Talk:Iraq War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Talk archives for Iraq War (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	16 >>

LAUGHABLE POV

This is clearly the most unabashed, politically partisan article on wikipedia. I used to believe in this project until this article proved to me that this open source encyclopedia is the public washroom of scholarship. I'm finished here.

redirects

If Iraq War is a redirect to Iraq War (disambiguation) why does Iraq War (disambiguation) exist? Why isn't the disambiguation page here? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Move

Excellent idea to make the move, whoever it was. -St|eve 08:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree - much, much nicer article here at Iraq War than before at Invasion of Iraq.

Iraq war discussion

OVER 2000 AMERICANS HAVE NOW DIED IN THIS WAR - END THE RETORIC AND BEGIN A REAL CONVERSATION. CALL YOUR SENATOR, YOUR CONGRESMEN, THE MEDIA EVERYONE DEMAND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ANSWER FOR THE LIVES THEY HAVE THROWN AWAY. MAKE OCTOBER 26 A DAY OF PROTEST – STAY HOME FROM WORK, SCHOOL – WHAT EVER YOU CAN DO TO SEND A MESSAGE. THIS INSANITY HAS GOT TO END! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.70.22 (talk • contribs) 25 Oct 2005. Note that this was interspersed before earlier comments

This conversation was on originally found on the Reference Desk and moved here. --HappyCamper 11:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. AlMac|^(talk) 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello does anyone know when it will end? --Newsreporter 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I'am being serious.

Don't hold your breath; as long as there are US troops there, there will be armed resistance, and as long as there is armed resistance the troops will stay - because 'withdrawal from Iraq would lead to civil war' etc. David Sneek 19:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't the Iraqi people try and get along? Shities, Sunni's and Kurds all fighting over what? --Newsreporter 19:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes they could. Under Saddam Hussein's rule, apparently. However bad, Saddam kept a major part of Iraq under control. His abrupt removal created a power vacuum inside Iraq which becomes ever incrasingly deadly. So far I see no light at the end of the tunnel.

You may overthrow a bad leader, but you have to make sure you can install a better replacement in that country. Without such a replacement, there will be chaos. This holds true even in the Western world. See how the U.S. ended its own civil war. The North did not send its own people to rule the South. -- Toytoy 01:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Power vacuum is great way of describing the problem. It is similar to the end of communism in Central Europe, Europe's colonies in the 3rd world. collapse of Roman Empire, South American revolutions. When prior leadership had been cruel dictatorship with zero education for the people in any kind of self-government, removal of that prior leadership means chaos results.

There's also element of conflict between the different interest groups competing for the new leadership. In the Middle East especially, and we see this with the Palestinians, there is low concept of religious tolerance for those of other belief systems, and there are players opposed to any peace process ... if there is any progress, they will do extra bad attacks to derail it.

There's also border states with great interest in trying to influence the outcome, so the new government is similar to theirs and buddy buddy to them. AlMac|^(talk) 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This war could go on indefinitely.

This is a poor place to have this kind of discussion, we can get in an edit war by accident.

Wars between states have historically ended when one side is defeated, capitulates, surrenders, or when both sides agree to, and abide by, a cease fire (eg. the Korean War has not officially ended, but thanks to the cease fire has ended in reality, but could start up again at any time.)

But this is not a war with only two sides, and is not a war between states.

It has similarities to a revolution in which the rebels are not yet a recognized government, but vast numbers of foreign fighters are involved.

It has elements of a religious war, which we know from our study of history, have often lasted for centuries. If you have read bin Laden's open letters to the west, you can see that his side thinks this war started at the time of the Crusades, like a millenia ago, and they won't quit until 100% of the world has either converted to their religious beliefs, or are dead, which will be a cold day in hell. AlMac|^(talk) 20:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam is it really going to be like that? --Newsreporter 20:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I guess Vietnam was bad. Plus there is a lot of protesters around anyway like that woman that was staying near Crawford Texas. --Newsreporter 20:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam was SIMPLE compared to what is going on in Iraq. AlMac|^(talk) 20:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it that the Shities don't want the Sunni's and the Kurd's or what is the main reason for the invasion? --Newsreporter 20:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Saddam Hussein was classified as a dictator but the americans have him why don't they leave?

These questions are very difficult to answer thoroughly, and I suspect are somewhat beyond the capabilities of the reference desk here. Have you considered contacting a historian or a librarian who specializes in Middle Eastern studies? These people will be familiar with this topic, and will help guide you towards finding the resources which will fit with your interests and help answer your questions. --HappyCamper 23:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Or start with our Iraq war article, follow the links to further articles, and you could look at the BBC special report or the Guardian's Iraq hub which will give you a politically leftist slant. --bodnotbod 00:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Almac... the war in Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Vietnam. From 1965 to 1972, over FOUR MILLION Vietnamese CIVILIANS died. The death toll of Americans was over 250,000, and the North Vietnamese suffered military deaths in excess a million. Iraq is NOWHERE near Vietnam. Really, if we're being technical, the war is over. What's happening now is no more warlike than the race riots in America during the 60's, except it's prolonged. Prolonged volatile behavior is clearly different than a war.

The death toll is a different topic than explaining what the people are fighting over. WW II was simpler to explain, but the death toll much higher. Plus War in Vietnam started (with France) long before the American involvement which started only after France lost, and there was an international effort to manage the aftermath, which America did not get involved with. Before that, during WW II, the various 3rd world countries, that had been European colonies, were promised their independence after WW II if they helped the allies side in WW II, and it was the violation of that promise that really started the Vietnam war. AlMac|^(talk) 15:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

On the matter of Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. Kurds... the Kurds want their own country, or a very seperate state, in the North of Iraq. They've wanted that for decades, actually. The Shiites want to be in charge of the country, more or less (a reasonable desire, given that they're easily the most populous group). The Sunni's also want to be in charge, and have subsequently boycotted the elections. The Americans don't want to leave until the Iraqi Army is built up enough to prevent some rogue dictator from pulling a Saddam and taking over the country. Unfortunately, the Islam militants don't realize that.

well there's some interesting parallels to World War 2. Saddam was a fascist who gassed and relocated his own people in addition to attacking his neighbors. But he never directly attacked us and arguably never could have, though he declared Jihad and occasionally took potshots at our planes. And we entered a war with him as part of a war with someone else who did actually attack US soil. Oh plus his military had WW2 era weapons... keith 15:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Saddam never declard Jihad. The Baath Party is largely secular and large opponents of islamists. --Howrealisreal 15:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

...I'm pretty sure he declared Jihad in at least his last three wars. Against, at various times, the US, Israel, all westerners, and Kuwait. Whether he is/was sincere in his religion is not the point. keith 19:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Please re-check your facts and if you do find that it is correct, please post it here cause I'd be very curious to see that. He might've called for his followers to war against the US, but that is very different from Jihad. --Howrealisreal 00:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My facts come from my memory off the news, dating back to pre-internet days (not this crap people cite off fringe internet sites nowadays), but here's a few results from a bbc search of 'saddam + jihad' [1] [2] [3] keith 02:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Good researching and I'm sorry for doubting you. It seemed very strange at first but I guess nothing is strange these days. --Howrealisreal 03:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Do remember how close Bush came to declaring a Crusade. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Trying to answer another question from Newsreporter ... Conflicts between Shites Sunnis Kurds, and other big groups in Iraq, such as organized crime which flourished under Saddam, all this is independent of the stated reasons for America invasion of Iraq. However, prior to the invasion, various Iraqi interest groups who wanted Saddam out, but did not have what it takes to get rid of him themselves, they allegedly conspired to feed phony intelligence to America, and to other nations, such as about WMD, in hopes of America invasion to oust Saddam, or some other equivalent results. So indirectly, conflicts between different groups in Iraq, could be said to have contributed to why the invasion occurred.

America cannot be policeman to the world, orchestrating regime change any place desired, such as North Korea. There has to be something to persuade Congress and Allies and UN that intervention is justfied. Look at Cuba. Many US administrations have wanted regime change there, America has the might to orchestrate it, but lacks the justification for invasion. AlMac|^(talk) 07:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

A government is legitimate only to the extent that it protects individual rights rather than violates them. Accordingly the US needed no further justification to overthrow either Saddam or Castro. It is racist to suggest that Saddam and Castro have a right to oppress "their" people and the US doesn't. The concept that nations have sovereignty rights that prevent anyone from coming to the aid of any individual whose rights are being violated, is a fascist lie promulgated by the United Nations. Nations do not own individuals.--Silverback 09:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the Iraqi people would have had the revolutionary right (though, sadly, not the means) to overthrow the Saddam regime; of course, a lot of them feel they have that same right (and more effective means) to overthrow the one the U.S. and Coalition have installed, hence the present insurgency. However, there is no principle under international law by which a power from half way around the world has the right unilaterally to topple a regime because the latter is, in the former's judgement, unjust. And to declare such a principle would be an invitation for any country to invade any other country at any time, using this as a pretext. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I have no respect for international law that recognizes the sovereignty of dictators, in the first Gulf War that was UN sanctioned, Bush's "New World Order" appeared to mean that Saddam had a right to oppress Iraqis, but not Kuwaitis. That is a moral abomination. The only "right" a government has to oppress is the right of "might". Intrinsic to fascism and nationalism is the view that the state is an organic entity with "rights" rather than as an institution to protect individual rights. Why can't you come out say that Saddam was unjust, instead of qualifying it as the "former's judgement", are you a moral relativist? The ethos of recognizing national sovereignties is miss guided, we would do better to recognized individual rights and freedom from oppression. If this ethos were wide spread, then your fear of one nation invading another would be much less, and when it happened would have much less impact. The individuals in the nation with the dictator would recognize that they have no moral right to resist liberation. And an agressor nation would be recognized early because with individuals that know their rights, they would have to conscript which would bring them to the attention of the freedom loving world much sooner.--Silverback 06:13, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

