can come to a reasonable conclusion until 172 stops babbling about "U.S. this" and "U.S. that" and "monopolies for arms dealers" and "deciding who the UN Sec-General is" and "'threat' (dismissive) of Communism to serve U.S. interests" and "'human rights' standards -- defined by the U.S. of course" and "U.S. everything." Come teh f on. Trey Stone 07:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

Now that the page is protected Trey Stone must justify his sweeping deletions of text here on the talk page. And this means formulating coherent arguments and backing them up with evidence. This does not mean making arbitrarily and confusing claims that portions of the article are "Chomskian" or "pro-Saddam" (particularly when the content in question is cited from an article by Huntington, who is often associated with the neoconservatives-- not the so-called "Left historians" to which Trey Stone refers). 172 07:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added back in practically everything said about Iraq, albeit rephrased so that it doesn't sound like the U.S. was pissed off because Saddam might have made the country into an influential economic power (thus challenging our "hegemonic interests"). And the thing about Munich, which was just thrown in there. Your problem is that you want to portray everything on the U.S. side as "economic hegemony" and "dominance" while rambling about "historical complexities" when referencing tyrannies in the Soviet Union and other Communist states.
To be sure the U.S. self-interest is a big deal in our foreign-policy, but you can't rewrite an encyclopedia to make it sound like every decision we make is out of potential personal benefit. Trey Stone 07:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are drawing comparisons and making accusations that make no sense at all. You have not made a single statement that is not normative. The text on the Iraq War should indeed be shorted relative to the rest of the article; and note above that I state that this article (most of which I did not write, by the way) needs a re-write. But I cannot get around to this if you keep up this behavior. 172 07:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well it can get reopened and I'll try to rewrite it while retaining some of the info I took out. And I recognize that Huntington is not a loon Chomskian historian, k? You've said that more than a few times. We can provide context on Iraq without writing gems like "Bush said it was Munich all over again" and "Saddam, shocked and apparently misled..." Trey Stone 21:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're turining the context provided by the article into a staw man. (Besides, Bush did indeed compare it to 1938 and no serious commmentator believes that Saddam was expecting the U.S. to react as it did.) BTW, I said that a few times because earlier one of your sockpuppets said, "I have no idea who that is." 172 23:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I got the message the first time on the Huntington guy, and I still don't really care because he's not relevant to my recent edits. And yes Bush compared it to Munich, but you don't start a sentence like "Bush decided it was Munich all over again." For the U.S. reaction, what phase of the conflict are you referring to? If it's where Iraqi troops had already occupied Kuwait, unless Saddam was a twit I think he should've realized that such an action would've caused him a few problems with the international community. And this link gives plenty of counterpoints against the line that the U.S. ambassador gave Saddam the A-OK to do what he wanted to Kuwait -- enough so it's not just cut and dry. Trey Stone 08:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question about picture

I realize it's an important event in the history of our current involvement in Iraq, but I can't help but feel the use of one of those infamous Abu Ghraib photos to illustrate the section on the War in Iraq is rather biased. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of photos of U.S. soldiers in Iraq that could have been included there, but to only show one from Abu Ghraib strikes me as rather al-Jazeeraish. It should be removed or balanced with another photo.

172 is gonna have to justify

this anti-American laced POV on this page if he expects it to stay. J. Parker Stone 08:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone

See the archives. The most significant change in your edits, to which I object the most, was the removal of the paragraph citing Huntington, a conservative scholar. You failed to explain why it should have been removed months ago. I do not see the difference now, so I refer you to my past coments on this same matter. 172 08:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't care how much of this is based on Huntington's writings, it is disgustingly POV. "During the Cold War, the purported "threat" of communism..." -- dismissive quotes. "This status provided major political and economic benefits; and to perpetuate the role and interests in the international system stated above, the United States has sought to reassert its power through a revitalization of the Cold War institutional structures, especially NATO." -- this article is about U.S. policies -- you can speculate on our motives elsewhere. "These policies later manifested themselves in events such as ending the ethnic conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo, the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the negotiations with North Korea over nuclear weapons, respectively." -- well at least you kept one objective edit.

"...practices regarding neoliberal economic policy and "human rights"" -- again, dismissive quotes. There is an INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION of human rights. "...promote U.S. corporate interests under the catchphrases of "free trade" and "open markets"" -- i don't think i even need to comment here. "...grade countries according to their adherence to U.S. standards on "free markets," "terrorism," "human rights," drugs, and weapons proliferation" -- again, there are international standards. You get the point. This whole thing is phrased in terms of U.S. this, U.S. that, a long litany of charges that are coming at it from an angle when our job is to provide readers with balanced, objective info. J. Parker Stone 00:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are making not a single substantive point. There is not "litany of charges," just the reality. Now, if you have some work suggesting that Huntington, described by many as a neoconservative, is wrong, cite it. Otherwise, you are just spewing your own personal opinions and disregarding Wikipedia:No original research. 172 01:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