My own opinion of Saddam, and the war, and all that? Seems off topic, but since you ask…

First and foremost, I don't believe in "go[ing] abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

Saddam was well beyond "unjust". I can honestly say that I attended at least one public protest against him clear back when the U.S. was treating him more or less as an ally, and was emphatic during the period leading up to the Gulf War about the importance of those of us who were protesting U.S. a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq to be equally clear about protesting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But the U.S. has also taken the same view of Castro (who I'm not exactly a fan of, but certainly think is a better option for Cuba than a U.S. invasion) and lately Hugo Chavez (an elected leader who clearly has the support of the majority of voters in his country). And Iran has taken the same view of the U.S.: would they be justified in trying to topple our government? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but numbers don't create the right to oppress, a majority has no more right to oppress than a single dictator. I was an opponent of the first gulf war also, the United Nations targeted innocent Iraqi conscripts killing over 100,000, and targeted civilian infrastructure, but the purity of US intent and means in the latest Gulf War means it can probably only be opposed by a true pacifist without hypocrisy. And yes, the drug war leaves the US government without moral legitimacy against an invader who would grant chemical freedom. And if the Palestinians would end conscription and do a better job protecting Israeli citizens, they would have every right to invade Israel, and Israel would have no right to resist. Unfortunately, none of this is likely or practical. Hopefully, you don't think of dictators and oppresive states or cultures as things we need to preserve as if they were endangered species.--Silverback 08:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Preserve? Not at all. But to put this in terms from our (U.S.) Declaration of Independence, it is a long way from "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it" to "it is the right of a powerful army from halfway around the world to alter or abolish it." -- Jmabel | Talk 23:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, a "right" isn't needed to liberate Iraq. Saddam did not need a right to oppress Iraq, I don't see why the standard for liberation should be higher. In fact, I believe a good case can be made that the standard for liberation should be lower.--Silverback 05:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

well I'm not a lawyer, but I do know international law can not supercede states' internal laws, which undoubtedly will prohibit the exercise of the "revolutionary right". so your alternate remedy is also illegal for that matter. keith 19:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Move back to Iraq War from 2003 Iraq conflict

I moved this article back to Iraq War, because the conflict which the article covers is ongoing and did not take place exclusively in 2003. The initial invasion, which did take place only in 2003, has its own article at 2003 invasion of Iraq. This article is meant to cover both that initial invasion and the subsequent fighting. Plainsong 18:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Undercover Soldier" seems POV

Concerning the UK detainees recently held by Iraqi police, if they weren't in uniform or carrying their weapons openly, then they aren't protected as soldiers under the Geneva Conventions. These are the same standards used by the US and UK to classify their enemies as "unlawful combattants." For the sake of conformity, at least, the same language used to describe the insurgency should be used to describe these two ("British fighters," "British agents," etc.). Maybe "members of the British military." David Iwancio 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam war wasn't as simple

I don't think you can compare Vietnam war to Iraqi war. Also remember that in Veitnam the US had thier ass kicked. We must not forget that the Vietnam war was mainly battling against communism and Iraqi is mainly gaining petrol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.123.16.88 (talk • contribs) 20 Sept 2005.

yes, although the Vietnam war was also fought for a noble cause, it used immoral means, forcing innocent civilians into camps, sleep depriving them, verbally and physically abusing them, conditioning them to follow orders and desensitizing them to killing. No "noble cause" can justify the abomination that is conscription.--Silverback 06:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the U.S. entered the Vietnam War with such a pure heart! No interest in the phosphates, coal, manganese, bauxite, chromate, offshore oil and gas deposits, or the forests of the delta that had at various times made this a prime colony of first China and later France. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the US hearts were pure, and the leaders of N Vietnam, knew perfectly well the US had no colonial intent and that their best option if they really cared about their people would be to lose to the US as quickly as possible. Do you really think the vietcong knew they were fighting for a misguided european idealogy that would purify the people in "education" camps, and severely supress attempts at emigration? The leaders of N Vietnam were educated, by the time of US involvement they knew that the US had rebuilt Japan and W. Germany, and the contrast between East and West Germany was apparent to all. However, in a democracy, these selfish leaders knew that they would not have the power they could enjoy with captive gulag labor, at the impoverishment of their people.--Silverback 06:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how arrogant you sound? Your premise that a nation, in this case Vietnam, should lose a war and let themslves be in effect politically ruled by an external power is justified by what?- technological superiority, because it surely can't be any ideological superiority, then what can possibly be superior about invading a country and warmongering? Your insinuation that communism, "a misguided european idealogy," is so terribly bad is based on "[communist] gulag labor [and] the impoverishment of [communist leader's] people," well pal, it'd really interest me to know what you think about US citizens in poverty and prisons... The Iraq War is a crime against humanity. The US has damaged its moral credibility enormously by waging this war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.80.85.229 (talk • contribs) 10 Nov 2005.

Too right. Silverback's argument only works if you ignore the fact that the US were fighting the democratically elected North Vietnamese government because it was almost certain that South Vietnam would also vote socialist if their leadership was put to an election. In fact, the war started after the US refused to allow the people of South Vietnam their democratic right to choose their leader. If the US were such great believers in democracy why did they continually depose democratically elected leaders just because they were socialists and replace them with bloodthirsty dictators (most notably Augusto Pinochet in Chile)? Let's not have this bullshit about Soviet death camps, because the USSR was socialist in name only, not in ideology. If you don't agree with me, read Marx and Engels. Oh, and an ass is a donkey, but I shit out my arse. Just because the septics can't tell their fat arses from donkeys doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

The leaders of N Vietnam did not think we had no colonial intent. McNamara has stated that when he met with them after the war that he was shocked (and angered) to find how incorrect their perception of our goals in Vietnam were.

I think you've misremembered what McNamara said. In the documentary film "Fog of War", he related an exchange that occured between he and a very high-ranking war-era counterpart (it might have been the former Foreign Minister) decades after the war. The FM and McNamara had an exchange so heated that they 'almost came to blows' over it. The FM said, in effect, 'Didn't you (fools) understand, we've been fighting occupiers for thousands of years. We _never_ would have given up.'

Correct - the US had no colonial intent, but it would be naive to think that it was ideology that drove the US to war. Indeed, if they did begin a war against another Country with the sole aim of eradicating an ideology, that would be equally as bad as the North Korean leadership imposing their ideals on their people. Agree or disagree, war for the sake of ideology is not acceptable in the modern era. Unfettered capitalism is to many, as despicable as commnism.

Anon one, there is a difference between being despicable and being totalitarian, as implied by central planning. The latter is far more coercive than the former, and requires far more control of information and forced re-education and special members to prevent people from escaping.--Silverback 07:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, in what ways was the US's "ass kicked" in Vietnam? 71.133.115.162 12:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

About 53,000 dead and many reports say an even larger number of suicides among the survivors; the inability of what was certainly the world's greatest superpower (and a country that had won every war it had participated in for about 150 years) to impose its will on a small third-world country; ultimately, the destruction of the U.S. Cold War liberal consensus. It's sort of like asking "in what ways was the Soviet Union's "ass kicked" in Afghanistan?" -- Jmabel | Talk 04:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say not achieving one's stated objectives while simultaneously losing 53,000 on the ground (plus many more casualties), along with the massive domestic conflict and divisions it continues to cause qualifies as getting one's ass kicked. We sure didn't go there with the intent of achieving that sort of cost/benefit tradeoff did we? I'm open to another interpretation.

Disputed

I can't find any reliable sources to verify "They were reported to having been planting bombs in a public place...". --BeenBeren 11:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't either but ABC news and the New York Times says that they were firing at Iraqi police:

The rescue followed rioting in Basra that began, according to police and local officials, when the two men fired on an police patrol. [4]

The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer. [5]

Also the Scotsman [6], and the paper I have on my desk, the Metro, say that the jail was later destroyed. akaDruid 11:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a reference to the 'bomb planting' report in the Wikinews report. That reference was sourced from this Wikipedia article by me. I will amend the Wikinews. Please update Wikinews again as/when facts become clearer. 195.157.197.108 12:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday (ca. 18:00, 19 September 2005 UTC), in a newspaper linked from news.google.com, I read aloud to my office mate that the English soldiers in Arab garb were planting bombs in public places. I cannot recall the newpaper's name and I've been going crazy trying to find it or any mention of the alleged bomb planting.

This WaPo article [7] states that "Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." Another early statement was that they had shot a traffic policeman. Several wire services carried similar reports, but no later stories contain any elaboration. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Who are these "Iraqi security officials"? Are they police? And what are they accusing the soldiers of? Either "shooting at Iraqi forces" or "trying to plant explosives"??? They're not sure? Is the 'or' just a mistake? I'd think we need a better source than a report of anonymous officials making unclear accusations. --BeenBeren 02:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

BeenBeren, I was just confirming that earlier wire stories contained the claim. When I edited the article, I reflected this "claim" without stating it as fact. Given that it was so widely reported I think it would be foolish not to include it as at least a POV claim. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are two archived news sources...

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page2902/19_basra.wmv - Two British soldiers have been arrested in the southern Iraqi city of Basra in a civilian car packed with explosives, now freed by British Commandos.

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page2903/ - Iraqi police detained two British soldiers in civilian clothes in the southern city Basra for firing on a police station on Monday, police said. The British forces informed the Iraqi authorities that the two soldiers were performing an official duty.

It appears that two undercover Brits in an attempt to infiltrate a terrorist organization by earning their bones (hopefully without actually harming anybody), got caught by the rapidly improving Iraqi forces. It should not be a surprise that the Brits don't want to abandon these assets in an Iraqi prison. However, undercover operatives, should not be surprised that when their operations involve violating the law in a foreign land, that there are occasionally consequences.--Silverback 06:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at all. These "rapidly improving" forces then handed the guys over to an independent militia. There's plenty of reason to be suspect of the claims on either side. Anyway, I don't think that anybody disagrees this was a severe but ultimately expected consequence of such wet work. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The accusers still don't have names or positions and are described as "Iraqi Police" in the video, and just as "source" in the article. They're also only accused of having explosives, not planting bombs. Furthermore, these seem to be early reports as some details that are know now are missing. --BeenBeren 10:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the bomb planting claim should be removed unless we can find a source soon. --BeenBeren 10:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section. This is not a news article, it is too soon to consider that this rises to an encyclopedic level in an article about the whole war.--Silverback 10:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a news article, its on every news source worldwide and the front pages here in the UK. Maybe it deserves its own article, with a summary here. You can't just delete it though! akaDruid 11:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is the wrong page for this section and that it doesn’t reach an encyclopaedic standard. However I thought it should stay while it is linked from the front page. I also think that current events have a place in an encyclopaedia and should be given some leeway and time so it can rise to an acceptable qualitity. Lastly I'm against the wholesale deletion of content, if it's on the wrong page it should be moved, if it doesn’t meet the required standard it should be cleaned up. At the very least it should be tagged for some time before it’s removed. --BeenBeren 11:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no one has questioned that this info is newsworthy. Is there another place it can be put and linked to? We shouldn't be polluting this page. So what if the main page doesn't link to information about it, the information is available everywhere else. It is not a rare news nugget.--Silverback 11:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe transfer the content to Operation Telic (British name for their deployment to Iraq) or Special Reconnaissance Regiment (the two photographed individuals are alleged to be from that regiment). I believe a small paragprah should remain on this page, however, just like the relatively obscure Operation Matador - it received very limited media attention (as far as I know) compared to this police station incident.SoLando 11:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My thinking is that the threat of more combat operations is making it more useful to consider having a separate article for all military/combat/etc. operations that take place during the "post-war" period. This isn't part of the invasion, it's part of the occupation, but that article doesn't need such detailed accounts of individual events either. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the bomb planting claim. --BeenBeren 05:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Al Jazeera image

Should this image be included? There is already an image from AFP and (from what is being reported) these two individuals appear to be from the SRR or SAS - both secretive units of the British Army. Their faces are usually pixelated (or whatever) to conceal their identity. Is it really appropriate to have this image? SoLando 02:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a need to change it? In my opinion these two individuals cannot be considered as being of secret service or whatsoever, for their actions they have done. Good show thier heads, if I get a good sum of money for thier heads, they are mine. ;)

anon one, this is a news story and not yet encyclopedic as you may figure out when you get more than one edit to your IP.--Silverback 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

News and encyclopedia entries are not mutually exclusive. Wikipedia prides itself on reacting quickly to significant events: witness the tsunami and London bombings articles. Current Events are part of Wikipedia and the content you have been cutting is linked to from the front page. As noted at several points further up the page, there are ways to cut down 'noise' content other than taking a unilateral decision and deleting. Taking that decision and deleting repeatedly borders on vandalism. Stop repeatedly cutting other people's contributions and be constructive. Calling yourself 'Silverback' does not make you a grizzled, respected Wikipedian and discounting the views of new Wikipedians just because they are new is hardly welcoming or helpful. In any case, you should know better than to judge on IP alone. You ask in your profile to be judged on the merit of your posts, rather than your credentials.... give us something to judge you well by. 195.157.197.108 11:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Use some judgement anon one. Some news is immediately encyclopedia worthy, in the Iraq war for instance, if WMD were to be found, since it impacts the whole perspective on the war, that would be enclyclopedic, if the UK were to decide to withdraw from Iraq, that would immediately be enclycopedic. However, if a war summary article were to reported every incident it would quickly lose its value. --Silverback 11:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Like if there were to be a significant event likely to result in the breakdown of trust between Iraqi police forces and British military forces in a key Iraqi city? 195.157.197.108 12:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, this is at one police station that did not follow the Iraqi governments instructions. However, if more comes of it, such as a change in relations or UK policy, then this article might mention it as part of the narrative, but not in this level of detail.--Silverback 13:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What 'actions' have they done? I suspect you do not know. Until you do, keep your opinions to yourself. Also, as a point of language, if they are employed by a secret organisation (military or otherwise), they could legitamately be considered as members of a 'secret service'. No 'actions' by anyone can change that fact.

Didn't the Jazeera pic add something to the story? People can see the SAS is using Anglos for undercover, not Arabs. That adds information doesn't it? Illuminates tactics and whatnot. If the men were Arabs wouldn't the story change? After all, people throughout the Arab world (millions inside and outside Iraq) have seen this broadcast already. The pic has already been widely distributed on the Web and TV. You're only denying insight and information to Westerners. User:thadswanek

inaccurate portion that was commented out

This next section is inaccurate as to a description of what happened at this time, before this section goes in, must source: The inability of successive interior ministers to create an effective security force, the willingness of insurgents to target police training and police stations with car and truck bombs, and the skyrocketing unemployment and collapse of the pervasive secret police system used by the Ba'ath Party, contributed to the escalation of civil, as well as political, violence.

This was in the article ... but was commented out. JDR 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Section removed from article

The section below was removed wholesale from this article by User:Silverback after repeated deletions by him and subsequent reverts by various users. If information is not relevant to this article, please move it to an article where it is relevant, rather than simply deleting. There is a VfD protocol to follow for redundant information - otherwise you are taking a unilateral decision to sanitise the Wikipedia account, which is verging on vandalism. 195.157.197.108 10:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone moved it to the Basra article which is probably a more appropriate place Nil Einne 09:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

UK fighting against Iraqi police

Wikinews has related news:

Basra, Iraq raid by UK forces to rescue soldiers from police

Image:2UK soldiers.jpg

Two UK soldiers under arrest by Iraq police. (AFP photo)

On September 19, 2005, two British soldiers were arrested by Iraqi police in Basra following a car chase. Police officials accused them of firing at police while dressed in civilian clothes. After being approached by Iraqi police, the two soldiers reportedly fired on the police, after which they were apprehended, which sparked clashes in which UK armoured vehicles came under attack. Two civilians were reportedly killed and three UK soldiers were injured. The arrests followed the detention of two high-ranking officials of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army

UK Ministry of Defence officials insist they have been talking to the Iraqi authorities to secure the release of the men, who were reported to be working undercover. British servicemen who were seen being injured in the graphic photographs are being treated for minor injuries only. But they do acknowledge a wall was demolished as UK forces tried to "collect" the men. However, sources in the Iraqi Interior Ministry say six tanks were used to smash down the wall in a rescue operation. Witnesses told the Associated Press around 150 prisoners escaped during the operation; Iraqi officials later denied any prisoners had escaped.

Earlier, two British Warrior AFVs, sent to the police station where the soldiers were being held, were hit by multiple petrol bombs in clashes. British officials would not say if the two men were working undercover. Crowds of angry protesters hurled petrol bombs and stones injuring three servicemen and several civilians. TV pictures showed soldiers in combat gear, clambering from one of the flaming AFVs and making their escape. In a statement, Defence Secretary John Reid said the soldiers who fled from the vehicles were being treated for minor injuries. Mr. Reid added that he was not certain what had caused the disturbances. "We remain committed to helping the Iraqi government for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary to provide security," the statement said. Later British MoD reports suggested the soldiers were being handed to Iraqi insurgents by members of the Iraqi police, despite instructions from the Iraq Interior Ministry that they should be released.

Tim Collins, a former commander of troops in Iraq, described the incident with the crowd as like a "busy night in Belfast."[8]

What is the point of this article?

Right now this article just looks like a condensed version of the "Invasion of Iraq" one. What's the difference between the two? In other words, what defines whether a fact should go here or there? Korny O'Near 17:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This one's actually NPOV jgofborg

i dont know how could Iraq be called a "war", it was 1 outdated army vs a super tecnological army (wich was made solely by the united states, and a few other armies in the world who aparently didnt do much of anything). Somehow, it almost looked like a massacre more than a war. Followed very closely by an ocupation that hasnt proved to be succesful, not to mention that no one really knows for sure why the hell america invaded Iraq to begin with (sure, we all know, but youll never see it on wikipedia).

Correct reference to Saddam Hussein

What is the correct reference to Saddam Hussein beyond the complete name? Should he be referred to as "Saddam" or "Hussein"? Normally, Wikipedia articles have referred to the individual by their family name. ("Hussein", right?) Is that the correct method? We refer to Bill Clinton as "Clinton" and George W. Bush as "Bush" in the articles. We even use "Bush" but not merely "George" in this article. What is correct? - Tεx τ urε 19:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The most correct way would probably be to use both names at once. Saddam would be more correct than Hussein. Hussein is simply the name of his father. It's like calling a Russian guy named Yuri Sergeyivich Markov "Sergey". A lot of people in the West simply assume "Hussein" is the family name. Actually, Uday and Qusay would, in the way Saddam's name is translated, be known as "Uday Saddam" and "Qusay Saddam" in English. The second name is always the name of the father, not the family name.