another non-response from 172. "i'm right, and you're not" J. Parker Stone 01:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again note the no original research policy. The matter is whether or not Huntington is right. 172 01:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no smart guy, the matter is whether his commentary is fit for an objective article on U.S. history. J. Parker Stone 01:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are still spewing nonsense. You do not have one bit of evidence suggesting that it is anything but the reality. 172 01:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the purpose of the article is to make the U.S. sound as self-serving as possible, with scare quotes around Communist "threat," "human rights," and practically every other U.S.-supported policy I can think of -- "catchphrases" of free trade? "rogue states" only being classified as "rogue" because they don't kowtow to U.S. interests (i think breaking a nuclear agreement (North Korea) is a little more than that.) you are being arrogant and impossible, but i didn't have any reason to expect much else. no, your personally-accepted truths are not the "reality" any more than my personal opinions are. J. Parker Stone 01:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These terms are in quotations because the phrases are references to U.S. policy. I will rework the text to make it flow better, but over the course of nearly a year, you have failed to present a single argument for removing the text. 172 02:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

other than the fact that the sentence of a million semicolons is essentially a screed of all things evil and corporate about the U.S.? J. Parker Stone 02:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? If you ever take a class on international relations, these are exactly the topics that will come up. By their nature states pursue their own interests. The only one suggesting that this is an accusation of "evil" is you. 172 02:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what i am talking about is perfectly clear to everyone except yourself. if i tried to pull a similar stunt on the history of the USSR you'd RV me in a heartbeat. U.S. policy consists of more than appeasing corporate interests and "dictating" things. J. Parker Stone 02:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one is saying that U.S. policy consists only of promoting its economic interests, but no serious observer will claim that it is not a factor deserving comment... Again I cite Huntington for the claims actually made in the article, not your strawman. Whom are you citing to suggest that he is wrong? 172 02:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i can object to the wording and specific content of an article without citing anyone. i never said he was wrong on the specifics. i have made this clear several times J. Parker Stone 02:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So object to discussing the long-term U.S. foreign policy interests in the section on U.S. foreign policy? I must say that I am a bit perplexed. 172 02:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it's not so perplexing -- my version still discusses it, albeit in a more succinct, NPOV fashion. J. Parker Stone 02:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, people could stop "attacking" you for your political beliefs if you'd just be upfront about them, as I have. for the record, i think you're a democratic socialist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for anti-American third world and socialist states, but feel free to lecture me if I'm wrong. J. Parker Stone 06:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have symphathy for societies caught in a vicious cycle of debt, underdevelopment and conflict, and those who try to overcome these problems. For the record I see the biggest success stories in East Asia, particularly Taiwan, South Korea, et al., not in the 'anti-American Third World and socialist states' I suspect that you are describing. Beyond that I have nothing else to say. Wikipedia is not a chat forum. 172 09:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

but your professed admiration for leaders such as Chavez and general RVing of increased criticism on Fidel Castro and Cold War-related articles tells me you tend to sympathize with socialist governments. that was a good cop-out but don't try and pretend you don't have any political views J. Parker Stone 20:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) BTW, I support governments that try to combat poverty and promote economic growth :) J. Parker Stone 08:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are writing lies and libelous material-- worse than your typical personal attacks. I have never professed admiration for Chavez or Castro. 172 07:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

don't accuse me of lying -- i recall you saying (or essentially implying in a sentence on Talk) that you admired what Chavez was doing for Venezuela. perhaps i'm mistaken, but i doubt it. as for your latter comment, i speculated, i did not definitively state anything. maybe if you'd just be upfront about your personal politics we could end this and your opponents wouldn't accuse you of being a quasi-Stalinist as they've done in the past. J. Parker Stone 08:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You had the chance to state that you were mistaken, but you are still spewing libels. I never made any such comments about Chavez. You had the chance to state that you were mistaken, but you are still spewing libels. Quit attempting to divert the focus to me because you keep on failing to support your sweeping deletions of relevant historical data. 172 08:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
jesus, calm down. maybe i'll try and dig it up later. i'd stop speculating if you'd just come clean about your political views. i'm not "diverting attention" from anything, i just want to effing know. J. Parker Stone 08:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I will explain any of my edits and comments on Wikipedia, which do not include the comments that you accuse me of making. Beyond that, I refuse to give you any personal information at request. Wikipedia is not a chat forum and you will not distract me and get me to join you in using Wikipedia inappropriately. 172 08:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

oh SNAP [1]