Ok, just read this article on Saddam's name. Saddam is the name by which he is most commonly known, as well as the name by which he wants to referred to. I say we use that instead. Colipon+(T) 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of "end of occupation"

This article refers to the occupation in the past tense, claiming it ended on June 28th, 2004. This is not a neutral POV- international law, common sense, and the global consensus all hold that coalition forces are still occupying powers in Iraq. The article should be rephrased to make it clear that the occupation is ongoing. User:bugg42 01:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It is one of the legal definitions, and is neutral in that sense. A "global consensus" is not necessarily correct on a technical issue such as this, although if you view the UN as an organ for expressing that consensus, its resolutions recoginizing the sovereignty of the new Iraqi government meet the legal requirements for the end of the occupation, although there is some abiguity in thier interpretation, some argue that the criteria were not met until the elections earlier this year.--Silverback 10:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you to elaborate on that, because there are certainly coalition troops in Iraq, and even if sovereignty somehow implies that there is no occupation (something that the Fourth Geneva certainly doesn't seem to support, in my reading of it), then it i an opinion that Iraq actually has de facto, and not just de jure, sovereignty. If Iraq currently isn't occupied, then neither was South Vietnam. Bugg42 03:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The insurgents are fighting the internationally recognized government. You may have missed the facts that Saddam and his organization that was the governing authority was removed. Then, after the occupation ended, a new sovereign took control of Iraq. This governmental authority has made it clear that the international troops should stay to assist them in rooting out the insurgents and terrorists. Sincerely, JDR

I'm arguing that the occupation did not end. There has been a consistent presence of foreign troops in Iraq. This is a force that has at all times been subjected to the Fourth Geneva convention. Whether or not the occupation is legal or belligerent is something that is an opinion, but the fact that the occupation exists, in my opinion, is not. It is therefore not a neutral POV to state, unequivocially, that the occupation has ended. When did it end? Occupations end when foreign troops leave. Bugg42 19:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, see the main article on the occupation" According to Article 42 of the Hague Convention, "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."" That's no longer true, so your opinion is wrong - the country is no longer occupied Done. NPOV. JG of Borg 20:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that Germany is very ostensibly soverign. If you believe that Germany could request the troops to leave and the US troops will obey the request, then you believe that Germany is no longer occupied. If you believe that Germany has no choice but to permit US troops to stay, then you believe that Germany is still occupied. As for the issue of Iraq, many people, such as myself, do not believe that the Iraqi government has supreme political authority in the territory of Iraq. Even if the United Nations, or other countries, say otherwise. Sovereignty is a term that refers to when a country has supreme authority over a region. Iraqi "soverignty" simply has not been proven, and for as long as there is a military occupation and large amounts of political violence, saying that the government is soverign is taking a stance. It's a stance a lot of countries have taken, such as the United States and the United Nations, but it is not unanimouosly held. Many people have cited the recent British operation against an Iraqi jail as an example of how Iraq does not have sovereignty. Bugg42 04:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You apparently have missed the international law discussions on the other Iraq pages. Since, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until October 19, 1951 and with Japan, not until April 28, 1952, in terms of international law, Iraq is sovereignty is already beyond these points.--Silverback 08:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello, Reddi. I was looking at who rewrote the Iraq War article to a past-tense state, and found this diff which showed that you did it. The point of having an "Iraq War" article is to represent the current and ongoing war in Iraq, and to define the common term that everybody uses. While the 2003 invasion of Iraq was "mission accomplished," the "war" (according to popular consensus and terminology) continues. You even stated in the infobox "Occupation end: June 28, 2004!" Only a particular view considers the occupation over, and there are some basic facts (extended immunity for soliders, etc.) which contradict this and at the very least make the statement one of POV. There are some serious problems with the framework you rewrote it in, and there are going to have to be reverts. :( SinReg, -St|eve 04:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq's violence

The Iraq War article should be in the past-tense state, as it is a finished war. The point of having an "Iraq War" article is to represent the war and other articles to delineate Iraqi insurgency. The "conflict in Iraq" as it stands now is the insurgency (some say Iraqi civil war).

Define the common term that everybody uses? Iraq insurgency does this (or more particularly Iraqi civil war does). The google results link (god results?) that you gave cover the war on terrorism, the finished iraq war, and the insurgency.

Now, after the occupation ended, a new sovereign took control of Iraq .... it's kinda telling that you bring up the banner thing .... after the 2003 invasion of Iraq there was "mission accomplished" (this, though, is a particularly misapplied event to the overall war (this was to the 'invasion of Iraq' only); it though has been disbelieved by many of the war's critics (aka. a vocal and non-neutral POV) and subsequently disputed by these critics) and the current conflict [or "war" (usually applied with an anti-war POV to "keep the war going")] is a miscategorized in reguards to the the "iraq insurgency" (that is why that article is there ...).

It is stated in the infobox "Occupation end: June 28, 2004". That is when the new Iraqi government took control of the country. This is view of UN ... who considers the occupation over. There may be a problems with the article's framework of the article if it contridicts a particular non-neutral stance. The insurgents are fighting the internationally recognized Iraqi government. The "Iraq War" article is to represent the 2003 war (and some of the "occupation") .... not the conflict concerning the insurgency and the new government (and it's allies). Sincerely, JDR 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

B.S.

No, that is entirely a United States-based view of the situation, as dictated from POV sources. It is not even remotely the reality. For example the use of "sovereign" in reference to Iraq is often criticized as a mere propagandism. Even on its surface the article cannot take the bias you describe, because that would be deferential to only one view. Probing any deeper, we find a basic contradiction between the concepts of sovereignty and the existing state of a military occupation —which more closely resembles colonialism. As I said before, the extension of complete and total diplomatic immunity to foreign soldiers, as well as the existence and deference to legal codes established under the occupation, stand as facts in disagreement with the claim of "sovereignty." I will copy this discussion in full to the Talk:Iraq War page, and ask for further community input. -St|eve 21:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Bulls---? Is that a technical term?

I'm glad that you put this here for further community input.

It is a United Nations-based view of the situation, as gleaned from UN sources. It is the reality, the old Iraqi army had been defeated. what now is in Iraq are insurgents (at 1st, against the occupation and, now, against the new government) ... and terrorists (against any authority except thier own "caliph").

Are you suggessting that the United Nations is using "Iraqi sovereignty" as a mere propaganda?

Sincerely, JDR 20:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but request that you make a better case in support of it. Please provide links to the UN references to, and definitions of sovereignty. Please also address the basic point that the article should firstly define the different meanings and applications of the "Iraq War" term. Do you disagree with that basic framework for this particular page? Consider also working on a Template:Iraq War to consolodate all of the various (and no doubt intentionally confusing) links to the leadup, invasion, occupation, insurgency, global opposition, stated goals, etc.? (Yes, there have been enough flip-flops regarding the goals of the War to warrant a separate article.) Regards, -St|eve 21:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Several spots do ... specifically , here it states that the security Council unanimously endorsed formation of interim Iraqi government. It's now "fully sovereign", ... the Security Council hails handover of authority to interim Iraqi Government. Here it say "handover of full responsibility and authority to the country's "fully sovereign and independent" interim Government". And ... there is NO existing state of a military occupation ... the international forces at at the sovergein's request. As to "sovereignty" ... look it up. Here in wikipedia it states, Sovereignty over a nation is generally vested in a government ... possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.

Sincerely, JDR 17:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (Ps., a did put in some work @ Template:Iraq War)

Above, I didn't address "If the basic framework for this particular page is flawed?" It is ... as the war is complete and the occupation is over. The Iraqi regular army was defeated and the new Iraqi government is in control of the nation ... This article shouldn't define the different meanings and applications of the "Iraq War" term ... that is why the disambig page is there! A brief mention about the various conflicts in Iraq should be made @ the top ... but not in the POV fashion it is now. JDR 18:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ive been away, and will reorder some of your edits. Ive noted what youve said above, but indeed the definition of soverignty and even the UN are controversial. The UN, like other bodies often makes ceremonial degrees, in the interest of fostering consensus and progress. The links you point to were simply news stories, reporting loosely on terms used in ceremonial decrees "Security Council unanimously endorses formation of interim Iraqi government," "Security Council hails handover of authority to interim Iraqi Government," both are non-binding and non-authoritative: the UN merely "endorse[d]" and "[hail[ed]" major "landmarks" in progress which were still completely under US control. Those changes only marked the beginning of a process, said to bring Iraq to a state of sovereignty, but as it stands it is perhaps 90 percent run by a foreign government. This is all without dealing with the US' influence in the UNSC, or with the UN's use of soverignty. What do the official statements (not the news blurbs) say? Your linkage to military occupation doesnt help your case, as anyone who's looked at the article will know.

I would have been somewhat happy if you at least showed some of the nature of the basic disagreement in the footnote. Why you had not done so I dont know, I can only assume you dont understand the relevance of controversy in the context of a war --wars being known somewhat for their controversy. Instead you stand by "the war is over" because "the UN decreed Iraq a sovereign country..." If youre not simply a paid propagandist, one is forced to remember a Chomsky quote about how "it takes real dedication [to ignorance] not to perceive" (in this case) how disagreeable it is to attempt to base a free article on a controversial topic without mentioning the controversy (its a fucking war for Pete's sake) and offering merely a statist view along with flawed concepts and definitions. Anyway, I'll review your changes. -St|eve 04:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, even a cursory view of Google news searches on "Iraq sovereignty" shows the issue as an open question or otherwise simply a matter of continuing process. That definition of soverignty --as a work in process --is far more aggreeable than your preferred "UN version." Some links here, even Rush Fucking LimbauIraqi Regular Armygh says "Iraq sovereignty wasn't going to happen", Plan to Save Iraq or Break it Up? (SFGate), etc. Read for yourself. -SV

"Anti-War POV" edits

The definition of sovereignty is controversial? To whom? Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party? The Islamists "militants" in Iraq? ... In reality, it is not controversial .... they have been sovereign now for some time and had a few elections ....

To whom is the United Nations "so controversial"? Many people accept, as you hint around, that the various nations (through thier representatives) make statements about the general "consensus" of these nations (eg., other sovereigns; this is a key in gaining a nation's own sovergeinty ... as many political scientist will tell you) and the UN notes any "progress" in the reconstruction of Iraq. The news stories reported on the official decrees of "Security Council" (such as "Resolution 1546 (2004)" as referenced on June 8, 2004 here). These are not "ceremonial" decrees ... these are resolutions of the Security Council.

The handover of authority to the interim Iraqi Government is binding and authoritative. The CPA cannot "take back" this. The UN, not merely but fully, "endorse[d]" and "hail[ed]" this "landmark". The process has begun (as you acknolewdge) ... but to start it, Iraq must be sovergein. Iraq is not now under occupation and the sovereign nation is making changes. Iraq is a sovereign state since the handover. The elections (this weekend and before) showed that! The military occupation does make the case, as people who looked at the article and see that the international forces are now in Iraq at sovereign's request the will know.

As to showing some nature of the basic disagreement? I didn't remove the terminology section (put in by another editor ... it refered to the insurgency article ... what mistakenly called part of the "war") ... and I understand that you (and others) lump in the insurgency as part of the "Iraq war". BUT that is misleading and irresponsible. I understand that you dont "get" that the war is over ( and if it isn't ... where is the Iraqi Regular Army? Where is the Iraq command? Are you saying that the Iraqi Regular Army is still out there fighting? Are you saying thier control structure is still intact? .... do you seriously say the the multinational forces did not win the war against the Iraqi Army?)

"War" and many other conflicts can be controversial. But to misapply the terminology to the insurgency is the "wrong thing". The "the war is over" because of many things ... the total DEFEAT of the Iraqi Regular Army ... the ensuing occupation of the country (that is what is done _AFTER_ a war) ... the UN decree of Iraqi sovereignty ... multiple nations recognizing the state of Iraq ... among others. _You_ sound like a anti-war propagandist that is "being real dedicated [to ignorance] not to perceive" the facts.

It's a controversial topic that SPECIFICALLY STATED THE TERMINOLOGY used in the article and what is meant by the "Iraq War" phrase (a requisite of NPOV) ... you have again POV'ed the article ..... This mentioned the controversial use of the phrase "Iraq war" (what is now reffered to is the insurgency ... not the war proper).

BTW, I just looked at the Google news search link on "Iraq sovereignty" and it shows the issue is only an open question to "peace activists" (those with a "anti-war" and / or "anti-US" POV) and the Sunnis (which the majority of the insurgents are from [is that an irrony? probably not] and which lost thier control of power at the end of the war).

First .... the Democracy Rising's Phyllis Bennis article is an anti-war propaganda organization (... as seen @ Democracy Rising's homepage's various headline). As I have said before ... this POV wants to "keep the war going" ... in contrast to the fact that the war is over and the occupation has ended.

Now ... [LMFAO @ Rush Limbaugh] ... are you seriously citing Rush as a reputable source? He's an entertainer and radio talk show ho st (aka., a media pundit) ... not a scholar nor an authorative source.

Your case would be better served by scholarly articles ... and authorative source (such as the UN).

Sincerely, JDR 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[Comment to Stevertigo's RfM]

Stevertigo and others (primarily anti-US and/or anti-war POVs) are in disagreement with authorative sources. As Uncle Ed questioned, this dispute hinges on more than one thing which is why it doesn't "turn" easily. The debate centers around, among other things, the proper terminology for the article.

Does the term "Iraq War" refer _primarily_ to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Yes ... from the invasion up to the end of the occupation of Iraq? It can ... but hostility against the Iraqi regular army ended quite a bit before the handover. Does it end @ the turnover of "sovereignty"? In the least it would here.

I do not rests this conclusion on selective terms, nor are the definitions suspect of POV. The NPOV definition of the "War" is as a historical reference ... the colloquial use (and more POV'ed use) of "Iraq War" refers more specifically to the Iraqi insurgency .... and this is an acknoledge view from more impartial sources. This usage is in direct contradiction to the common, "slangy", and inapproapriate use for the term (and is usually from a highly partisan POV references).

Partisan (prowar and antiwar) commentators use the "Iraq War" term in reference to the "ongoing violence" ... this "ongoing violence" is the iraqi insurgency and / or the iraqi civil war (aka. the secerain violence). The Iraq War proper is the invasion/occupation. This is more acknoledged by professional military men, historians, and diplomants. Some politicians, activists, and other partisans will not see it this way though (... and, I do believe that this view should be acknolowdged BUT refered to the appropriate article! This is not the appropriate article to assert these POVs).

Sincerely, JDR 18:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

'Iraq is just like Germany'

The US Troops are there as guests of the sovereign Iraqi government, as are the US troops in Germany. So by your logic, the troops in Germany are occupying that country? Are you serious? BTW, see the main article on the occupation" According to Article 42 of the Hague Convention, "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."" That's no longer true, so your opinion is wrong - the country is no longer occupied Done. NPOV. JG of Borg 00:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your childishly simplistic and out of context insights. Now go back to watching Star Trek. -St|eve 04:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, your POV and repulsive attitute toward Jgofborg is simply amazing .... how dare you ridicule another for asking about a the anti-war movement's twisted logic. That make me sick. JDR 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I red parts of this discussion after seeing this page on requests for mediation, and I believe the matter is quite clear: If UN says that it is not occupied, then it is not occupied, even if user:Steve considers it a "ceremonial decree". UN is simply the largest authority on application of international law. One may state that the Iraqi goverment is influenced by Americans, but Americans are not the goverment, so the country is not occupied. --Heptor 16:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vindication. Seemed like a clear parallel to me. Though we're going to be (mostly) out of both Germany and Iraq in a few years, so not for long! JG of Borg 14:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Debate Section

This section is not a Debate Section. It is simply a listing of the "pro" position. There is a "criticism" section, but I note that there is a POV tag being placed on this. I have no strong feelings about the Iraq War, but I can detect propaganda, and feel that this whole article is becoming very very biased. A reader would think that it is a military manual glorifying a magnificent victory. If you hadn't noticed, the war is continuing... Wallie 08:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Scope

The Iraq War or War in Iraq (compare: "Gulf War" of 1991) is the common term for the current and ongoing conflict in Iraq between the forces of the United States of America against native and foreign rebels (referred to by the U.S. as "insurgents"). All definitions of the term consider the "Iraq War" to have begun with the invasion of 2003, but beyond this beginning, definitions vary and may show aspects political shift, relative to public opinion.

Variance in the use of the "Iraq War" term is largely due to the basic differences in the operative definition for "war" and (military) "occupation." However in spite of any variance and shift —and perhaps attributable to simple linguistic economy —the use of the "Iraq War" term is prominent in current news and opinion reportsgn that deal with violence between (largely) native against (largely) foreign combatants.

The war has formally ended on May 1, 2003, when United Nations recognised the Iraqi goverment. The violence, however, did not end, and there is a public opposition to American involvement, both from a right and left perspective, evocing all the negative images in the 1960s of the Vietnam War.

What are we talking about in this article? About the "war" which ended in May 1, or beyond that? The first part of the intro infers that this war is still ongoing now. The second part indicates that it ended over two years ago. Which is true? And if the war is over, what is the fighting called now? Wallie 19:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What is this article talking about? Prior to the POV edits ... the Iraq War proper (Multinantional forces vs the Iraqi Regular Army).

[Is it] about the conflict which ended [after the Iraqi Regular army was defeated] or beyond that? Prior to the POV edits ... after the Iraqi Regular army was defeated [for all practical purposes ...] and the removal of the Ba'ath Party.

The first part of the intro infers the anti-war and anti-US POV that the war is somehow "ongoing". This ignores the question of where is the Iraqi Regular Army now? Where is the Iraqi command? It presupposes the the Iraqi Regular Army is still out there fighting "somewhere" and that thier control structure is still intact.

This is an colloquial buzzword "Iraq War" ... more appropriaely referring to the insurgency and the brewing civil strife. The second part [which doesn't seem to have been changed in the recent POV insetions] accurately depict that it ended some time ago (mabey not exactly on May 1st .... but for the most part was ended near this time and definitely before the handover of sovergeinty).

Which is true? To some POVs ... it hasn't ... but from a more impartial stance, it ended @ the defeat of the Iraqi army and the removal of the Ba'athist dictatorship (or @least quite a bit before the handover of sovergeinty).

... if the war is over, what is the fighting called now? The fighting cited as the "Iraq war" now is, in reality, the Iraqi insurgency (an insurgency or rebellion against the present or former Iraqi authority) and the brewing Iraqi civil war (aka., the mounting secterian violence between division of the Iraqi populations).

Sincerely, JDR 21:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, whoever wrote "The war has formally ended on May 1, 2003, when United Nations recognised the Iraqi goverment." is wrong ... the United Nations recognition was in 2004.

Thanks. Wallie 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem?

There are disagreements on the general use of the term "Iraq War." I dont see what the problem is in understanding this general ambiguity. I have laid out a basic framework by which the article can reflect and cite each particular definition, and this does so with an appropriately prominent but still limited reference to "current and ongoing" conflict one based in common liguistic economy/efficiency. This is not a definition, but merely a popular use for the term —heaven forbid that we should defer to or even recognize any general consensus in the use of the term. And who is to blame for the fact that this general usage, be generally similar (though not equivalent) to definition 1.

Comments by Reddi/JDR (and now someone else) seem to want to change the article to reflect only one particular variant —definition 2. They might debate between themselves on the definition of "occupation" etc, but IAC theirs is just one POV. Claims that the UN's ceremonial statements, or even decrees for that matter are likewise just one POV and though its preferable to reference a UN "statement of support" (not a UNSC resolution).

Look at any "war" article, and even these are controversial in terms of their scope and true origins. "The Civil War" of course is of course an elementary example of this relativism, and any "global" encyclopedia needs to qualify the term —American? Russian? English? (Is the Iraq War now a "civil war?" Even if one made a reasonable case for it, it would still only be one out of several theories.) Historical distance often doesnt really solve the problem, for example the Hundred Years' War is a later term to refer to an long-running campaign of battles between England and France. Some consider WW II to have begun with Japan's invasion of Manchuria, etc., and even a few Americentric writers think of that war as begun with Pearl Harbor. The Vietnam War likewise suffers from this POV-orientation problem —the Vietnamese consider the war as just another battle to liberate their country from foreign influence —they would even have to repel the Chinese (ICW III) after the U.S. withdrew.