Ericd: Actually, I'm very sympathetic to Chavez. I proposed that the photos be included when discussing the widespread support Chavez received from the impoverished majority. The photos would be an example of the conditions in many of his supports live. 172 12:47, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This comment is totally out of context. I made this comment to a user who is not the best speaker of English, who was accusing me of bias against Chavez. I don't know if I fully understood his point, but, to make the conversation go more civilly and to prevent unnecessary misunderstanding, I wanted to imply that I was "sympathetic"-- which does not imply support in any way-- to the position upon which he based his criticism of me. (His comments accused me of inserting the pictures to imply that Chavez was the cause of the poverty. He disagreed, and I reassured him that I was sympathetic to his position with respect whether or not Chavez was the main cause of Venezuelan poverty, given that his position, of course, is the correct one.) Also, I would say the same for any current Latin American head of state or government with respect to efforts to deal with poverty. Thus, this comment **made nearly two years ago-- before Chavez was so apparently close to Castro** in no way demonstrates any support for Chavez today... This is my last statement on this matter. 172 08:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

some LIBEL i made there. J. Parker Stone 08:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yeah it's really "misusing" wikipedia to not conceal your political views so people can stop speculating about them. i have no sympathy for someone who gets upset about being called a "Communist sympathizer" by users like Adam Carr and yet won't be upfront about his own views like others are. J. Parker Stone 08:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have stated my political views repeatedly; I am not a socialist, not affiliated with any socialist organization, and your accusations are a total misrepresentation and totally libelous. While I might be more open to engage in more informal discussions with other users, I have absolutely no interest at this point in engaging in any more discussion with you than is necessary. 172 08:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

maybe there wouldn't be an effing MISREPRESENTATION if you told me instead of being completely evasive. but whatever. J. Parker Stone 08:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no need to tell you. This was exceedingly clear from my work (which should show you that my training is in market economics) and comments over the past two years. You are just trying to discredit me because you apparently have no other way of justifying your edits on this page. End of discussion. 172 08:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

could you stop this paranoid speculation on how i'm trying to bait you? if you just cleared up your position i'd appreciate it, and would not bug you about the matter any further. i WAS discussing the article, but you stonewalled with your usual "it's fact" arguments, without addressing any of my points. J. Parker Stone 08:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) "market economics" doesn't really say anything other than that you believe in at least some semblance of private property. J. Parker Stone 09:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems

Since apparently this site has graduated to the level of barring the changing of particular content, it is incumbent on the user instead to plea his case in the forum, may an authority deem his call worthy.

  • The casual description of Kuwait as an "oil kingdom" is vastly inappropriate and already comes in the clear context of a description of the strategic concern of oil, so is unnecessary. The thirteenth province of Iraq is Al Anbar, and Kuwait was annexed instead as part of the sixth province, Al Basrah, and a new nineteenth province.
  • "Security Concil" is a misspelling.
  • Quotation marks around "Operation Desert Storm" are derisive; troops participate in it, not of it. ODS redirects to Gulf War. There is no mention of Operation Defensive Shield in the context of Saudi Arabia even though it was mentioned in the context of fears of Iraq's moves.
  • The 1992 election section is basically repeated.
  • The phrase, he would permit homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military skates around the point--you do not serve as a closet member of the military, you do not serve if you are an open homosexual. There is nothing offensive about the term and it is plain what is meant.
  • I am not aware, though perhaps I am wrong, that Pat Buchanan had a radio show, which seems to be the implication here. A pertinent outlet to mention would be the upstart Weekly Standard magazine which started in 1995 and has been influential in conservative politics.
  • Besides affecting a centrist line, there is no mention of the influence of the GOP and popular opinion on the passing of welfare reform and crime legislation, which are usually mentioned in the context of Clinton's "triangulation", taking their issues and making them his own.
  • I don't see the need for scare quotes over globalization; it is a commonly accepted (though not undisputed) term, unlike "new economy" which for most would be more abstract.
  • In the immigration system it would be prudent to mention that Hispanics became the largest majority.
  • The summary of the election seems bent on simply discrediting it. It is inaccurate to say it was "after the U.S. Supreme Court decided the electoral legal issues in his favor", because the "legal issues" only pertain to the methods of the recount, whereas the election was certified by the state commission, and the electors voted for Bush, which was certified by Congress, all of which literally came in between Bush v. Gore and Bush's swearing in. This needs a simple rewording to be more neutral.
  • "3000" needs a comma, as far as I am aware.
  • A more neutral term such as "hijackers" could be put in place of "terrorists" in regards to the plane crash in PA.
  • By the same indicators as what shows the unemployment rate during the tenure of Clinton, unemployment has lowered, but the article apparently reflects political opinions of the past year and before. [2]
  • First of all, you forgot Poland. Also, the Australian contribution is as much or more notable than that of Spain and Italy and it participated from the initial invasion.
  • "Nevertheless, the fighting continued" leaves the impression of congruity in the attackers, i.e. the official Iraqi forces and the fedayeen, whereas the article goes on to contend that the insurgents have little to do with the defense of Saddam's regime and are in response to US occupation. Neither of these contentions are sourced with reports from the conflict. Quotes around "anti-Americanism" again merely serve a derisory purpose.
  • Material on the election is lacking, to say the least.
  • There is no first footnote in the actual article.
  • The second point is an unnecessary and partisan digression into the conflict. The "origins" lay as much in the partition of Iraq, which played very prominently in Saddam's public justifications for the invasion. There is no mention in all of this that Kuwait was a country which disapproved of Iraq's move to raise prices which was an immediate cause of the tension, but that the slant drilling claim is disputed. In all it seems to be reaching to rationalize Saddam's invasion without even presenting his own justifications. --TJive June 29, 2005 10:53 (UTC)