Somewhere in the mid-late 1960s U.S. general Westmoreland probably said things like "the insurgency is on the run" and the war is "in its last throes." These statements, as we now know, were not directly connected with reality, and therefore cannot be taken verbatim. The "war in Iraq", just like the "war in Vietnam" is an almost undefineable entity, and words are simply tokens —we must use and define the most common tokens used in current language. Despite any past differences in definition, most agree with two basic things about the Vietnam War the conflict began with slowly with a civil war and military buildups of North and U.S. forces. "The war," from the U.S. POV "ended" with the withdrawal of those U.S. forces. From the Vietnam POV, it "ended" with the defeat of the South government a couple years later.

Is this a "war", an "occupation" a "peacekeeping mission," or a "civil war?" It is simply an open question as long as the conflict(s) is a current event —as long as foreign forces are there en masse, and as long as there are open and severe hostilities between those same forces and a native opposition. "It" will not end until either of those conditions are met — if all foreign presence leaves and war continues between native entities, then that will be called a "civil war."

The intro appropriately states that differences in the definition come largely from differences in the definitions of "war" and "occupation." Recent and current peacekeeping missions and past peaceful occupations dont even closely resemble the current conflict in Iraq, and therefore the term "war" is (widely) used.

Reddi claims that not only is the conflict not a "war" it is also not an "occupation," (as that term carries connotation of a "belligerent occupation", as opposed to a peaceful occupation). The citation of the UN "support" of "sovereingnty" is far short of any proof that the country is in fact sovereign at this time, and though referendums and elections help improve this image, other facts hold this image in dispute. Hence the U.S. cannot refer to its occupation as a "peacekeeping" operation, for the simple reason that it began the conflict, there remains conflict now, and it (the U.S.) remains one side in the conflict. -St|eve 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, please do not remove the dispute tag. You have ignored several parameters of Wikiquette (ignoring questions (see above); Being impolite; Being uncivil; etc ...) ... and are now ignoring several guidelines.

The fact that the inaccurate "general usage" characterizes "Iraq War" as beginning with the 2003 invasion, and continuous to the present should not be fostered in Wikipedia. It is a partisan view that is pushing a POV ... a direct violation of the NPOV policy. The so-called "disagreements" on the term "Iraq War" is clearly an attempt to push a POV. AND "if" there is a "general ambiguity" ... it should be taken care @ in a dsambig page not here in the article!!! This colloquial buzzword "Iraq War" refers to the insurgency and the brewing civil strife. The current environment is not a "war" ... it is a insurgency ... it is also not an "occupation", that ended @ the handover of sovergeinty! I and others have stated this and you have repeatedly said that "that's wrong" ... without any reason.

The "war in Iraq" is a defineable entity. WHO WERE THE MAJOR COMBATANTS? WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE COMBATANTS? Please answer those two qestions and these .... where is the Iraqi Regular Army? Where is the Iraq command? Is the Iraqi Regular Army still out there fighting? Where is thier control structure and is still intact? .... did or did not the multinational forces win the war against the Iraqi Army? Sincerely, JDR 23:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Also ... as per the NPOV policy, an article should delineate the technical definition of a term/phrase. As to be used in articles, it should only be used in its technical sense (eg., one particular variant ... and the most neutral ... which is 2). It should to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (most people being unaware of how this word should be used; which the current article does.) There is also the UN's statements and resolutions ... which is from an authorative source ... and this a the UN "statement of support" (see the link above ... it was a _unanimous_ UNSC resolution). Sincerely, JDR

Are you alone in this view?

I have not been uncivil, and in fact I've been exceedingly reasonable and responsive. I removed the tag because its an annoyance, and because such should be used for specific criticism, not general malaise.

You say "the "war in Iraq" is a defineable entity." But you then use a limited definition of "war," and fail to connect the war with the "occupation." World War II didnt end for France just because Germany's invasion was "successful," France was annexed, and its occupation was largely peaceful. You even demand "WHO WERE THE MAJOR COMBATANTS? WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE COMBATANTS?" which preemptively claims this is all an issue of the past, and leaves no opening for a reply which deals with the current conflict. Your using an outdated and particularly POV definition of "war" and talk about "Iraq command" and other irrelevant BS. War is a state of conflict between parties. Just as with the Vietnam War, this war is being characterized differently by the dominant military power as an ideological one. Westmorelandspeak or Rumsfeldian notwithstanding, the reality is not limited to ideology, and certainly not in accord with the terms dictated by the aggressor. That would not be NPOV for us.

Your comments are deliberately vague, for example you claim the "inaccurate "general usage" characterizes "Iraq War" as beginning with the 2003 invasion..." makes it seem like you disagree with that basic beginning. You dont really disagree with that, do you? And if not, then we can at least agree that we agree on something, and we can work from there. Is your point of view not represented in the listed definitions, or are you simply claiming that your POV is "proper" and should dominate the article and all reference to the term?

<opportunistic political comment>It is also rather odd that one such as yourself who apparently supports a segmentalist and particularly pro-war definition for the article is worried that my wording might: "(a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader" It is ironic because (a) war itself is a far more offensive act and (b) the war in question owes its existence to largely misleading statements by the offender. You even claim "(most people being unaware of how this word should be used; which the current article does)" which (a) asserts that most people are stupid and (b) that you know best how the word (term actually) "should be used." </opc> -St|eve 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A NPOV is the only "proper" one and should dominate the article and all reference to the term. As with other terms (such as fundemetalism), the limited (eg., technical) definition should be used.

Now ... World War II didnt end because the Allies were still fighting the Axis .... Where is the "axis" of the Iraq War? The Allies of the multinational forces are plainly seen ... Now .... the questions are not preemptive, just simple questions ....War is a state of conflict between parties but you still have not answered the questions!!! Who were the major combabtants? What happened to the major combatants? If you would answer this would would see the issue truely. BUT because th anti-war / anti-US POV cannot accept the plain facts ... so there is no reply ...

AND ... as been said repeatedly ... the proper way to deal with the current conflicts (insurgency and secterian violence) is to refere the reader to the appropriate article. This is not "outdated" ... it is more technical and impartial ... and is the more NPOV definition of "war".

[Ignores most of the mischaracterization of my position and the "the Vietnam War" fallacious analogy] Just to let you know, the Vietnamese Opposing the United States and the South had a control structure and a viable command (eg. the NV government).

Sincerely, JDR 00:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What?

You say:

A NPOV is the only "proper" one and should dominate the article and all reference to the term. As with other terms (such as fundemetalism), the limited (eg., technical) definition should be used.

I assume you mean "an NPOV definition is the only proper one." I may agree, but, in the case of multiple definitions, how does one define which is "proper?" Your definition is POV in the extreme, though you like to claim it is "a NPOV." The rest seems a bit incoherent to deal with. Please edit your comments for clarity. -St|eve 00:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The technical definition is a NPOV. It's not pro- or anti- ... it delineates the facts .... The expansion of the technical definition to include such view that all current conflicts fit inside the "Iraq War" is a plain POV. There are other article that address these topics. It is a plain attempt to "keep the war going".

Now, as to the case of multiple definitions (ie., ambiguity), how does one define which is "proper"? Disambiguation 1st (to deal with the various connotations). A 'disambiguations is a turnpike that lead to different meanings of a related phrase'. The definitions and operative uses for the "Iraq War" term in accord with two general views should be moved to the disambiguation page. It would address the views used by war opponents and those used by war proponents ... and direct them to the appropriate article.

THEN ... as stated in the NPOV policy ... use the technical terminology (eg., the "proper" one). This would delineate the "Iraq War" as a war proper — limited to major hostilites against the former government of Iraq.

Sincerely, JDR 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"The technical definition is NPOV." Not true, because there is no "technical definition." "Technical definition" when you use it refers to an exclusive variant among the selection of definitions, and such exclusivity can only be called POV. Likewise you like to throw out terms like "the facts" and "proper" —stating that disambiguation somehow should handle the variants. It may, but I dont see that as what you are doing. Further, the different articles for different meanings is only a claim, which works in cases where an article needs to be split. This article in fact needs to be integrated. You already have a 2003 invasion of Iraq article. That is the "War" (formal) article. This is the article that in fact does the disambiguation. Where else would such "disambiguation" go, and what exclusive use would you have for this article except to dominate it with a particularly "technical" POV? -St|eve 16:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so it is noted, I had no problems with understanding JDR's opinion whatsoever. I totally agree that the technical definition is indeed the only possible NPOV, and UN is the authoritative source of such definition. --Heptor 22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You still have not answered my questions. Who were the major combabtants? What happened to the major combatants? Where is the Iraqi Regular Army? Where is the Iraq command? Is the Iraqi Regular Army still out there fighting? Where is thier control structure and is still intact? .... did or did not the multinational forces win the war against the Iraqi Army?

BTW, it's "technical" NPOV. And disambiguation is there to handle the variants. Attempt to integrate this article with other divergent articles is trying to push a POV.

Sincerely, JDR 17:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I "have not answered [your] questions" because you keep asking questions which are derived from and are selectively promoting of exclusively narrow concepts of "war." "Major combatants?" The clause forces of the United States of America against native forces, answers that question and remains true whether youre talking about Saddam's militia's or the "insurgent" Mahdi Army. Your questions only seek answers which you agree with —'which government, which command, how many bars on the uniform, what kind of weapons, multinational forces, control structure...' —all of these concepts from childish militarism. You keep repeating this mantra of "technical definition" and likewise keep reusing the notion of "disambiguation", claiming it is some type of catch-all for problems such as this. Again disambiguation is for differentiating linguistically similar but semantically different terms -- not linguistically similar, and semantically similiar meanings. Unless the alternate term is something entirely different (thats why the Iraq war (disambiguation) page is there). -St|eve 20:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You have not answered my questions because you keep pushing a POV.

I'll help you with some of the answers ... The major combabtants? Republic of Iraq (Saddam Hussein regime) and Ba'ath Loyalists vs Multinational force (aka., "Coalition of the Willing") [lead by the United States of America and United Kingdom] What happened to the major combatants? Removal of the Ba'ath Party and Victory (eg., the defeat of Ba'athist Iraq and the end of Saddam Hussein regime) by the Multinational forces. Where is the Iraqi Regular Army? It's nowhere ... being defeated and any remaneats disbanded. Where is the Iraq command? The Ba'ath Party is banned and any other remaneats disbanded (having later (aka., AFTER the war) joined the insurgency). Is the Iraqi Regular Army still out there fighting? No. Where is thier control structure and is it still intact? Thier control structure is not intact as it was destroyed. Did or did not the multinational forces win the war against the Iraqi Army? Yes.

These are questions which are fundemental to the concept of war and this article. What is the concept of "war"? As stated in the articele in wikipedia ... war in the common perception is a series of battles and the maneuvers between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, natural resource, religion or a host of other issues.

You are wrong as to the major combatants ... and shows the the character of your POV. It was the multinational force, lead by the US and GB, against the Iraqi regular army, supported by the Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam. Saying it's "the United States of America against native forces" it factually inaccurate. THEN you confuse the war with the insurgency ... a POV to "include" the sperate entities.

The disambiguation would allow the reader to goto the different articles that covers the different concepts that is intended(eg. linguistically similar phrases but connotating different concepts). Like the Battle of Adrianople can mean several different of battles ... and, more closely related to this discussion, the War of Independence can mean several different conflicts (akin to "Iraq war" can mean different conflicts (the "war of nations" vs "Iraqi insurgency")).

This is not "childish militarism" ... it's about being accurate and holding a NPOV in the article ... and it is appearant that you cannot grasp this.

As it stands ... and because you are incessant about POVing this article ... a war of Iraq may need to be made to diverge the POV version that you are "gaurding".

Sincerely, JDR (PS ... Also ... in your POV editing you are ignoring the official UN Security Council Resolution 1546). Sincerely, JDR

Guess I started this all off. Sorry. I was just trying to sort out my own thoughts. The fighting does seems to be still going on, and it still seems to be part of an overall "war". It all seems a problem of naming/grouping the various events, some of which are overlapping, eg, the War on Terror with the Iraq War, and both with the Iraq Insurgency. I just mentioned that the article seem to catalogue a magnicent victory, and I thought it wasn't as simple as that, but probably could have worded my comments better. I guess it was a great victory. But the wheels seemed to have fallen off since then, and some of the players don't want to go home. Boy is this complicated! Wallie 19:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It was a victory of the multinational forces against the old Iraqi army ... if it was "magnicent" or not, that is unimportant (though winning against an adversary that is not as robust, nor as well equiped, as the multinational forces were isn't magnicent in my opinion).

The fighting is still going on ... but that isn't the war .... it's an insurgency (best case) ... or a civil war (worse case). As to the "wheels seemed to have fallen off since" ... the insurgency has not deterred the political process nor the political will of the Iraqis to determine thier own future.

There is a problem of naming/grouping the various events from some POVs. But if you deal with the conflict properly ... then the distnction are clear .... the war of Iraq was the multinational forces and the Iraqi army ... the insurgency was after the war (and continued after the handover of authority to the new sovergein government) .... and the operations against the forgein fighters of the insurgency (ala., Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) is a part of the the international War on Terror.

Sincerely, JDR 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Reddi/JDR's creation of the War of Iraq article as a POV fork of this one is something better suited for Wikinfo and not for here. Thats all that can be said of that. -St|eve 20:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The creation of the War of Iraq article as a NPOV fork of the POV'ed version of the article. Sincerely, JDR 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of sovereignty, revisited

I think it's pretty valuable to look at the Wikipedia entry for Sovereignty which addresses some of the points, that I believe, are at the core of a lot of disagreement on this page. The government recognized by the United Nations, United States, and others in Iraq - the government that the US has "transferred sovereignty" to, has de jure sovereignty according to the United Nations, United States, and pretty much every state that has officially weighed in on it. While recognizing any authority of law as legitimate is inherently an opinion, the argument can easily be made that it is a NPOV.

That being said, from a human rights perspective the more useful definition of sovereignty to look at is that of de facto sovereignty. The United Nations, or United States, or really anyone is not in a position to say that the government of Iraq is de facto sovereign: while it may be the opinion of the United Nations or the United States that it is, there is a large number of people who disagree, and there are frankly solid legal arguments in favor of it. Namely, the record on the ground shows that coalition troops operate outside of the scope of Iraqi law. This is significant enough where the result is to question whether the Iraqi government is de facto sovereign. If the coalition troops are not in Iraq at the request of the de facto and de jure sovereign power, then they are an occupying force under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Bugg42 22:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for joining this discussion, and for clearing up the distinction between de jure and de facto sovereignty. I greatly appreciate the nuance in your statement that de jure concept of soveriegnty can "easily be made" as one inline with NPOV. I suggest that in the context of writing a purportedly authoritative, rational, and thoughtful examination of a complicated concept such as this, that an "easily made" argument is largely equivalent to a 'simplistic' argument. Though it may be above the literacy level of your average US citizen, it may be appropriate (i.e. NPOV) to use the term suzerainty instead of sovereignty in this context. -St|eve 19:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to your POV steve ... the Iraqi government is sovergein and does not have a limited domestic autonomy nor is it controlled in its foreign affairs. As stated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1546, it is a possess the full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent government. The coalition troops are in Iraq at the request of the de facto government.

I would like to inquire (to Bugg42) ... please state who is part of the large number of people who disagree? The opinion of the United Nations (a legitimate source) is that the new Iraq government is the de facto authority. Is it just legal theory by anonymous entities (or individuals)? Do they have significant right to make such rulings? Are they an authority in the political arena when it comse to this?

Sincerely, JDR

The UN has no authority over whether the government of Iraq is de facto sovereign. De facto is of facts, and while someone may belive or state that something is de facto sovereign, that does not makes it so! As for the large number of people who disagree, googling for Iraq "not sovereign" we see several people and organizations that advocate the view that Iraq does not have de facto sovereignty., including the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, so on and so forth. But I would rather not sit here and argue by authority. On matters of fact, there are no authorities and opinions mean jack: 100% of the world might believe that Iraq is de facto sovereign, but that still would not mean it is correct of the Iraqi government did not, in fact, have supreme authority over their territory.

The Iraqi government has no place in the chain of command for the troops in their soil. If coalition troops were the guests of sovereign Iraq, the Iraqi government could request that they abide by any particular rules or laws else revoke the invitation to the troops. What we've seen and heard so far all indicates that this is not the case in Iraq, that coalition troops are above Iraqi law. And if that's the case, Iraq is not sovereign. Bugg42 18:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

De facto is of facts ... and the facts does makes it so ... In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so ... the Iraqi government does have supreme authority over their territory. Contrary to your opinion ... there are authorities that can state this (via internatinal law that has been built up in history) and the stated position of other nations do "mean jack".

The Iraqi Government is consider, by themselves and other sovereign governments, the sovereign over the whole territory of Iraq. Many foreign governments recognize the Iraqi Government as a valid state, and most nation states do not recognize the various politcal heads of the insurgency as sovergein. People may belive or state anything .... but the facts on the ground dictated if it is de facto sovereign. And, de facto, the Iraqi Government exercises sovereign power over Iraq Territory, while the various politcal heads of the insurgency exercises no sovereignty in the Iraqi territory. Since ambassadors are only exchanged between sovereign high parties, the countries recognizing the Iraqi Government have de facto and de jure diplomatic relationships with the Iraqi Government ... such as maintaining embassies and exchanging ambassadors. Sovergeinty is not determined by "a large number of people" ... and people can disagree ... but other sovergein nations have recognized the independent and sovergein nation of Iraq (something that is required from international law). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so. The Iraqi government exhibits both the internal and external aspects of sovereignty (pass law, bring criminals to trial, etc. ...).

Now ... as to the military sructure .... the Iraqi government has a chain of command for thier troops on their soil (see the New Iraqi Army; this is under the Ministry of Defense of the Council of Ministers of Iraq) ... and the Iraqi government is working with the multinational troops. Iraq and its armed forces are a partner in the multinational coalition. Iraqi forces are under Iraqi civilian control and the Iraqi national chain of command controls these forces. As in Afghanistan (another sovereign government with thier own military and chain of command), there are various multinational troops there and they are working together with the territory's sovergeign government. As the coalition troops are partners of sovereign Iraq, the Iraqi government can request that they abide by particular rules or laws else revoke the invitation of the troops.

Now ... coalition personnel are subject to the jurisdiction of hier parent country and this is because of an agreement with the Iraqi government and the coalition commands! This covers the soldiers and contractors working in operations conducted by mutual consent of the Iraqi government and the commands of the coalition force. Let me be clear ... the Iraqi government can request that they abide by any particular rules or laws ... they have done this ... that's the case, Iraq is sovereign.

Moving on ... the UN (through the nation-state representatives there) is an authority concerning sovereignty. Can the UN wieght in to whether the government of Iraq is sovereignty as a matter of fact? Yes ... the Security Council (formed of representatives which speak on the behalf of thier respective sovereign state) has recognized this authority of the Iraqi Government. It's irrelevant if "certian people" and "certian organizations" do not recognize the de jure status of the Iraqi state ... as the de facto status is there (eg., other sovergein nations have recognized the independent nation of Iraq).

As a last note ... Googling does not decide sovergeinty ... other factors, dictated by international law, decided that. Among other factors are self-determination and democractic practices as the basis of sovereignty. 99.5% of the world might not believe that Iraq is de facto sovereign, but that still would not mean it isn't the factual sovergein. And, the executive director of Human Rights Watch does not decide sovergeinty nor can the Institute for Policy Studies decide sovergeinty. But ... [just for fun] what does the google (god) hits say? Just the numbers ... Iraq "not sovereign" 11,400; Iraq "is sovereign" 48,700; "Iraq is sovereign" 699; "Iraq is not sovereign" 234 (I didn't really look @ the results, though ... mabey later) ... (but also note [to see how ludicrous it is to do a search about if Iraq is sovergein], "United States is not sovereign" is 435 and "United states is sovereign" just 470; you make your own decision on that).

Sincerely, JDR (a quick note)

NPOV and lack of cites

This article seems as though it was written by Fox News with help from the Department of Defense. I don't want it to slant in the other direction, but it needs some neutrality.

1) "Insurgents" - this term is inherently biased. Its wide use in the mainstream press doesn't mean it's neutral.

2) Lack of cites - this article is chock-full of citeless assertions. I removed something today to the extent of "Coalition forces suspected that the insurgents were being supplied by Syrian forces. And with the amount of resistance they encountered, they were proved right." No cite. That sort of thing is wildly inappropriate in a Wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackberrylaw (talk • contribs) 24 Oct 2005.

I don't think the term "Insurgents" is inherently biased (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgents , http://www.answers.com/insurgent&r=67 , http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent ), it seems acurate and NPOV to me; it's not as if they are being called "terrorists" or "freedom fighters". "Insurgents" is term that encompases the idea of orginised rebellion against an authority, and which does not imply that this rebellion is justified/unjustified or any other POV implication. -Greeny 02 Nov 2005

"Insurgents" is not biased as it is a description of the various forces against the internationally recognized Iraqi state and the forces against the coalition troops. Its use in the mainstream press doesn't necessary mean it's neutral ... but it is the most accurate while being neutral.

I agree that the article lack cites ... the article isn't chock-full of citeless assertions .... but it could use more external reference/links ... It is toobad that you removed "Coalition forces suspected that insurgents were being supplied by Syrian forces" as that is a commonly heard belief from the commands of the coalitions (Iraqi and non-Iraqi). But, I think that the part sayin "And with the amount of resistance they encountered, they were proved right" sho8uld have been removed ... as there was no citation (I am unaware that there was any evidence of this yet). This second part is inappropriate in a Wikipedia article, but the first part isn't .... JDR 20:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Blackberrylaw's point is that using terms which are inherently POV is problematic for a project that values NPOV. Most of what comes out of the Pentagon and its bases is a subjective and admittedly trimmed and tailored information. It may even be false or misleading - its an issue of tone, and its not surprising that articles which are NPOV are found to be dissagreeing with MSM and other sources. -St|eve 06:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The term is not used exclusively from the Pentagon .... seems to be a bit hypocritical that you cite the mass media in earlier converstions and then ignore it here, Steve. Inaddition, he Iraqi government itself has used this term. Also, the various violent groups (native and forgein; militants, thugs, or terrorists) are fighting the established sovergein of the State (and that state's allies). Sincerely, JDR 16:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Countries

Why do we list the governments of countries that opposed the war in one section, while not the (far greater number of) governments of countries that supported it in the section right before it? JG of Borg 02:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a good idea ... if the anti-war proponents would allow that, I'd be in favor of including it ... JDR 20:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection, provided that JG of Borg's appropriate distinction of governments of countries —as opposed to the people of countries —is applied to each entry. It should actually be better to integrate the two lists into one table, with a column listing which had government support (for the war) and another that lists which had democratic support. That kind of detail and factual context would make us "anti-war proponents" quite happy indeed. Great idea! Of course, determining which countries had popular support would seem to rely on polls, which depending on the context (ie. agreeable result or not) might be objectionable to you two. But in a case where

"poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country."[9]

I dont imagine there can be any disagreement —given such sharply contrasted figures. St|eve 06:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll comment more later ... but the "chomsky.info" doesn't seem to me to be anti-partisan in the selection of information (I'd be concerned as to what part of the Gallup poll are they referring to? what was the questions?) .... chomsky himself was a decent guy, liberal .... but decent. The "anti-war proponents" and "peaceniks" may want to edit in a point to an article .... but neutral people just want the details and factual context.

Oh, Steve, I did wanna ask if you or someone had merged the Iraq war list of related topics template? I went across a template that was a stub of the other one you refered me too ... i'll look it up. Sincerely, JDR

RfC

I read some of the above, but don't have time now for the detailed wrangling, and anyway it seems pretty irrelevant to be arguing niceties about a blunt reality. Many people have claimed that the war is over, sometimes repeatedly at different successive dates. Plainly it is not or there would not be so many foreign troops still running the country, and dying. In the technical sense, the Iraqi army was defeated years ago. But only a complete idiot would have thought that was the end of the war. Sandpiper 03:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Iraqi army was defeated at the end of the war. Your derisive ridicule and scorn of those who hold to facts that are contrary to your opinion (eg., your "complete idiot"s) does not help you make your case that the war didn't end then. The insurgency .... which began a bit after the hostilities between the armies ended. Loosely and informally, you can call this a part of the "war" ... but the War between the multinational forces and the Old Iraqi government was over.

"Plainly it is" as the foreign troops in the country are at the request of the new Iraqi government. The sovereign Iraqi government is running the country (see the various elections, like the constitution vote) and thier forces (along with other coalition troops) are dying. JDR

I agree that you are not a "complete idiot" Reddi. But you do appear to be arguing (and editing) without a due amount of respect for NPOV -- or otherwise a deference to American cultural POV over the universalist culture of Wikipedia. Thats not idiocy - that's just a lack of understanding of the present context. -St|eve 07:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I may be ignorant at times (in that I am at a state of being unaware of some information) ..... but that is far from being an idiot (in being stupid or lacking intelligence). And I am not ignorant as to these issues (such as the anti-war's view of the insurgency as one monolithic entity able to be sovergein of the country; in reality they are a various small groups of irregualtr soliders or militants (at best; but using non-lawful tactics according to the Laws of War and not dressing in a proper uniform doesn't help them here) ... more likely just thugs and criminals ... and (at worst) terrorists). I am editing with a great deal amount of respect for NPOV. I do though see that the anti-war propnent's views (a POV) has a lack of understanding of the present context (which is rampant in throughout the world, also; this is plainly seen in inappropriately stating fact (ex., recently I had to recorrect a quote to Duelfer that was made by Kay ... and, though I didn't correct the context, the comment by Kay is taken out of context)). I am not complaisance to American cultural POV ... but bashing and misportarying facts and figures about the American, or British, or Russian, or Japanese, or [insert your favorite hated group] is not acceptable (in wikipedia or elsewhere). I am presenting information and facts .... not a "universalist culture" (or a European, or a Central American, or a [insert favorite group]) POV .... but a NPOV of Wikipedia. Sincerely, JDR 15:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

steve v's WikiEN-l post

At WikiEN-l, steve v posted a message "Reddi and me. Contrary to his opinion, "stating that Iraq is sovereign" is a not a violation of NPOV. As Alphax alluded to ... and Delirium stated .... "Wikipedians, are [not] here to decide whether Iraq is "sovereign" or not. We should report what prominent sources say on the matter". The United Nations Security Council passed unanimously a resolution that "endorsed [...] the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq".

Steve also cited Bugg42 concerning the troops and the I will basically repeat what I said above ... the coalition personnel are subject to the jurisdiction of thier parent country and this is because of an agreement with the Iraqi government and the coalition commands. This covers the soldiers and contractors working in operations conducted by mutual consent of the Iraqi government and the commands of the coalition force. Let me be clear though ... the Iraqi government can request that they abide by any particular rules or laws ... they have done this (through this agreement) ...

Steve goes on to state that the situation in Iraq is a Suzerainty. This is untrue though .... as Iraq is not a tributary to any of the multinational forces (eg., Iraq is not paying any of the multinational forces a "tribute"). Iraq also does not have a limited domestic autonomy, but is fully sovereign and independent. The multinational forces are not controlling Iraq's foreign affairs (ie., Iraq has it own diplomats and conducts it's own negotiations with other nations).

Sincerely, JDR 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., Do note that the agreement between the multinational forces and the Iraqi government can be considered a type of status of forces agreement [SOFA]).

Just a note ... it is telling of a POV when Steve state's the article Iraq disarmament crisis can be renamed to Pre-Iraq War fraud ... contrary tothe facts in the Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group and the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD. Sincerely, JDR 22:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there just might be a problem quoting the CIA as a valid source of information. Maybe its just me, but its in their directive to follow the orders of a certain elected political partisan. Nothing to do with blaming "faulty intelligence" -- we all knew since well before the 2000 election that a Bush administration would have failures of intelligence -- but if you quoted the Enquirer, then that might be more substantial. I prefer liberal sources just because they tend to make more sense -- reason, logic, evidence, cite sources, etc. But that's just me. -St|eve 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the term you used before? Bullchips? ... anyways ... the statement by David Kay was before the Congress and his group answered to the Congress. IIRC, the final reports was ultimately delivered to the Congresional authorities (and is being used in thier invstigations). Also, the CIA is cited as a valid source of information in many wikipedia articles .... and is a reputable source. There are other reputable sources, BUT the ISG was there in Iraq and looked at the facts and found the information. Do you deny that there were clandestine network of laboratories in Iraq? Do you deny that there was equipment suitable for continuing chemical biological weapons research? The ISG found the documents and equipment (something that the Iraq government stated that they did not have and had gotten rid of long ago ... too bad it took a year to get into Iraq or mabey more of this evidence could have been recovered, but that is, IMO, the peacenik's fault). Do you deny that the Iraqi government was trying to bride UN members to end the sanctions so it could restart it programs?

Nice anti-Bush POV, but hardly truely factual ... and being a "liberal source" doesn't make the information from that source more "truthful" or "correct". I prefer sources that make sense (ones that have reason, logic, provide evidence, and cite sources) ... not liberal or conservative partisan mouthpieces .... but that's just me. Sincerely, JDR 15:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing vital piece of info

Or it is hidden so well that I couldn't find it in 10 minutes of reading this article. I am reffering to Iraqis attititude and opinions towards the war and reconstruction efforts. Do they support it or not? Were there any surveys conducted? Sources, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives