Talk:Iraq War/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Iraq War (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 16 >>

Contents

Stop the edit war!

There is a poll now, showing a clear majority against his position, however, instead of waiting for a consensus Rangeley reverted again in spite of the warning he has on his talk page. It was his 25th revert on this part of the "war on terror" issue only. Añoranza 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Majority isn't important. The strength of the arguments is. But who judges that? KevinPuj 10:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been a long 12 days I say. Rangeley 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You ignore others' points with perseverance indeed. Some of your reverts violated the 3 Revert Rule - which by the way does not mean "please revert 2.99 times per day" - and you sometimes even summarized "rv vandalism". Please rethink whether wikipedia is the right place for such acts. Añoranza 16:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Part of the War on Terrorism" Poll

Please explain your point shortly. De mortuis... 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" Should be used in the Infobox Caption

  1. The US government has explicitly stated that it is such. The original intent was to find WMDs and prevent terrorism on the United States. The current intent is to root out the terrorists from Iraq. The fact that it is explicitly called such, and is a fight against terrorists, and always has been, leads me to believe that it should be "Part of the War on Terrorism". It doesn't necessarily have to be only those words; a statement such as "US Government includes it in the War on Terrorism would also be appropriate.KevinPuj 01:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. It is a term for a military campaign launched by the United States, of which it claims Iraq is a part. It it not simply a propaganda name, but also an official campaign name, as indicated by the U.S. medal hierarchy: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_on_Terrorism_Service_Medal". Moreover, despite criticism, it is in common usage. For example, the top 10 google results for "war on terror" return 6 links that conflate Iraq and the WOT, 1 that does not, 2 that are indeterminate (1 is wiki and 1 is a 2002 CNN report), and 1 that says the WOT is an illegitimate term (Chomsky). In fact, Iraq's role in the WOT is used not just by supporters of the War, but opponents such as Amnesty International: [1] [2]. If you disagree with the naming, take it up at the "War on Terrorism" page; but Iraq is unarguably a subcampaign of what the U.S. calls the WOT.
    Moreover, this absurd argument is being sparked by partisans that agree with one and not the other and want to separate the two. If it were indeed the U.S. fighting the WOT and the U.K. fighting in Iraq, you can argue away to your heart's delight to whether or not Iraq constitutes a fight against terrorism. But as the U.S. is the principal protagonist in both, and it is a subcampaign in U.S. military terms, the two are indelibly linked and your arguments over the merits of it won't change that link.--Mmx1 18:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    "not simply a propaganda name, but an official campaign name"? I cannot follow you. But does not make sense in that sentence. Añoranza 19:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    fine, "but also" --Mmx1 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    So you are saying campaign names are not invented by the department for propaganda but rather the department for truth as it needs to be seen so we must take what they say for granted? Añoranza 07:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. For the popular usage argument, note that the term "Iraq War" is neither common nor official. Rmt2m 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    It is not the naming that we are disputing, but whether or not the Iraq War falls under the umbrella of the "War on Terrorism". Call either whatever you like, but the two are inextricably tied by supporters and opponents. --Mmx1 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    I know. Rmt2m 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. It's terribly obvious to me, that the Iraq war falls under the War on Terrorism. Are you people actually disputing that? Some people wrote below to say it doesn't belong in the infobox because it just doesn't belong there...cool. But how can you say that it's not part of the WOT. Your saying that only the government said it and we shouldn't have to take it at face-value. Are you kidding me. It's not like the White House said. Abortion is wrong, and so it is. They said, the war is part of the War on Terrorism, for which it is. Don't be ridiculous and go against this just because you politically oppose our current government. Please come up with some better defenses then "it's propaganda". Chuck 09:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    It's not that I say your government did not name it as such. I say we should not use propaganda terms as wikipedia captions. It can be said elsewhere in the article what the government says and why people criticize it. If we just put "is part of the wot" it is misleading as readers may think ok, they went there to fight terror, which is very disputed. Añoranza 10:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    Then, may I ask, what you think the reason we went over there was? Chuck(척뉴넘) 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think that is the BIG question that many of the world have. But I still have to see ANY independent evidence or a reliable independent source (from outisde the government) that shows that Iraq was indeed a source for terrorists. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Wouldn't they have to be from the government? I mean who else would have access to such intelligence reports or information that would be reliable? --Zer0faults 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Stated it countless times. Rangeley 00:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. I support this as it is the official name of the campaign being waged. HJ Res 114 uses the term repeatedly, the UK parliament used the terminology as well in their official debate before voting to goto war, even India's president uses the term and has pledged his support in the war on terror. Considering India and the US I believe are the two most populous primary english speaking nations, I dont see how anyone can say its not a popular term without posting a poll to back themselves up. --Zer0faults 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    I keep hearing you talk about the president of india. Do you have source to back this up. I have seen several pledges of support from the indian president on the war on terror, however none of those mention Iraq. Since this is a large part of your argument I belive it's warrented.
    You said it right there, India has pledged support in the War on Terror. It is the official term for the conflict, it is the most used name for the conflict. That was his point. Rangeley 14:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    No his point was that India used the term "War on Terror" in regards to the Iraq war. Saying they support the WOT doesn't mean they believe Iraq is not something aside to that. Fighting is still going on in Afghanistan, NATO forces are working with Pakistani forces to flush out terrorist groups and much work is being done domestically. Where is there source that proves that Iraq falls under this realm? As I have said before nothing I can find by him links Iraq to the war on Terror. There is no debate if he has used the term WOT the contention is if he meant it to include Iraq.--69.176.61.13 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    I do not get your point? Indias president has stated its support of the War on Terror, the US says Iraq is part of the War on Terror ... Knowing the US says Iraq is part of it, he said he supports it. What more do you want? If I said I support the US in the War on Terror, and I know what they consider it to be, then I am supporting it. They do not have to say, "I support Operation APOLLO, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Active Endeavor and all other operation of the War on Terror". --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    Look unless you can point to a specific mention of Iraq your whole argument is based upon Affirming the consequent heck what you said up there could be an example of it. This is just foolish I fail to see how: Iraq war should be considered part of the war on terror because India said they support the war on terror. You are trying to use a point that is in debate as proof towards a debate. It's a circular argument and it just doesn't make sense. The Indian president has talked a lot about Iraq but I have yet to see it linked to terrorism once in his talks. He had plenty of opportunity to make those claims yet he has not done it. There is a very good likelihood that he does not believe Iraq to be part of any war on terrorism. He is using it as a proof therefore it's his burden to prove that.--69.176.61.13 07:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. The War on terrorism is a policy of the bush administration. The only acceptable synonym to 'War on Terror' is 'The Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy'. However even this term is confusing to the average american. THe term 'war on terror' is used in a bipartisan fashion and by the popular (and free) media. The war on Iraq was announced as serving the ends of that policy-- it was declared as part of hte war on terror. Mrdthree 22:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes this conflict should be referred to as part of the War on Terror. If it were phrased as Part of the wikipedia War on Terror series or something like that, we could categorize it correctly, without apearing to take sides. Remember, it's importaant to stay NPOV. Wombdpsw 07:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)This statement is by one of the multitude of socks in the Rex/Merecat debacle Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a reason this vote is being crossed out? its not a double vote as rex/merecat did not vote previously. I do not see the justification, banned users do not have everything they have done removed or expunged from the wiki. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yes conflict is considered part of the GWOT by the US government. Military units deploying to Iraq do so under the GWOT, thus, at this time it is should be considered as such. Propoganda or not that is the official name.--Looper5920 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. For many reasons stated by others. Lawyer2b 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Rightly or wrongly, the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism. Rambone (Talk) 03:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" should Not be used in the Infobox Caption

  1. It is a non-neutral propaganda term not in use everywhere, especially not without inverted commas. The category and the template should be deleted. De mortuis... 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Open your mind.If you dont like the 'war on terror' policy, discuss it-- dont ban discussion of it.Mrdthree 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. I do think the term "war on terrorism" should be used somewhere in the article--however not in the title bar where Rangeley keeps putting it. Along with the WMD argument, there is certainly a group of people who think the Iraq war is part of that conflict. However, the Iraq war being a more common usage I think we should simply leave the title alone and save the argument for the article or other related articles-I think I've added a section somewhere that talks about the "war on terrorism" rationale for Iraq. As I've pointed out before, the "war on terrorism" label is not unique to Bush--Reagan used it in the 1980s, Israeli PMs have used it as well in their various conflicts--and it appears to be more of a rhetorical term similiar to the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", the "war on crime", etc. Continuing to add this term merely confuses the issue and takes energy away from editing the actual substance of the article.Publicus 12:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    Also, the "war on terrorism" label is appropriate in the Afghanistan war--since that was a direct reaction to terrorist attacks on the U.S.--NATO even invoked Article 51 of the Brussels treaty (attack on one member is attack on all) to advocate military action against Afghanistan. That war is far different from the Iraq war, where the "war on terrorism" rhetoric was secondary to the WMD rhetoric and the "clear and present danger" phrase used by the Bush administration.Publicus 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    Oops wrong vote, thanks Mr. Tibbs.Publicus 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. The war has generated terrorism, is sometimes sold under the guise of that war, but is in reality NOT part of the war on terrorism. KimvdLinde 22:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Should NOT be used. Even if you believe it IS a neutral term the fact that there is controversey surrounding its use here (and in the real world) is enough justify removal. As I suggested above, a subsection should address the debate over the proper use of the term in describing the Iraq war. The argument for including the tag is as strong as the argument for tagging it with "Part of America's Imperialist Expansion". This shouldn't be a hard decision.--Jsn4 05:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    Well, the government came up with the title H.R. 4437, but I've heard it referred to as other things, so which is it? Is the government wrong? Chuck 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Wikipedia does not exist to take sides in political disagreements. As long as there is notable disagreement that Iraq is part of the WoT, any mention of the WoT needs to be accompanied by a mention of the proponents of the term (e.g. "President Bush calls the war part of the "War on Terrorism"). Using the term for purposes of categorization suggests that Wikipedia endorses it. That is unacceptably POV. --Hyperbole 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    What is disputed is whether or not Terrorism was a sufficient justification for Iraq, not whether or not it was launched under the auspices of Terrorism in the "War on Terrorism". The Senate resolution clearly states the ending of Iraq's support for international terrorism as one of its goals. Now you can feel free to use the Iraq war as an example of why the GWOT should be call "War of Hegemony" or "War of Imperialism" or whatever name you wnat to come up with, but the fact is indisputable that the Iraq War was launched under the auspices of the "War on Terrorism" --Mmx1 00:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Should not be used in the infobox. A section on the controversy about it is fine, but it does not belong in the category. As discussed on the Talk:2003 Invasion of Iraq page, it is unacceptably America-centric POV to put that partof= on this page. Why not have it say partof="Jihad against Jews and Crusaders"?-csloat 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    Its "America-centric POV" when India, UK and US all use the terminology? Doesn't that cover more then 50% of the english speaking population of those nations who claim english as their primary language? --Zer0faults 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Should not be used in the infobox. I don't see Iraq, Iran or North Korea being tagged as "Part of the Axis of Evil", so why parrot this particular talking point? Possible compromise would be quotation marks around War on Terror or renaming. (also voted on 2003 Invasion of Iraq talk page) - Mr. Tibbs 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. This should most definetly not be in the infobox. The Iraq War was seperate from the War on Terror, until the Iraqi insurgency. Now it very much is part of the war on terror which is why the template should remain. Falphin 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    According to HJ Res 114 you are in fact wrong. The House and Senate voted to goto war with Iraq and used the terminology war on terror repeatedly in that resolution. Not only that but terrorism was a stated reason in the resolution as well. --Zer0faults 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kevin Baastalk 14:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC) popular opinion does not support this association. Kevin Baastalk 14:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    This vote was asked to be disregarded by the voter for the time being, his comment can be found here under oppose vote section #6. --Zer0faults 12:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Any support for this? KevinPuj 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Can you please link to the poll you are using. --Zer0faults 15:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    I expanded a little on my talk page in response to zer0 her: User_talk:Kevin_Baas#Poll_on_terms. I really don't feel like doing the research. This is a straw poll and I've stated my opinion and my argument. There are many other good and rational arguments in this poll, so just read them and think about them. Kevin Baastalk 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. No, it shouldn't be used. Again, an identical discussion is happening in two places, which is not efficient. Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#War_on_Terrorism --Hermitage 03:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Absolutely not Talous 15:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    Any reason you would like to share with the community? --Zer0faults 12:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. No it shouldn't. There cannot be any strategic reason made for invading Iraq in direct reference to the "War on Terrorism". Regardless of Iraq being logically far down the list of targets for such war, the fact that the only group in Iraq (the Northern Alliance) which had any links to the invader's opponents in the War of Terrorism are allied with the invading nations disproves and strategic link! If we look at an analogy to the vietnam war (which is of course regarded as part of the wider "Cold War"), then strategically, alliances during the Iraq war would have been like the USA (and allies) siding with the communist Viet Kong against the non-communist South Vietnamese! This and statements made by others, make it impossible for me to draw any logical connection between the motvies or actions of the Iraq war and the wider "War on Terrorism". Canderra 15:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Clearly this is a disputed claim. Should be discussed in article body not infobox. Eluchil404 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Should not be used. It is a propaganda term used to link together separate events.
  14. Shouldn't be used. Administration propoganda. Skyraider 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Absolutely not. For all the reasons listed above. Being part of the "War on Terror" is contentious within the US, let alone outside the US where very few people accept this assertion. Include it in the Controversial Issues section, but not in the Infobox.--Bobblehead 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

De mortuis, time and time again points against the term have been raised and have failed. You are essentially stating that regardless of this failure, you will continue to fight it without base. I will be the first to admit that it is likely that most people will vote along what they see as 'party lines' so to speak. They have not participated in discussion and have not seen how they have gone, but you prove that even when people participate they can still be ignorant to the truth. This topic is controversial, which makes it an unfortunate case in point of support of the policy Wikipedia has adopted. Arguments are weighed on their value, logicality, and and overall worth rather than the number of people who say it. I beleive that this is exactly why you have put up the War on Terror template for a "speedy deletion" and created this poll. You, and others, have lost in the attempt to put up a convincing argument, and now you have resorted to redefining the issue as one where we see how many people go to each side of a line. Its tiresome, and counterproductive. Rangeley 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you post innuendo does not mean you win an argument. I agree it is tiresome and counterproductive. Accusing all others to put their preferences above neutrality and repeatedly attacking others shows how little understanding you have for wikipedia. De mortuis... 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Of all the POV in the article, this is probably the most insignificant and least controversial to be arguing so much about. KevinPuj 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

An attempt to compromise was made earlier on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, but it was rejected.[3] So there is little choice other than to enforce the consensus. - Mr. Tibbs 05:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to havea misunderstanding on how polls here work. Please read Wikipedia:Straw polls if you need more information.
"If the majority of opinion is in one direction, but a significant minority of people oppose it, work to find a solution that can be accepted by as many people as possible."
More then 30% oppose your view. Please refrain from spreading rumors that votes here are binding, its against Wiki policy. Thank you --Zer0faults 15:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Quotes would be an a good solution, because it conveys that someone has said something(in this case, the Bush administration saying that it is part of the War on Terror). KevinPuj 20:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling the 'war on terror' 'propaganda' is leftist propaganda. The fact is it is a policy initiative of the bush administration. Just because chomsky says something is propaganda doesnt mean that chomsky isnt a propagandist.Mrdthree 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Bias

The images used in this article are mostly anti-war/pro-pacifist or allude to current anti-war/pro-pacifist rhetoric. Some are indeed neutral, but I count 2 that show progress in Iraq and 4 that suggest otherwise. If this isn't already obvious to you, then you're part of he problem. Haizum 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What would a Pro-War Image look like? --Cynic 8 June 2006

This is absurd. You don't censor an article so it reflects "both sides" in a political debate at the expense of its accuracy.--Jsn4 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think war pages should have images of the dead and the wounded. Añoranza 07:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Jsn4, then we agree; add more pictures of the progress in Iraq, otherwise this article is being overwhelmed by negative imagery 'at the expense of its accuracy.' Haizum 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
With progress you mean the tens of thousands of people killed or those who were converted to terrorism by the war? Añoranza 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
By 'tens of thousands of people killed' you must mean that many times over before the war even started. And by 'progress' I mean positive steps in the face of many negative setbacks and instances. I can see the good, the bad, and the ugly; so why can you only see the bad and ugly? I love how this is being spun so that I become the one who wants to suppress information. Haizum 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't even believe we're having this discussion. Even in the US the belief that the War is going well is becoming a fringe opinion. The vast majority of information coming out of Iraq is negative- to not reflect that in the article is propaganda.--Jsn4 20:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Haizum, I agree more images are portraying negativity, however I do not think this is a problem necessarilly. I mean look at the Hiroshima bombing page. Not much positivity there. However, few will deny the positive outcome it eventually brought, such as a speedy end to the war, and millions of lives saved as there was no need for a costly mainland invasion. You cant show this in pictures that well, and I wouldnt expect them to. I dont think that the image selection is too terribly bad, perhaps it is a bit harsh selection, but how do you get images that show progress? The content of the article is more important, I for one have pushed for the inclusion of "Part of the War on Terror" on the top of the page. Its no surprise to me that they would claim you to be censoring things after seeing their faulty arguments in my debate, however I think that if you are looking to make an impact, you would be better off helping in the "part of" debate, which can be found here Rangeley 16:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Tens of thousands were killed in this war, and there are new victims about every day. I find it kind of absurd to write in a discussion about a war article "we should have some nice pictures here." As a sidenote to the ignorant user above, there is a long list of arguments edited by many users about why the Hiroshima bombing was a war crime. Añoranza 16:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
...all of which are fallacious because the United States did not initiate the global conflict of WWII, nor did it set the standard for Total War during. Haizum 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
You may disagree, but there are many and not only stupid people who say that it was an unnecessary attack on civilians and met the standards of a crime against humanity. Añoranza 00:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Using an atomic weapon on civilians to start a war or during a war is different than using an atomic weapon on civilians to end a war. That should be obvious...unless of course you have an agenda. Haizum 00:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
When people disagree with you it must be that they have an agenda, that is obvious. And if Saddam had nuked the US, UK, Australia, Poland and the other members of the coalition like Micronesia, it would not have been a crime against humanity because it would have been only to end a war of aggression. Sure, I see. Añoranza 07:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, if we had purposefully attacked civilian targets for the purpose of demoralization and halting wartime production, then they could have justifiably used nukes on US civilian targets. Of course there is no point in explaining to you how it works logically because you've already managed to equate WWII and the war in Iraq. Good job. Haizum 21:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not equate WWII and the war in Iraq, I used the comparison someone else had brought up. In fact, most law experts agree that both the Iraq war and WWII started with acts of aggression. Fact is also that many law experts see nuking civilians as a crime. A crime stays a crime no matter how evil the one is it is directed to. People who support a government that endorses torture, abductions and the death penalty on minors and mentally disabled may be unable to see this though. Añoranza 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
A nuke is no different from a bullet. They are simply tools of destruction on a different scale. You can use nukes to attack civilian targets as you can napalm, cluster bombs, bullets, and rocks. In order to believe that a 'war crime' has been committed, one must also believe that crimes can be committed during war. I simply don't agree with that premise, and I don't believe that is a particularly radical position to take. That doen't mean I'd like to see nukes or poison gas used willy nilly, rather, the weapon should fit the conflict; and throughout history that has generally been the case. During civil war, the rifle is the weapon of choice and the civil opposition is the target of choice; likewise, during a tooth and nail total war the most destructive weapons and tactics are used. If any crime could be committed, it would be that of escalating the degree of conflict to a state of Total War. Haizum 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
A nuke is different from a bullet in that it cannot be used on a military target exclusively, it has effects on such a wide area that unnecessary harm is done. There are laws of war, and even if the US government ignores them in practice, they are still binding, and they were used in trials supported by the US, e.g. Nuremberg, Milosevic... By your logic the holocaust or Srebrenica were no crimes as they happened during wars. War itself is a crime in cases like Iraq: the crime of aggression. The ICJ decided about the use of nukes. The ICJ is the World Court the US decided to ignore when found guilty of supporting terrorism in Nicaragua. Añoranza 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a simple concept and yet you still manage to botch it. 1. Wrong: A nuke can be used in a specific area so long as that area is the same size or larger than that of the effects of a nuclear detonation. If the conflict calls for localized (city) destruction with area denial (suburbs), then a nuke would be the weapon of choice. The analogous full metal jacket bullet can have similar collateral effects; it can overpenetrate its target and strike an unintended (or intended secondary) target, and the lead content can poison the soil (which may or may not be desirable). Regardless, your whole premise falls apart as soon as civilians become a viable military target, which has happened time and time again. 2. Fallacy: Simply because there are laws on the books about war doesn't mean they are appropriate. There are laws against gay marriage, but that doesn't mean they are justifiable simply because they are 'law'. 3. Botched Logic: The Holocaust etc were not strategic or tactical acts of war, and according to Wikipedia, "unconnected in any way to military activity". If anything, they weakened Nazi Germany's war effort. They were not "war crimes," rather, mass murder ("Crime Against Humanity"); and murder is widely accepted as a crime. Obvious. Haizum 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq in the time frame in which it occurred, and I did not agree with the invasion for some of the reasons given. There should have been an overhaul of the Iraqi government after the First Gulf War and Saddam's war of aggression against Kuwait and his own people. Unfortunately for you, you can't blame the United States for that blunder. Haizum 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter here who agreed with the invasion, and I have no time for all this. Civilians never are a legitimate target, and I already know that many people from countries that reelect war criminals do not care about legality of things. Your reasoning about the holocaust is entirely off topic, and for the umptienth time the only reason the analogy was brought up was to disprove that those who do something have the right to name it. Of course your ignore that again. Let's just agree to differ on who of us is stupid. Añoranza 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Civilians never are a legitimate target If you put that into a historical context (which is the most relevant), you couldn't be more wrong. Let me say that again, you couldn't be more wrong. Also, if you try to apply a standard to warfare such as, "we ought not target civilians, even when they present themselves to be a target" you are attempting idealize something which, in its pure form, is already ideal. You would be adding a rule to a game of no rules. So you are wrong there as well. I'm afraid you're going to find it difficult to argue against empiricism with emotive rhetoric. Regardless, you've already discredited yourself by resorting to multiple personal attacks. Haizum 17:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but if someone says he is beyond the law, by saying civilians can be a legitimate target and even more explicitly, at the same time evading several points where he was clearly disproven, how do you call that if not stupid? Añoranza 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Using "it's the law" as the basis for your argument is pathetic. You should be able to explain why civilians ought/shouldn't/aren't military targets even when they have been since the first sieges in history. I refuse to honor fallacious premises by responding to them. But I do have a treat for you anyways: The majority of kamikaze pilots in WWII were comprised of hastily trained university students; that is, civilians. I suppose you believe shooting attacking kamikaze pilots out of the sky was a war crime (attacking civilians right?), but if you don't, then you are surrending to my argument: civilians are not a military target until they become a military target (no more than a tree is not a military target until it becomes a military target). When civilians are not a military target, it is NOT because some law says otherwise or because feelings will be hurt, rather, they are not targets when there is no strategic or tactical gain to be had (just like a tree). However, if an enemy military needs trees (say rubber trees) and therefore needs the civilian sector to harvest the trees for military purposes, the trees and the civilians become a target of opportunity. Feel free to disagree, I'll gladly leave it up to every military strategist and historian to call you an idiot for me. Haizum 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh how evil am I, I used the law as a basis for an argument, indeed pathetic. Really strange that there is no law prohibiting people without a brain to waste the time of others in wikipedia discussions. I am sorry but if you do not even know what a civilian is, why do you think others should read what you write in a discussion about a war? Añoranza 13:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If a civilian is a "noncombatant," then individuals who contribute to a war effort by any means are not civilians and not noncombatants; regardless of whatever milk toast law you want to cite. Haizum 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I think answering someone who claims that kamikaze pilots were civilians because they were only "hastily trained university students" is like feeding trolls. Añoranza 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Until you prove otherwise, or provide a cogent rebuttal to the main argument, you lose. Haizum 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Debates with trolls can only have losers. Añoranza 09:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Debates with trolls can only have losers. = Giant white flag. Haizum 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Even proud to have posted such incredibly idiotic stuff that others refuse to go on discussing with you? Añoranza 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I challenge you to point out a faulty premise and actually cogently explain why it is faulty, or point out a factual error and actually give the correct information. As it stands, you have failed to do that. If you can't show where I'm being chronically "foolish and stupid", according to Dictionary.com, then I really don't see how you can logically conclude that I'm an idiot. What's ironic is only an idiot would draw a conclusion without a premise; that's the opposite of cogent logic. Haizum 03:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop your kamikaze actions, "civilian". Añoranza 15:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Crime Against Logic Haizum 01:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, this is a debate worthy of talking about at a political forum. I belong to one, and would love to debate you at it. However, Wikipedia is not this political forum, nor is it one at all. I brought up the atomic bombing as an example of an event for which only negative pictures arose from, and explained it as a case where something with an ultimately positive outcome cannot be represented in pictures. You may disagree that it ultimately saved lives, Añoranza, however I think atleast in principle we are in agreeance. It is not POV to show the outcome of the bombing and not the people it saved on mainland Japan, and it is not POV to show the destruction caused by war and not show all the people that would have died otherwise, or would not have had any shot at a future. Rangeley 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In my mind an ideal picture to be replaced is the Colin Powell one, not on the grounds that is biased, rather that much more relevant pictures could be found.KevinPuj

Relevant to that section (prelude to the war)? A member of the administration making the case for WMD to the U.N. I don't think you'd find a more relevant picture for that section. I'm open to suggestions, of course. --Mmx1 20:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that a warning should be placed on this article if images of torture are presented. They should not be in open view of children and those who are easily offended. Maybe they should be linked with a warning of innapropriate content instead of being in view.

I agree with the above statement that the pictures of torture should have a warning on them. To the people who think there should be more "good" pictures of the US in Iraq... Pictures don't lie, they show us the truth, and honestly we deserve to see everthing that's going on there especially the bad since our fathers and brothers ect are out there. The bad pictures we are seeing are the reality of the war. We don't need war all censored up for us, so we can feel better oblivious to whats really going on there while we eat our pop tarts and watch re-runs of teh Rosie O'Donnel show. --Summer 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to sign your comments. As for the pictures I dont think we should hide anything, however there is a lack of positive images and only seems to be negative or neutral images, negative ones only of US. Perhaps we should put a picture of the aftermath of a car bomb showing disfigured corpses of civilians. Then it can state "freedom fighters blow up car bomb outside crowded market" to appease everyones NPOV habits. Sorry I am ranting, hiding information bad, showing only one perspective also bad. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - signed it now :) and yes i completely agree zero, it would be nice to see both the good things being accomplished and bad so we can see both sides of the arguement equally - hence we can have a better understanding of the arguement to form more educated opinions and unbais understanding. It seems a lot of our reactions to the war has been based on what the media presents us. PS: srry for my rant too --Summer 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What some soldiers are saying

Let me start off by saying I'm not an anti-war/pro-pacifist, meaning that I recognize war as being a necessary evil, but I will not blindly support any war that puts US soldiers at risk without just cause. I don't normally contribute to wiki, but I recently read a thread in a firearms forum that may be of interest. One of the posters, claims to be in military intelligence (many of the members actually are in the military so it's not too unlikely) and provided some information on what's going on over there. I don't know how reliable this is, since it's posted on the an Internet forum, but it sounds very rational and plausible. Look for posts from the user "Rayman1" http://ak47.net/forums/topic.html?b=4&f=64&t=85587&page=2

I personally trust these people more than the mainstream media, so I hope this shines some light on what's going on. If we can somehow verify this, I don't know what you do to prove it's reliable, it should provides some answers for us folks that aren't over there.

Um, did you read Cincinnatus's posts (a Marine O-4, FYI)? He basically debunked those posts. The situation in Iraq is far more complicated than "one guy is pulling all the strings, we should fear him"
And no, it's not verifiable enough for wiki. I personally trust Cinci, but since I can't cite his posts as from a Major X, its no-go. We don't even know who the hell Rayman1 is. --Mmx1 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Where did it say "one guy is pulling all the strings, we should fear him", from what I read it's basically civilwar going on, and we're not helping the situation.

Sorry, got him confused with the other guy pulling unnamed sources (glockguy). Rayman's the one espousing the "Iranians pull all the strings" view. --Mmx1 07:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but unless you know the source or someone you trust vouches for it, Internet heresay's worse than no news. It only reconfirms your existing beliefs because you'll "find it reasonable". Of course you'll find reasonable items that are in line with yours. I trust Cinci because his status has been verified through a chain of Marines, even though I don't even know his real name. Random guy on the internet? I don't think so. --Mmx1 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the soldiers who were there, like me, on wikipedia, have been run out of this entry. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

UFO Sightings

Iran-Iraq UFO Sightings has recently been added in and hidden under a "minor" edit. I think it should be removed because it has very little relevance to the article and because most of the UFOs are probably US or British aircraft. Thoughts? KevinPuj 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The UFOs hid Saddam's WMD. Cynic - 8 June 2006.

Nothing on the good side?

My good friends are soldiers themselves and they always say that Iraq is nothing like what the media depicts it. Apart from isolated incidents once or twice a week, most events are progressive. Children and families hail them and show their support. People can vote, have free speech, and live free from the grip of a dictator.

However, there are insurgents which kill and terrorize the people, especially those who wish to participate in this new concept of "freedom". Why? Because they want to keep control over the people while they still can. There is barely any outspoken protest among Iraqi civilians over the coalition, when's the last time you've seen this?

Those caught red-handed working with the terrorist and insurgent groups are sent to detainment camps and recently only half a dozen out of thousands have been reported to be abused. Besides, what's wrong about humiliating an insurgent caught red-handed?

People focus too much on the bad, and should lighten up. The soldier's opinion is never heard, nor is the average civilian. If you look at it, most of the media spends its time listening to journalists and major politicians and critics. And then it repeatedly shows a single incident where a child was accidentally killed or where a prisoner was tortured, stretching it out to cover multiple broadcasts over the week. What is this again? Indoctrination through propaganda my friends. The government obviously doesn't do that, only the media.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Nice brainwashed friends you have. How about watching some real pictures like Laura Poitras' My Country, My Country and get a picture from outside the military? Please do not humiliate yourself by claiming not to know what is wrong about humiliating someone. What is wrong with abducting people and torturing them, keeping prisoners indefinitely without trial in camps you claim not to have jurisdiction at? And, what was wrong with 9/11? Añoranza 00:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I was deployed in Iraq, and although the media does depict images from the war, they don't give you the full story. There is so much more good going on there than the media lets you to know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

^ That's because you yourself participated in the murdering in cold blood of innocent civilians, including women and children. And you have no morals. Plus you're brainwashed. So why are you talking abou the "good side"? Skinnyweed 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am glad your not biased. --Zer0faults 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering you know nothing of this person other then they served how can you even state that? He may be a Army Corps Engineer rebuilding bridges or helping to repair the infrastructure. This is bordering on a personal attack, please read WP:CIVIL
Good side? Hmmm. Everything in the world has both good side and bad side. You can write the "good side" of this matter. Bush got good approval rating, the US companies has got massive interest, the US people was united to attack Afgan and Iraq (and maybe Iran). You should write the good side of "911", too. --Finch

Opening Paragraph

I think we need to come up with a new opening paragraph. If you read the following below:

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the willing"[4] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world.[5] After the invasion no weapons of mass destruction were found and the Bush administration has since admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.[6][7] There is disagreement over the extent to which this inaccuracy was a matter of deceit or of intelligence failure. [8][9] This failure to find WMDs has given credence to the view of the majority of the world's nations, who took active roles in dissenting against the United States actions and agreed with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statement that, "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the U.N. Charter". [10]

You would probably assume by reading this that WMD's were the only reason supplied by the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq. It states "United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world." however that is not stating the full points of HJ Res 114 and only stating the one reason that has been proven false. Does anyone have any opinions they would like to offer on how we can expand this paragraph to make it factually correct? I was considering adding all the reasons stated, however I believe there was 6 or more and that may make the paragraph much to bloated. I will attempt to write something to put up for comment later, until then I will place a POV warning back on this article. Sorry I asked for it to be removed, there is much to go over here. --Zer0faults 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing something out further, the 3rd paragraph also alludes that WMD's were the only reason given however, the links supplied to affirm that go against it, listing the following as reasons:

"Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms"

So again I guess its probably more of the entire opening section that needs a look at, I will type something up later, feel free to post something here we can all look at if I have not posted anything myself. --Zer0faults 13:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Ok I am back, I have merged much of the non POV stuff into one paragraph, keeping the first paragraph intact. Opinions? Feedback? Please see above for why some of the information is being removed.

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the Willing"[4] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government. United States president George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003[4]. On December 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein was arrested in Iraq and is currently standing trial for war crimes[5][6]. The Iraq war continued however in its second phase of conflict which centers around the US efforts to establish a democracy state capable of defending itself. Since the fall of the former regime a growing armed resistance has emerged of Iraqi insurgents, and knows terrorists such as Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Former interim president, Iyad Allawi, has warned that Iraq may be facing a civil war if more is not done to stop it[7].

So questions comments feedback welcome. Other views etc. I just hope we can remove the assertations that WMD's were in fact the sole reason for the US invasion, considering that HJ Res 114 covers many many reasons. --Zer0faults 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So basically what you want to do is remove all mention of the cassus belli of the Iraq War and try to create the false impression that this military action was as inevitable as the sunrise. No. Just because things didn't turn out the way the Bush administration wanted doesn't give you license to rewrite history.

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. - March 19, 2003 D-Day of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq [8]

What these articles have had to endure is ludicrous. Back in 2003-2005 we had people trying to edit in that WMDs actually were found in Iraq. And now that thats been proven false we have people trying to say WMD weren't the reason for the invasion. No, just No. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Start using the proper format or it's over for your comments. If you're going to troll, do us all a favor and stick to the guidelines. Haizum 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this comment directed at me? --Zer0faults 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be signing your comments, so no; Mr. Tibbs Haizum 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstaning me, I am not saying WMD's were a reason, the point of changing the top is because they weren't the reason. See just because the president told you XYZ doesnt mean its the actual justification, a resolution was passed in the House and Senate that laid out the reasons for going to war with Iraq [9], you can read it and see that there is over 10 reasons for why the US did in fact invade Iraq. If you would prefer I can edit the article to reflect all the reasons, however stating one reason, then stating its wrong, is pretty POV. I welcome your feedback on which you would prefer, adding all the reasons or removing all of them and covering them later in the article. I am sure we can all come to a compromise that suits everyone. For those contending that WMD's were the only reason, or the main reason, well please see here its the actual resolution authorizing war. Your feedback and others is appreciated. --Zer0faults 22:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
WMDs were found in Iraq. Note that I'm not specifying how old they were or how much there was...but neither did you. Haizum 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the article is an antiwar propaganda tool. That is why there is a NPOV tag on it. Had france and Germany stuck to their signinings on UN resolutions up to the "invasion" there wouldn't be this "international outcry"...sure Saddam was going to step down, him being such a nice guy and the current indictment of him regarding crimes against humanity must be unwarranted...surely.--MONGO21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"But Saddam's Bad!!!" So what? That wasn't the cassus belli and trying to give that impression After the Fact is Untrue. Hell, the reason it wasn't the cassus belli is because there are dictators in Africa that make Saddam look like a pussycat. And that's why the US never invaded say Ethiopia to depose Meles Zenawi. And he's actually nicer than the guy he ousted: Mengistu Haile Mariam. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see HJ Res 114(PDF) for stated reasons for going to war. This is the actual resoltuion authorizing force in Iraq and states all the reasons for the US invasion. This document was made before the start of the invasion and can also be found on the Senate's official webpage, just in case any doubt is placed in its authenticity. I hope to hear back from you soon so we can possibly work to make this article NPOV. --Zer0faults 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


I am not sure why the hostility is taking over but I would ask people remain civil and try not to place personal attacks on me, and I will try to do the same in return. The problem is that HJ Res 114 states numerous reasons why the US is attacking Iraq, the other option would be to include every reason. Does this satisfy everyone more? I can maybe make bullets stating all the reasons listed in HJ Res 114. See the problem with the term you love to use "casus belli", is that it doesnt signify all the reasons. The actual definition of casus belli = "A circumstance or situation that causes a war." However you want to ignore all the reasons and simply state one. I will type up a new opening paragraph stating all the reasons in HJ Res 114 and we can then look over that. PS if you have something you would like to add to my stated paragraphs perhaps that would be more efficient since its very POV to ignore all the reasons going to war. --Zer0faults 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to come to a center point I have type up another paragraph to follow the one above. This paragraph lists the reasons given by the US for going to war with Iraq in the order in which they appear in HJ Res 114. This way the reasons are not ommited, yet none of they are emphasized in the beginning paragraphs any more then the others. This keeps the opening paragraph on the top very NPOV and allows for further discussion to take place in the article where it is more appropriate.

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the Willing"[4] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government. United States president George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003[10]. On December 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein was arrested in Iraq and is currently standing trial for war crimes[11][12]. The Iraq war continued however in its second phase of conflict which centers around the US efforts to establish a democracy state capable of defending itself. Since the fall of the former regime a growing armed resistance has emerged of Iraqi insurgents, and known terrorists such as Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Former interim president, Iyad Allawi, has warned that Iraq may be facing a civil war if more is not done to stop it[13].
On October 10th, 2002, the 107th Congress passed the H.J Resolution 114 titled "Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces in Iraq." The resolution pass with a vote of 77-23 in the Senate and, 296-133 in the House. The following is a summary of the reasons stated in the order in which they appear in the resolution:
  • Iraq failed to "eliminate its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism."
  • The US was informed by international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors of large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program and Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon then intelligence reports previously indicated.
  • Iraq's violation of the cease fire by thwarting efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraqs weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities.
  • Congress concluded on October 14, 1998 that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened internation peace and security.
  • Iraq persists in violating United Nations Security Council resolutions by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including American servicemen.
  • Iraqs willingness to and capabilities to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people.
  • The presence of al-Qaida members in Iraq.
  • Iraq continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations.
  • The threat of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction to launch a surprise attack against United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists.

Feel free to give feedback or even offer alterations or entirely different paragraphs. Please also, I do not like being accused of attempting to hide anything, I simply want the article to have its POV tag removed by presenting things evenly and factually. I am more then flexible on the issue, we are here to improve Wikipedia with great articles. --Zer0faults 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You two really screwed up the talkpage format. The intro was NPOVed earlier: [14] The reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was WMD. No one was arguing back and forth over not wanting the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"[15] for the fun of it. You know it, I know it, just stop trying to rewrite history because there turned out to not be any WMD. Intro stays as is. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Your link points to section in which the first sentence states "Agree with Publicus and Justforasecond that the article needs a lot of work but I think the major problem isn't POV." I am not sure how you consider this section as NPOV'ing the article when the person presenting the issue is stating its not a NPOV issue. --Zer0faults 00:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not really sure what the proper procedure is with Wikipedia when someone is totally refusing to move from their opinion. May I ask why you say WMD was the only reason and negate the fact that the Resolution states otherwise? Do you not weigh the congressional resolution heavily, or is there some other reason? I noticed you linked to CNN, are you saying you favor talking points by the administration more heavily then the voting of and resolution passed by congress? Hope to hear a reply soon. --Zer0faults 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Tibbs, you of all people should know that there was no one reason given before, or since. Rangeley 00:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Duh, there were secondary reasons other than WMD. And the current Intro notes that. But the fact is Bush didn't refuse to allow the inspectors to finish their job[16] because "Saddam is just too bad". He went in without giving them the time they needed because ""We're at the point where we think time is not on our side,"[17]. Colin Powell didn't wave around some photos of toasted Kurds; he waved around a fake vial of anthrax. US soldiers didn't spend 2 years scouring Iraq looking for secret prisons; They were looking for WMD. [18] Cassus belli is WMD this is an indisputable fact so I don't see any reason for me to continue argueing about it. -- Mr. Tibbs 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Where in the current intro does it state there was other reasons? "...which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world" this states the reason for invasion was WMD's, nothing else is mentioned and this is in fact wrong. I will present to you quotes that counter your arguement of WMD's soley being the reason, which you seem to leave out any link of those WMD's and terrorists but that is another story:
  • "Was the attack then an imminent threat two, three, or six months before? When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat, when was it sufficiently dangerous? Now transport yourself forward ... if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, or use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and some of the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States or on U.S. forces overseas with weapons of mass destruction, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" - Donald Rumsfeld [19]
  • "That our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is still developing, that there is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives, they have occurred over a span of some eight or 10 years to our knowledge, that there are currently al Qaeda in Iraq," - Donald Rumsfeld
  • "Absent a dictator, absent the Saddam Hussein regime, our goal would be first to have a single country, not have a country broken up into pieces, it would be to see that it would be a country without weapons of mass destruction, a country that did not try to impose its will upon its neighbors and it was a country that was respectful of the rights of minorities and the ethnic groups that exist in the country,"-Donald Rumsfeld
  • "With each missile launched at our air crews, Iraq expresses its contempt for the U.N. resolutions, a fact that must be kept in mind as their latest inspection offers are evaluated," - Donald Rumsfeld
  • "We certainly have evidence of senior al Qaeda who have been in Baghdad in recent periods," - Donald Rumsfeld
I can go on but I am tired. Its not who can quote more, its a matter of what the facts are. The HJ Res 114 states the reasons for gonig to war and they are more factual then what CNN chooses to print in an article. --Zer0faults 00:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
(Quoted from Mr.Tibbs) The reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was WMD.
Doesn't that imply that the only reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was WMD? But...
(Quoted from Mr.Tibbs)Duh, there were secondary reasons other than WMD.
Doesn't that imply that there was more than one reason? Selfcontridictions are bad. Also, you're methods of debating are poor; "Duh" is generally not a positive word. GofG ||| Contribs 14:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up, you keep linking to casus belli somehow insisting that there is a distinction between primary and secondary reasons for gonig to war. That however defies the definition on the wikipage you insist on linking to, it states on casus belli:

"Officially, the term refers to the grievances section of a formal Declaration of War. In this section, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort ("Ultima Ratio") and that it in fact possessed "Just Cause" for doing so."

There is no more official document for declaration of war then HJ Res 114. I do not see where you get primary and secondary as the document does not weigh the items nor specify an order of importance. I hope you are not attempting to use the term, then state that CNN is a better source then the "formal Declaration of War" is regarding reasons for going to war. --Zer0faults 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the discussion on the opening paragraph. I would like to change the following:

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the willing"[20] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world

to:

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the willing"[21] led by the United States and the United Kingdom. The reason that was most publicized for the invasion was the that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and was willing to share those weapons with terrorist organizations, use them on his own civilian population or against the United States directly.

I am trying to find a compromise still as it seems Mr. Tibbs wants WMD's to receive a majority of the spot light because he feels it was given the most attention in the news. I am trying to find a middle ground by at least expanding the reason why. The HJ Res 114 does in fact state WMD's as a reason and I have never denied that. However it goes on to state what those weapons would be used for, and I believe that is important to be included. It clarify's why Iraq would be a threat to the world. Just to state, I am not stating anything in the HJ Res 114 happened, did not happen, was truth, or not truth. I am simply stating that we cannot include what (WMD's), without explaining why(his using them on XYZ). Comments, suggestions? I would like to greatly here from you Mr. Tibbs as I am trying to reach a concensus with you, however all are welcomed to change anything give feedback etc as is Wiki policy. Thank you --Zer0faults 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its not because it got the most attention in the news. Its because WMD is the Main Reason the US invaded Iraq. Again Colin Powell didn't go to the UN and wave Osama's picture around he waved around a fake vial of Anthrax. Now I have to go back and fix the intro again. And about "Casus Belli" it's a latin phrase meaning "Occasion of War" IE the answer to the question: "Why did the US invade Iraq is WMD". -- Mr. Tibbs 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but you fail to understand what casus belli means. Please see definition above. Your CNN does not show what the reasons in the "formal declaration of war" state. Please see HJ Res 114 for the formal declaration of war. Thank you --Zer0faults 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop being purposely obtuse. We are not using "Casus Belli" as a technical term, it is a latin phrase that means "Occasion of War" other latin phrases used in english would be et cetera and the like. And HJ Res is Not a declaration of War. No declaration of War was ever made for the Iraq War. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't post the same thing everywhere, I will adress further concerns below in WMD section only to stop this page that is already in desperate need of archiving not explode. --Zer0faults 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if, as an outsider to this debate I can put my word in here. I considered mediating this discussion however I'd prefer just to comment and leave it at that :). I agree mostly with what Zer0faults is saying. I do not think that WM's are the ONLY reason that the US and UK went to war with Iraq, however agree it was the most publicized (in my opinion deliberately so by the governments) but that is not the same as the MAIN reason. It is also of note that HJ Res 114 is also mentiuoned urther down and the other factors of going to war hinted at. I think that focusing on WMD as the primary reason for the war is wrong. I suggest that the initial paragraph be cut down alot (as much of the information is included in the article). Specifically replacing:
"They invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction that he may distribute to terrorists, use on his own population, or against US forces, and so was a threat to the world."
With:
"They invaded Iraq for several reasons (many of which are laid out in a resolution passed by the U.S senate in 2002 - HJ Res 114) the most publicised reason beign Iraq's alleged possesion of Weapons of Mass Distruction. It was feared that such aramaments could be distributed to Terrrorist Organizations or to be used by the Iraqi Leadership to adversely dominate the middle east."
I think that would indicate that WMD's were not the only reason for going to war but that they were the most prominent.
However I think the whole of the first paragraph needs a rewrite as parts of it are a little confusing (esp. the section about HJ Res 114) and in places POV. I will have a go at doing it tomorrow and post my ideas here for your perusal. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's the problem with that. It's not about publicity or press coverage. It's about the fact that the Iraq disarmament crisis set off the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. It wasn't the "Iraq Terrorism Crisis" or the "Iraq Humanitarian Crisis" it was the "Iraq Disarmament Crisis". And theres a huge problem with rewriting the intro as if the Iraq disarmament crisis never happened. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm I see where you stand but you canot deny that whilst the Iraq disarmament crisis was a major reason for going to war OFICIALLY all of the reasons in HJ Res 114 are the reason. To suggest in the opening paragraph that the ONLY reason for the war was WMD's is wrong - because it simply isn't. However I agree that the emphasis needs to be on the armaments crisis because it was the reason sold to the public and the major one used to justify the invasion but it needs to acknowledge that there was at least 12 reasons for the war as well. To not do that would be biased to both parties (Iraq and the US/UK - mostly the coalition) simply because later on it is mentioned that Iraq dodint't have abnd probablty never did have substantial WMD's as per claimed making the reader feel that the Iraq war was unjustified. As a compromise pehaps the first paragraph should talk about the Development of WMD's rather than the Posession of WMD's.
And theres a huge problem with rewriting the intro as if the Iraq disarmament crisis never happened.
As to thatI think if you read my idea for revision you would see that it doesn't pretend that never hapened just acknowledge's that there are other reasons (albeit less high profile ones). Oh and also you cannot say in te paragraph that Iraq DID possess WMD's only that it was alleged he possessed them (by the US and UN) because there is no conclusive proof for or against that fact -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What if you use differentiate between reasons and public justification? I can see both points of view on this argument. One the one hand you are misrepresenting the reasons given by the adminsitration if you say WMD was the reason, but, it is true that the Bush administration very publicly made it clear that WMD was *the* issue and justification for the war, it wasn't just the media twisting what the were saying. Just a suggestio to perhaps get past the impasse. aussietiger 09:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
By my count, there are about 14 reasons listed for use of US armed forces against Iraq (not counting three references to 9/11/2001) in the “Whereas” section of H.J. Res 114. Of these reasons, WMDs (including nuclear weapons) are mentioned a total of 11 times. All of the other reasons are mentioned about 24 times. That's roughly 45% of the document leaning on the supposed threat of WMDs. Also, the runner up, supposed links to and support of terrorist organizations, define the threat in terms of selling WMDs to such organizations. Finally in third place was failure to adhere to UN resolutions, many of which are focused on Iraq's WMD programs. I should mention that tied for third place was violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, which they did do.
H.J. Res 114, in my opinion, pretty well reflects the administrations focus on WMDs as the whole point.
While it's true that the US forces were mobilized, technically, in small part due to the repression of the Iraqi people (1 mention) and other reasons that received little attention, I would submit that without the underlying theme of WMD usage or sale, H.J. Res 114 would not have passed.70.98.101.126 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly that is not something you know, just something you believe. Its our job here to represent the facts not what we feel may have or may have not happened had certain events occured. Also if you read HJ Res 114 you would see there are quite a few reasons for going to war other then WMD's, that is the point of this discussion. Mr. Tibbs feels WMD's were the only "occasion of war" and does not recognize HJ Res 114 or the War Powers Act of 1973 as a reasonable resource or "declaration of war" see below for symantics on how "Join Resolutions" are related to War Powers Act of 1973 and then relate to declarations of war. Just to summarize, noone is saying WMD's were not a reason for going to war, we are stating they werent the only reason and so should not dominate the article. --Zer0faults 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall anyone saying it was the only reason. I understand that this verbal fencing match is invigorating to most, and I do realize that my beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to article content. My beliefs are not however irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure you are very fond of your own beliefs and would not say that they are pointless to this discussion.
You should really avoid saying things like “if you read HJ Res 114 you would see...”; that is being condescending. You imply that I have not read it but am commenting on it anyway. I have read the resolution more than a dozen times. I wanted to chime in with some of the stats supporting the “WMD appear to have been the main reason” side of the debate. I am aware that this is not your side, I just thought that the numbers that I dug out might be useful. I tried to illustrate that but for the assertion that Iraq was in possession of and actively producing WMD with the intent of using them or selling them to terrorist allies, H.J. Res 114 would have contained fewer convincing arguments for the invasion of Iraq. We are all aware that WMD were not the only reason given to invade Iraq just as we all know that garbanzo beans are not the only ingredient in hummus; they are, however, the whole point of the dip. Now I'm starving.
Also, when you offer a fellow editor advice, you should pause and reflect so as not to appear hypocritical...(pausing and reflecting)...OK, done. You say, “Unfortunately that is not something you know, just something you believe”. Now stop and ask yourself, “Have I also stated things that I believe but do not know?” If the answer is yes then, well there is a name for that.
Now I'm sounding condescending. Sorry.
I am not trying to win a debate. I thought I would offer my two cents. If what I offer is of no use to you, I would appreciate more of a polite-pat-on-the-head kind of response and a “Run along you little scamp”. That's the way it should be. Of course, as always, I could be wrong.
Finally I would like to preemptively apologize for all the flaws in my logic as well as any personal slights that have been insinuated. Peace! Kidigus 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
"I would submit that without the underlying theme of WMD usage or sale, H.J. Res 114 would not have passed." That is the comment in which you assume, and is not something you know. That is what I was reffering to. I am not sure why you would by condescending to someone else if you feel they did it to you, and furhtermore thought when they did it to you it was wrong. Just ask for clarification and I would have explained where the comment was directed at. Noone is asking you to “Run along you little scamp”, I do however feel comparing dip to reasons a nation goes to war is a bit of over simplification of the subject. --Zer0faults 09:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right. This is not a blog. I will back off. I recommend for you're consideration articles like this which quote House and Senate leaders and their opinions regarding this matter. Peace! Kidigus 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

POV Reversions

If there are any concerns over POV please place them here so they can be discussed. Wikipedia is an amazing community and we are all here to better it. I am sure adding that "U.S. General Jay Garner" is retired is not POV pushing. I also do not see how adding your own sources back is considered POV pushing. Grammar fixing and adding other sources are also not POV pushing. I even went to the extent to keep WMD's listed, but simply adding the resolution link and that there were other causes hoping that would be a reasonable middle ground, information which is indeed factual. I ask you Mr. Tibbs that you do not continue to revery my additions, oddly enough some which were your own sources, by simply labeling a days work as POV and proceding on your way. Please come to the talk page so the issue can be discussed with the community and hopefully a middle ground or common view can be worked out. --Zer0faults 01:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's important to talk, not just revert. Who's doing the most reverting of new edits? Wombdpsw 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You can view the history for yourself. I added over 8 edits of work, some as pointed out above just simply stating a person is retired and it gets reverted as blanket POV. All I ask is that someone comes to the talk page and explains there rationale if they are going to blanket revert and call it POV. --Zer0faults 09:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You can also see that I add back the work done after my version when I revert back to mine. Such as the case with Mr. Tibbs sources and casualty figure in the infobox. --Zer0faults 10:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if, as an outsider to this debate I can put my word in here. I considered mediating this discussion however I'd prefer just to comment and leave it at that :). I agree mostly with what Zer0faults is saying. I do not think that WM's are the ONLY reason that the US and UK went to war with Iraq, however agree it was the most publicized (in my opinion deliberately so by the governments) but that is not the same as the MAIN reason. It is also of note that HJ Res 114 is also mentiuoned urther down and the other factors of going to war hinted at. I think that focusing on WMD as the primary reason for the war is wrong. I suggest that the initial paragraph be cut down alot (as much of the information is included in the article). Specifically replacing:
"They invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction that he may distribute to terrorists, use on his own population, or against US forces, and so was a threat to the world."
With:
"They invaded Iraq for several reasons (many of which are laid out in a resolution passed by the U.S senate in 2002 - HJ Res 114) the most publicised reason beign Iraq's alleged possesion of Weapons of Mass Distruction. It was feared that such aramaments could be distributed to Terrrorist Organizations or to be used by the Iraqi Leadership to adversely dominate the middle east."
I think that would indicate that WMD's were not the only reason for going to war but that they were the most prominent.
However I think the whole of the first paragraph needs a rewrite as parts of it are a little confusing (esp. the section about HJ Res 114) and in places POV. I will have a go at doing it tomorrow and post my ideas here for your perusal. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WMD's

While it is true that very little in the manner of WMD material was captured from the Iraq 2003 invasion, we cannot argue that this "proves" no WMD existed in the run up to the invasion. There is considerable information on the web that seems to indicate that the WMDs were evacuated during the run up to the war. Now, whether or not the USA knew this, is open to debate. But we must take into account this perspective too. Here's what I found:

  • See key findings of Saddam's "Regime Strategic Intent", on the CIA's official web site, here.
  • "[Saddam's] lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."
  • "Saddam recognized that the reconstitution of Iraqi WMD enhanced both his security and image. Consequently, Saddam needed to end UN-imposed sanctions to fulfill his goals."
  • "Senior Iraqis—several of them from the Regime’s inner circle—told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended."
The "key findings" are part of the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, 30 September 2004, all of which can be found here.
  • "David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria."
  • "It has been confirmed that the Iraqi weapons which were smuggled into Syria through the intermediary of Colonel Zu Alhima Shalish are now located in three different places..."
  • "The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there."
  • "A former Iraqi general alleges that in June 2002 Saddam Hussein transported weapons of mass destruction out of the country to Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims."
  • "An Iraqi scientist also led Coalition forces to hidden stockpiles of precursor chemicals that could be used to make chemical and biological weapons. The scientist said some facilities and weapons were destroyed, and the rest were sent to Syria. Syrian defectors are also claiming that Syria is where the weapons are..."
  • "David Kay, who recently resigned as leader of a U.S. weapons search team in Iraq, said part of captive president Saddam Hussein's weapons program was hidden in Syria, a report in Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper said today. Kay was reported to have said he had uncovered evidence unspecified materials were moved to Syria shortly before last year's U.S. invasion of Iraq."
  • And finally, this:
  • "The great mystery of the 2003 war in Iraq - "What about the WMD?" has finally been resolved. The short answer is: Saddam Hussein's persistent record of lying meant no one believed him when he at the last moment actually removed the weapons of mass destruction."
Wombdpsw 08:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
hahaha. You can't prove the absence of WMD. Its the same problem Saddam had. You only have to find one weapoin to prove they are there, but it doesnt matter how much lack of evidence you find, you can never prove they arent. The suggestion that Saddam would send his weapons to Syria is funny too and you can't prove that never happened either. But Iraq and Syria weren't exactly friends. Do you think the USA would send its nukes to Mexico or Haiti or Cuba if they wanted to hide them?!

The debate about WMD's existence is over: "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."-[22] No WMD's were ever "evacuated". The intelligence was simply wrong. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And again Zero, there'd be no reason to even make that speech at all if the main reason for the invasion was Not WMD. Bush never made a speech taking responsibility for the unmanned aerial drones they claimed Saddam had before the war began,[23] because it was just a secondary reason. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It was never a reason actually, if you would read HJ Res 114 you would see UAV are not listed at all. Please read over casus belli and read HJ Res 114(PDF) to see the formal declaration of war and reasons listed, or casus belli.
Again HJ Res 114 is NOT a declaration of war. War was Never formally declared against Iraq just like it never was against Vietnam. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Your arguement fails to prove you are correctly using the term casus belli. You are either stating there was no declaration of war, which Authorization to Use Force in Iraq is pretty close a declaration as nations do not sign documents anymore saying "I am at war with you." HJ Res 114 is also the document the masses vote on. In the United States the House and Senate members are elected to vote on laws rulings and resolutions by the people for them, the votes passed and the 107th Congress passed HJ Res 114, which is used by the president of the United States as his reasons for gonig to war. CNN does not determine the casus belli the government does. Please read casus belli. --Zer0faults 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to make an arguement to prove that "casus belli" is a latin phrase meaning "Occasion of War" it says it right on the casus belli article. And Of course there was no Declaration of War on Iraq! The US hasn't made a formal declaration of War since World War 2. Again, HJ RES 114 is Not the be all and end all. More than that the "Whereas" sections in HJ RES 114 are NOT reasons for invading Iraq, many of them simply describe the situation. Again you are being purposely obtuse so you can editwar your POV into the article. Stop it. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks. I am taking the day off from the talk page to addres your concerns as you have resorted to personal attacks. I will see you tomorrow and maybe you will be more willing to come to a concensus. --Zer0faults 20:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made no personal attacks. However I have ceased to assume good faith and realize full well what you are doing. Which is Purposely being obtuse about "casus belli" a term that I readded to the article in the first place. And Purposely distorting what HJ Res 114 is. And it's sad that I have to cease assuming good faith, but assume good faith does not mean "bend over". -- Mr. Tibbs 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It is sad that you have come to feel that way considering the whole section above this one is an attempt to come to a middle ground with you, including leaving in WMD's but stating there was other reasons, which you show down without stating why. I am going to add this page to the mediation cabal as its clear there is "tension" brewing and perhaps a 3rd party can help not only settle things down but resume your "good faith" in my attentions. However I ask you stop reffering to me as obtuse, as its an insult. Definition below, if you were not aware of its meaning however a simple apology is all I ask.

#Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

  1. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
  2. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
--Zer0faults 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The intro with "casus belli" in it does state that there are other reasons, it just makes it clear that they are not the main reason. And I never referred to you as obtuse, I stated you are "Purposely being obtuse". If you're fishing for compliments I think that such a ruse is pretty clever actually. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wont get into the semantics of what I view as an insult and your framing of the terms. I will however state you are linking to a term that goes against its use as you are putting it. Also above in 1 of the three paragraphs I attempted to find a middle ground with you on, I stated ist the most popular reason, you never even commented on this version. You keep wanting to state casus belli, however you only want to state one reason instead of all the reasons. I find this to be POV as only one of the reasons listed in the resolution authorizing war is then wrong, but if the resolution is hidden and WMD's is highlited and stated as the reason. This makes it appear then that "all", even though its only one according to the paragraph (WMD's), of the reasons for gonig to war were false. I thought the above paragraph where I listed all the reasons as they appear in the resolution was a good paragraph, but you did not like that one either because it did not highlight WMD's. I see you search on CNN alot so please go there and search for no-fly zone then list by date and see how often Rumsfeld said the Iraqi's failed to respect the no-fly zone. Unfortunatly I can't say that was the "Occassion for War", even though the US did go in front of the UN and complain about Iraqi AA systems locking onto US planes. My point, what CNN chooses to pay most attention to does not become the sole occassion for war, as the articles on the no-fly point out. --Zer0faults 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am gonig to adress this as I see you view it. You believe that HJ Res 114 is not an adequate determination of casus belli because its not the "official declaration of war" even though its the closest official document available. You state you feel that since Powell went before the UN to state the claim and highlighted WMD's that it has then become the "occassion of war." I take this to mean you feel the arguement made in front of the United Nations is to be weighed more then the document used by the US to justify to its people the reason for going to war. If this is in fact the case as you see it, then i ask you consider the following [24] [25] They are both links from CNN as you yourself have cited sources from them I do not see it being a credibility issue. The first article is a summary of the official transcript which is the second link. This is United States President George W. Bush speaking in front of the United Nations Security Council stating his reasons for going to war. I am sure if you would weigh Powell's speach in front of the UN more heavily then the HJ Res 114, that you would then weigh President Bush's official speech declaring his reasons for war, even greater then Powell's singular arguement. Just to sumarize, this means that HJ Res 114, and President Bush himself have both cited more then WMD's as the casus belli for going to war, both to the people of the country which he represents and to the world by appearing in front of the UN. I hope you read the entire transcript if possible, and I await your reply. Thank you --Zer0faults 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever even actually read HJ Res 114? First of all HJ Res 114 is Not the closest thing to an official declaration of war. That would be the ultimatum by Bush: [26][27] Which was originally sourced as to what the casus belli was. Those offical statements make it very clear Why the US is invading Iraq: "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." Again, the "Whereas" sections are Not reasons for the invasion, they are a summary of the situation. These are the sections that are actual authorizations: - Mr. Tibbs 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."- [28] - Mr. Tibbs 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again this makes it very clear that the issue is WMD and the UN resolutions Regarding those WMDs. - Mr. Tibbs 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote? I am not sure what you are replying to anymore. I linked you what Bush said in front of the UN. Can you please help me understand why you are quoting HJ Res 114 for? --Zer0faults 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


I think you stopped reading too early, please see the below:

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Now see 8(a)(1) of War Powers Act:

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-- (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution

It also cites section 5(b):

SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Seeing as HJ Res 114, "specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities" It is obvious this resolution fulfills the War Powers Act. Seems you stopped short of the important parts ... Also what you quoted states that Congress has stated in HJ Res 114 "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary" the reasons which are stated above are those reasons. IT seems as though you made the argument for me that in fact HJ Res 114's stated reasons are in fact that casus belli, all of them, as HJ Res 114 fulfills the role of Section 8 (a)(1) of the War Powers Act of 1973.

You keep stating talking points in press releases and CNN interpretation and explaination of what things mean. I am giving you the transcript of the actual speech Bush had in front of the UN, something you totally ignored, and the actual HJ Res 114 and now The War Powers Act of 1973 --Zer0faults 22:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Further: Sec 3 Authorization for use of United States Armed Forces (a)Authorization (2) "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

That includes the following 661 (1990) 678 (1990) 686 (1991) 687 (1991) 688 (1991) 707 (1991) 715 (1991) 986 (1995) 1284 (1999) 1382 (2001)

All those resolutions were broken by Saddam, all of those the US can enforce. Further more Resolution 1441 states the following in Paragraph 4:

"Recalling that its resolution 678 authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660"

On top of that Resolution 1441 gave Iraq 30 days from the date of its passing, November 11, 2002 to comply fully by disclosing all of its documents, something it failed to do ... --Zer0faults 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also see Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States as to what a Declaration of War is, and how a Congressional Resolution has been used to fulfill the War Powers Act before. It gives a history of it and Congress passed the War Powers Act to fill a formal declarations of wars role. --Zer0faults 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, The "Whereas" sections are not a list of reasons to go to war with Iraq. Is this: "Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism"[29]: a reason to invade Iraq? No. "Whereas" means "inasmuch as", or "it being the fact that". It does not mean "We are invading Iraq because..."; You should know that because HJ Res 114 was made in October 2002 about 6 months before the invasion. How could HJ Res 114 be saying Why the US is invading Iraq when the invasion is 6 months away? What happened between HJ Res 114 and the invasion according to Bush: "The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament."[30] Again, it should be clear why the US is invading Iraq.
Even if it was a list of reasons to invade Iraq 10 of the total 24 "Whereas"'s are about WMD and another 6 are just "Whereas"'s stating that the President has the authority to do so-and-so. This is just like when you tried to argue "casus belli" is a specific technical term instead of just a latin phrase. I seperate out what exactly HJ Res 114 authorizes and Why: "to enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"[31] (IE this part "Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.....to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991),"). And you come back with "You just proved my point that HJ Res 114 really is a declaration of war! You should read Declaration of War!". When I just pointed out to you that the US hasn't declared war since WW2 and that the closest thing to a declaration of war is this Ultimatum: [32] and the subsequent follow-up: [33], the day of the invasion. Simply put, the preamble of an authorization to use force 6 months before an invasion is not a list of reasons to invade Iraq. And an ultimatum and follow-up is as close to an official declaration of war that the Iraq War got. [34][35] -- Mr. Tibbs 02:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


I am going to adress your points as I find them:

1)The "Whereas" sections are not a list of reasons to go to war with Iraq

Where you see the statement "Whereas" these are what are called "finding of fact." The government is stating that following statements are considered facts by itself. It is saying basically that Congress has reviewed the evidence and finds these to be true. You understand this I see because you refer to them yourself as "it being the fact that." Legal documents do not simply say "I am attacking you because XYZ." Whereas statements, findings of facts is the way in which Congress states what it has found to be factual.

2)You should know that because HJ Res 114 was made in October 2002

This is in fact correct. This is why I pasted the part pertaining to the War Powers Act of 1973. In HJ Res 114 Congress included below the part you pasted. I want you to take notice of the part pertaining to SECTION 5(b). First I will paste the part of HJ Res 114, then below the War Powers Act of 1973, so you can understand the timing issue. HJ Res 114 calls SECTION 5(b) of the War Powers Act of 1973 because that section in the War Powers Act states that Congress can extend the ruling every 60 days or the president can end the ruling if he chooses before 60 days. HJ Res 114 does not have a time limit in that it can be extended in definatly as long as Congress agrees.

HJ Res 114
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

War Powers Act of 1973
SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

3)Even if it was a list of reasons to invade Iraq 10 of the total 24 "Whereas"'s are about WMD and another 6 are just "Whereas"'s stating that the President has the authority to do so-and-so

I decided to do a talley since you simply contending that most of the entries reffer to WMD's. I took entries regarding the following categories: WMD, Kuwait (persian gulf neighbors), POW's, Terrorism, Human Rights, Threat to US. Of those 2 related to Human Rights violations, 9 related to WMD's, 12 related to terrorism, 5 to Persian Gulf safety, 1 to POW's, and 2 to direct threats to the US. So terrorism and WMD's actually get about equal mention, with terrorism actually coming slightly ahead. I fear in your counting if it said WMD's and another reason, you simply counted it as WMD's. So your official count actually quite a spectrum of reasons

4)"to enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

This section is titled "SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS" and you highlight it without going further where it states in the section titled "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES" where it states

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

If you read Resolution 1441 you would see one of the first thing it states is:

"Recalling that its resolution 678 authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660"

Resolution 678 does not say the United Nations Security Council needs to be consulted. It says all "Member States" are authorized to use "all necessary means" to uphold that resolution. Furthermore unlike HJ Res 114 which directs to the War Powers Act of 1973 extending its valid time, Resolution 1441 states its only valid for 30 days and after those 30 days they will meet again, however 3 nations decided before they met again that they would not vote for more resolutions. In effect when the United States went to war they were in fact not under the guidance of Res 1441 as its time had expired. The resolution was made on Nov 8th and expired Dec 8th.

5)Simply put, the preamble of an authorization to use force 6 months before an invasion is not a list of reasons to invade Iraq. And an ultimatum and follow-up is as close to an official declaration of war that the Iraq War got.

Unfortunatly if you look at the article declaration of war you would see that they are not given verbally. Furthermore you will see that on that same article that Congress has in fact replaced "Declaration of War" documents with "Joint Resolutions." No nation has actually used a "formal declaration of war" since the close of WW2, not just the US, nations do not declare war in that fashion anymore. The real issue however is your claim keeps changing, first it was Powell in front of the UN as that is telling the world the reasons. I then give you a link here to Bush speaking in front of the UN stating his reasons for war, and you now change your standard for determining "declaration of war." However I have already covered that a press release is not a declaration of war. Just to finalize this point the section of Wikipedia for declaration of war states the following in regard to "Authorization of Force":

Frequently used as an alternative to a declaration of war, authorized use of force is often used to avoid traditional barriers to the initiation of combat. Typically a full declaration must be ratified by various legislative bodies, but 'authorized use of force' may allow an elected head of state to directly initiate forceful action without further consultation. In addition, with declarations of war being increasingly regulated by international bodies, 'authorized use of force' can often be used to avoid some of the negative consequences of a declaration. Authorized use of force is relatively common among democratic societies. The United States, for instance, has been directly involved in military activities in every decade of the latter half of the twentieth century yet has not declared war formally since World War II.

Please let me know if I missed any of your concerns or if you have further ones I can answer. --Zer0faults 03:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are now talking about the legal justification for war. Between the resolution authorising members sates to use force against iraq and the resolution 1441 that the 'Coalition of the Willing' use as legal justification of the war, there is the resolution detailing the 'ceasefire' placing obligations on iraq and arguably on member states. The nations that passed the resolutions themselves disagree on their meaning and interpretation... Goodness. Given the state of interenational law, the greatest legal minds in the world could argue this one either way for decades. Such a discussion is beyond the scope of a encyclopedia article. aussietiger 10:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Noone is asking this discussion to take place inside the article, this information is here to show Mr. Tibbs that reasons other then WMD's were given, and stated just as often as WMD's in all legal documents. Its also to show that casus belli is not limited to one reason, and to ask he consider a middleground where all reasons are listed and WMD's is shown to be most publicized. You were correct though, the question became if the US had a "formal declaration of war" which the discussion carried on below showing connections between War Powers Act of 1973 and HJ Res 114 --Zer0faults 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It's No One!!! Two words!! Not Noone! Two words! Not one word!
</rant>
(disregard if that was a typo)
67.171.242.75 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

This talk page badly needs to be archived. 230 KB. GofG ||| Contribs 14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I support archiving I guess certain discussions can just be brought up again such as working to NPOV this article. --Zer0faults 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding failed security council resolution

I am having a bit of trouble understanding the change made to the second paragraph stating:

"After the failure to get a United Nations Security Council resolution supporting military action against Iraq"

Can anyone confirm a second resolution was ever voted on after Res 1141. I am seeing by a search that the next resolution voted on was "Security Council resolution 1443 (2002) [on extension of humanitarian programme for Iraq]" which had nothing to do with asking for war. You can see a listing of its resolutions relating to Iraq by going here and specifying your search criteria. Perhaps I missed something, can the user who added the changes please specify if you have a link to a resolution I may be missing. Thank you --Zer0faults 15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As the US and UK already knew from the bugs they had placed in their fellow council members' offices - and as everyone could know from the press - the resolution had no chance to pass and was thus withdrawn. Añoranza 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That means it is inaccurate to claim the resolution failed. --Tbeatty 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A resolution withdrawn due to obvious hopelessness to get it passed has failed. But even if you disagree, the text does not say the resolution failed. The text says the US failed to get a resolution, which is definitely correct. Añoranza 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Its false, you can't fail to get something you didnt ask for. If you look up the history at the UN website, no resolution was in fact ever asked for or voted on. --Zer0faults 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn resolutions carry the #, so provide it and you will convince us that a resolution was asked for. Right now you are going against the concensus here that a resolution was ever asked for and are not citing a source regarding it. --Zer0faults 01:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You have 24 hours to provide a source, the prelude section says Powell went before the UN, not that a resolution was put forward. Resolutions are documents a member nation submits and gets voted on. Its not simply asking for something. So if such a resolution exists as you claim it will have a resolution # after 1441 and before 1445. Please state it and link to the UN website. Else I am afraid you are mistaken. PS even withdrawn resolutions would carry a #. --Zer0faults 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Just look at our own article if you do not know what everyone could get from the media: Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003 February 25. Why not just look it up instead of starting an edit war? Añoranza 01:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Please cite your sources, you cannot use wikipedia articles to justify wikipedia articles without further sources WP:Cite. Please provide a security council resolution number. Thank you --Zer0faults 01:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't be bitchy, just google for it. Everyone knows they tried to get a resolution. Añoranza 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, ten seconds, first one was on the previous resolution: [36] Añoranza 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong resolution. November 6th is the date there. That is resolution 1441 which was later passed on November 8th. --Zer0faults 02:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop throwing out links and read them. That article is saying Russia will veto any resolution, does not say a resolution was voted on or withdrawn. Once again please cite your sources as per WP:CITE. --Zer0faults 02:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh sure, Russia just said so for fun, there actually was no resolution they wanted to veto, they just wanted to point out that they had the right to veto if there was one. Why do you edit articles on topics you do not even know the most basic facts about? [37]Añoranza 02:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again your cite does not list a resolution that was voted on or withdrawn instead it cites that a resolution was once in its early form as a draft. Also France after the first resolution said they would not support further resolutions, before talk of a 2nd one existed. Russia was simply stating they would not support further action by the UN SC. Please cite the resolution number or an article stating what the UN SC vote was. --Zer0faults 02:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Zero, just stop the ludicrous endless argueing especially given that you know full well what Anon is talking about. If the US hadn't been attempting to get UN endorsement for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Powell never would have even bothered to attempt to persuade them. [38] -- Mr. Tibbs 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Then you are in fact siding with me that what Anoranza is writing is factually incorrect and also are admitting no resolution was ever asked for or voted on or withdrawn. Hence the resolution could not have failed. If Anoranza wants to contend that one was withdrawn they can point out the Resolution # which is searchable via the UN website so it can be confirmed and cited. If they want to contend it was failed, then we need a Resolution # that states the votes in opposition. Please read WP:CITE We cannot simply use other wikipedia articles that also do not cite sources. --Zer0faults 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
See source: [39]. And no not every single sentence in an article needs to be sourced. Many should be common-sense or self-evident or at least should be to most people. -- Mr. Tibbs 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You are making a substantial claim that can be seen to be in contention, it should be sourced. Furthermore your link doesnt state that a resolution was put before the security council or was withdrawn. Please read sources before submitting them as citations. Please provide a Resolution # if you as well feel the resolution was withdrawn or voted against so we can cross reference it with all the resolutions on the UN website to confirm its legitimacy. --Zer0faults 03:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
"U.S. and British officials said they believe the resolution may get the necessary votes and avoid a veto. For the resolution to pass, nine votes are needed. Only four appear guaranteed: the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Permanent Security Council members France, Russia and China could veto the proposal. With Germany and Syria siding with those opposed to the resolution, much attention is being focused on the remaining six council members: Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan. All non-permanent members, they're being called the "undecided 6" or "U-6" in U.N. circles."[40]. Pretty clear what happened, they failed to get enough votes to make a resolution. Please read sources before commenting on them. -- Mr. Tibbs 03:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read up on what a resolution is and the process in which it takes in the United Nations. Resolutions are not "made" depending on votes. They are documents put before the United Nations for votes, when that document is put before the UN for voting it is given a number a designation. If this document wa sput before the UN then it has a number, please provide the number and not a million CNN articles that also do not provide a number and instead elude that a document may exist, may be in a draft form, may be still in its working stages, still being negotiated etc. --Zer0faults 03:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You got the link to the text above, if you still don't stop the only thing you can prove is that you are ignorant and not interested in improving the article. You were already told that the resolution was not voted on because it was clear it would not get a majority. The text does not say anywhere that the resolution was voted on or officially withdrawn. Now stop it and apologize. Añoranza 08:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I will no longer hear arguements from you as your comments toward me above no longer are serving to find a middleground but instead assert your opinion forcefully. The only time I will respond is if you manage to provide a Resolution number for me to reference as all resolutions put before the UN receive a number, or if you decide to admit you cannot fail "at getting a resolution" when its something you submit not something you are given. --Zer0faults 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi military deaths?

I think an estimate of Iraqi military deaths would be appropriate on this page.

Sourcing

Some sourcing is very poor. For example, this statement:

Critics cite the press coverage of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat they posed both in Iraqi regime hands, as well as terrorist hands, as being the sole reason given to the public.[41][42]]

The two sources are White House press releases. The last time I checked, the White House is not a critic of the policy and therefore can't be used as a source for "Critics." There are others like this that put Wikipeida readers in the role of "critic" by using primary sources. If you see this please try to find the secondary source that publised the primary sources views. If a suitable source can't be found, the claims should be withdrawn.--Tbeatty 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Those hyperlinks were used to source a previous form of the intro: [43] But Zer0faults had a problem with that old version of the intro and started pushing a different intro claiming that WMD were not the main reason for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. And so all the sources are screwed up and I've been trying to restore the original intro ever since. Also dealing with a mediation request about this. [44] -- Mr. Tibbs 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reduced scope and scale is accurate

Scope and scale is not related to casualites but related to sorties and combat patrols. The Fallujah operation was on the order of the scope and scale of the invasion. Normal day to day combat patrols, combat air sorties and combat recon is way down. Also, it is inaccurate to say the resolutions "failed". 1441 passed and was the basis for the invasion. If you can find the resolution that was withdrawn, that would be acceptable to characterize it as withdrawn. --Tbeatty 02:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I too would accept it as withdrawn if a Resolution # can be provided so it can be cross references with the UN website and cited. --Zer0faults 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I also agree its reduced size and scope, casualties have gone down on a day by day basis. I would think it would be obvious that comparing 3 days of war to 3 years of occupation that the total deaths would be higher during the occupation, but the number of casualties daily has gone down. I will try to find a source for this however Monday or perhaps before. --Zer0faults 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Scope and scale clearly refers focus and magnitude of military engagements, not culmulative, to-date casualties. These are well known terms and there need not be confusion on these points. Wombdpsw 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Casus belli

This maybe interesting:

If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[45]

Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a wonderfully fair middleground, I would even support a sentence afterwards stating WMD's was most publicized if that satisfies Mr. Tibbs, nice job Nescio - --Zer0faults 14:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any problem with incorporating things from that thesis by saying in the intro "5 months after the Sept. 11 attacks the Bush administration began to shift its focus from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. The stated reasoning to invade Iraq evolved over time. Between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002 many reasons were given such as a "committment to children" and "unfinished business" (See Table:A4 on page 171 of Largio's thesis), some of these reasons were abandoned as time went on, others were not. On March 19, 2003 the US commenced an invasion "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."" Or something like that. If we're looking for weird sources heres one: [46].
But this is like talking about what real reason Hitler had for invading Czechoslovakia. And we already have an entire section devoted to possible ulterior motives:[47]. It doesn't solve the dispute about what was the main officially stated reason. The casus belli of that invasion was "lebensraum". The casus belli of this invasion was WMD/Iraq disarmament crisis. I'm going to go ahead and get a vote set up to settle that issue. -- Mr. Tibbs 22:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Or we can discuss this without turning it into another popularity contest. Casus Belli is defined as "reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it." Therefore, your efforts to limit it to one are off base. It is not the "main reason" or the "main publically stated reason" but instead the reasons given as justification. Not every war is going to have the same number of reasons. But we arent talking about every war or other wars, we are talking about the Iraq War, and the authorization of force states several reasons, all of which are inevitably casus belli. We arent talking about "possible ulterior motives" but instead the publically stated, official justifications for war provided by the United States government. Rangeley 06:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, so far I have been willing to bend on numerous things and Mr. Tibbs has yet to accept any sort of middleground. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and Straw Polls are not binding anyway, furthermore the Straw Poll put into place on previous articles did not have the community finding a concensus on the question being asked, also a violation of the guide to setting up a straw poll in the first place. Futhermore I think I have proven above that WMD's was not the only casus belli for going to war, as casus belli doesn't have to be limited to one reason, if you read the article you keep linking you would see that isreal had numerous cited casus belli its given in the example. The official definition, which you say you arent using is the "official declaration of war" which I have already shown above how HJ Res 114 is linked to the "War Powers Act of 1973" and is used by congress to declare war as stated in Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States. It shows how after the Vietnam War Congress setup the system of War Powers Act to prevent the president from declaring war without the support of congress, in turn Congress authorizes the president to use force via "Authorizations of Force" resolutions. This is also the system "most democratic nations" use according to the article. Now if we are talking about the "occasion of war" then I have already provided a speech by George Bush in front of the UN stating his reasons for war which cover everything in HJ Res 114, and I have also provided numerous quotes by officials stating other reasons then WMD's as well. Even in your links of the ultimatum Bush gives to Iraq before the bombing contains the following quotes:

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. "
"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. "
"We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. "
" If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. "
"With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities. "
"Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."
"Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty"

So in using the "ultimatum" the night before invasion as your deduction for casus belli even though we do have what the US considers a formal declaration of war, you can see numerous casus belli are mentioned. If you use talks in front of the UN as your way of determining, which you did at first, then you can see from President Bush's speech the same reasons for going to war are again mentioned. Finally if we are using official documents then you have HJ Res 114 which authorizes the president to declare war as Congress states is necessary as part of the War Powers Act of 1973. The US government does not sign formal declarations of war, because Congress institutes a check and balance system preventing the president from declaring war alone. --Zer0faults 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Presidents UN Speech here --Zer0faults 13:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

war on terror

look, despite the fact that the US govt. explicitly stated that the war in iraq is part of the war on terror we all know that it has nothing to do with terrorism. for instance on the eve of the gulf war 1991, the biggest "terrorist baddy" osama bin laden aproached the saudi government and requsted that rather then letting christian feet touch "holy soil" to allow the taliban to attack iraq insted. the old iraqi government had nothing to do with terrorism, they where a "progressive secular state" where a the terroists who commited the twin towers attack and the london/madrid bomings where islamic extremists.

Are you then stating the Jordanian government was lying when they asked for the turn over of al-Zarqawi and were turned down by the Iraqi government? Are you also saying Saddam did not use chemical weapons on the Kurds? Are you then also stating the Iraqi government did not use chemical weapons in their war with Iran? Perhaps you are even stating that Iraq did not launch missles at Isreal during the first Gulf War even though Isreal did not even send troops or support? How about Saddam's funding of the PALF to reward suicide bombers? A yes to any of these questions would signify Saddams support for terrorists or state the Iraqi government was acting as terrorists themselves. --Zer0faults 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
One, SH did not control that part of Iraq where AZ puportedly was. So, he was unable to comply. Second, the US itself refuses to extradite a well-known terrorist.[48] Remember the pot and the kettle? Third, if every use of chemicals is evidence of terrorist activity you may want to read about Agent Orange and White phosphorus. And of course, the US did never support OBL, the IRA and other terorist organisations? Please, be consistent in your argumentation.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you answer all the questions? Its a little misleading to answer just one. Also I am not sure why you are talking about the US, isnt the question above about Iraq and terrorism? --Zer0faults 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I use the US since it was the US that floated the erroneous assertion that Iraq was linked to AQ and 9-11. All your questions are answered, provided you are willing to accept things contrary to your worldview. But to repeat myself, if Iraq was linked to terrorism, and we implement that logic, so was the US (among others).Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying SH did not support the PALF in rewarding suicide bombers? and he did not gas the Kurds or use chemical weapons in Iran? Considering these are viewed as facts, can you support your contrary claims with some sources please. --Zer0faults 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, try to understand what analogy means, and that if these examples you advance are to be used, we, by the same token, can use similar actions the US government has taken (see my examples). Therefore making the case for invading the US.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine if we were attempting to make a case for or against invading the US, however the topic here is Iraqs connection to terrorists and its own terrorism. Are you stating you believe that the country commited terrorist acts against its own population and its neighbors? or that it did not? --Zer0faults 11:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If I concede that Iraq was guilty of terrorism, are you willing to concede that, by doing exactly the same things, the US is guilty of terrorism? Be consistent!Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not for or against the US government. While I do not agree on points you made regarding UBL in the passed, as he was just a rebel then. I do however think the US commited one of the largest terrorist attacks ever in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also did not vote for President Bush and am a registered Independant as I do not believe that either political party, Democrats or Republicans, care for the people in the lower class. That is of course general, each dem or rep is to be weighed on their own merits as I think McCain is a very honest person.
As I stated though, the discussion here isnt about the US and its actions, its about Iraq and its actions, and if those actions can be seen as terrorist actions in the worlds view. --Zer0faults 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As it has been stated time and time again, the "war on terror" label does not fit the Iraq war. The war was based on (take your pick of Bush/Powell/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice quotes as evidence) Iraq's violation of 17 or so U.N. Security Council resolutions to destroy its WMD program. Terrorism was not cited in these arguments as a case for war--it was certainly a side current of thought that perhaps Saddam might give a WMD to a terrorists organization, but that thinking was not--repeat NOT--the original case for war. Period, end of story. The "war on terrorism" or "global fight against violent extremism"--another even more illogical label are merely rhetoric used by the Bush administration to justify and legitimize their actions in this case. Now, a difference can be clearly seen in the Afghanistan example. After 9-11, when the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden and the US invaded with the sole purpose of finding the terrorists the US believed were involved in 9-11--that invasion and subsequent war were certainly part of a fight against terrorism. As such, I think labeling the "US Invasion of Afghanistan" part of the "war on terror" is appropriate. However, the Afghanistan example is COMPLETELY different from the Iraqi example. They are not the same war--although supporters of the Iraq war would love to think that it the case.Publicus 12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you stating that terrorism and Saddam's support for terrorists organizations is not mentioned in HJ Res 114? You say its not the original case for war, however that document lays out Congress's case for war. Bush spoke in front of the UN and also stated terrorists/terrorism as a reason for war. Even the night before the invasion Bush came on TV and again mentioned terrorists/terrorism in his speech telling America why he was going to war. Can you please then tell me where it is you get that terrorists and terrorism was not part of the Iraq War? How can it not be considering Saddam himself was a terrorist? UN Resolution 1441 would not be a proper gauge of the US reasons to goto war, would it? considering it was the US gonig to war not the UN, so wouldnt you use HJ Res 114 as the basis for US's reasons for war? --Zer0faults 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Invading Iraq Poll

Please explain your point shortly. Please keep dialogue in the Comments section. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For those brought here by the RFC placed by Mr. Tiibs please understand this survey was not conducted using the proper procedure under Wikipedia:Straw_polls. The questions are not even of relevant issue as even the admin Mr. Tibbs asked to comment has stated. For that reason there is no concensus being registered here. Please see comments for further understanding. Thank you --Zer0faults 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

People can vote as they please and that is one way to express consensus, regardless of your wiki-lawyering. So people, just vote what you will and keep on with the consensus-building. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said they had to stop. I just showed that you are not building a concensus cause you seem to violate the very guideline in which you are attempting to establish a concensus. quite comical that you would invoke a survey and not follow the rules for it. What exactly are you attempting to build a concensus on since CBDunkerson even said its not an adequate survey? You wont answer that of course cause cause then it would expose how the questions do not follow it. You also seem to be mistaken on what a concensus is on wikipedia, opps there I go wiki lawyering when I point out what a guideline or policy says, why do we have those pesky things anyway. --Zer0faults 10:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who think the casus belli-(main officially stated reason) of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Was WMD-(Iraq Disarmament Crisis)

  1. Colin Powell wasn't waving that vial of anthrax around for fun. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Powell speaking in front of UN = casus belli. Bush speaking in front of UN here means nothing though ... --Zer0faults 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think it quite obviously was. Atleast that is what was repeated hundreds of times by George Bush and co., it wasn't simply to get rid of a bad guy, it was because of the "specific threat posed to the world by Iraq's WMD" ...or at least until it was found out they didn't have any. Canderra 20:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    House Joint Resolution passed November 8th, 2002. This is before the war, states numerous reasons. You can also see Bush's speech in front of the UN here for those same reasons being stated again. Also who is the source of that quote? I cannot find it attributed to Bush anywhere. --Zer0faults 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Other reasons were given, but it was WMD's was undeniably the big one, by far the main reason for war. The other reasons could be applied to numerous countries around the world. Only those reasons combined with the supposed existance of WMD's was stated as justification for the invasion. Canderra 20:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, then we are in agreement it seems. I simply wanted to see if you felt there was other reasons listed for the US invasion. --Zer0faults 20:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Casus Belli is defined as the reasons and justifications given for war. While you are right that WMD was the focus, it was not the only reason, and thus not the Casus Belli but instead one of the reasons. When you put together all of the reasons and justications, that is the casus belli. Rangeley 21:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. duh. there was no doubt about this when we went in to war, why would there all the sudden be after-the-fact? This adminstration has changed their reason and characterization every time it turned out to be patently false. But the casus belli is the main officially stated reason at the time of attempted manufactering of consent, as it was characterized and interpreted then. Kevin Baastalk 15:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    September 12th, 2002 - [49] November 8th, 2002 - [50] January 26th, 2003 - [51] May 18th, 2003 - [52] May 17th, 2003 - [53]What exactly was presented after-the-fact? --Zer0faults 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    First it was "Saddam hussien has stockpiles of WMD that he could use at any moment...", then when no weapons were found, it was "saddam hussien has stockpiles of WMD programs that could produce usable WMDs at any moment...", then when it was pointed out that this, too, is patently false, it was "saddam hussien has stockpiles of info and resources that could be used to start WMD programs that could produce usable WMDs at any moment...", then, when this turned out to be laughable at best, well... eventually he shifted his position to the far more accurate "I still would have invaded if i knew that saddam hussien did not have WMD." (but we already knew that) Kevin Baastalk 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    So you are not denying that the reasons in the links above were also reasons for going to war? --Zer0faults 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Do you see a denial there? Kevin Baastalk 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you that is all I needed to know, when this poll is over, your opinion will be noted. --Zer0faults 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. WMD was clearly the casus belli for war. All other rationales for the invasion are ipso post de facto arguments about; terrorism, human rights, democracy, etc. The Bush doctrine clearly states that it is in the national security interests of the US to pre-emptively attack those who could pose a threat to the US or its interests. Now, the democracy/human rights argument was discussed prior to the invasion, however that discussion does not make it part of the casus belli--what does qualify as casus belli are those statements, speechs, presentations-given by Bush administration officials on those specific points mentioned in their own National Security guidelines. Invasion for democracy/human right's sake was never mentioned--and indeed would be quite problematic--however, when the possibily of WMD are involved then democracy argument seems to become part of the Bush talking points.
    A good example is Bush's "axis of evil" and the initial foundation of his "pre-emptive" doctrine. The countries that are mentioned, Iran, Iraq, North Korea all had the fundamental commonality of a "rogue" reputation, WMD programs (past or present), AND a non-functioning democracy as defined by the US. Countries such as China and Pakistan were not mentioned in the "axis of evil" even though they fit within the basic guidelines; rogue, WMD, and non-functioning democracy. From just this example we can see that it is not the non-functioning democracy part of the equation that worries Bush and provides potential rationales for war--it is the rogue reputation and the possible WMD program.
    So we can see that any "promotion of democracy" argument as part of the Iraq casus belli, does not fit and merely provides either rhetorical cover which essentially means promotion of a US-friendly regime, or rhetorical spin for domestic consumption.Publicus 17:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    Are you saying that since other countries fit the build, other reasons are negated? So the US attacked Germany in WW2 as self defense? This is why National Security guidelines are not enough to determine why, the people involved in the decision have stated their case. Bush did so in front of the UN, in front of the World, Congress did it by majority vote and Blair did it in front of the Parliament. Oddly enough the only time people can highlight WMD's overwhelmingly is when the speak about Powell in front of the UN. This is obvious since Powell was there specifically to show the UN that Iraq had not gotten rid of its WMD's, however he was not there to state their case for war, Bush later did that personally. There was a debate in the UN about if Iraq got rid of WMD's and so it was what was on TV and in the media. We are mistaking seeing that, for them maknig the case for war, they are simply supporting one of their reasons, as the other did not need support. The UN had already passed resolutions regarding Human Rights violations previously, if you read Res 1441 you would see it points to resolutions regarding Iraq and terrorism, Iraq and no-fly zones, Iraq and human rights violations, and of course Iraq and failure to declare WMD's or allows inspectors to do their job. On a seperate note, nice edits so far today. --Zer0faults 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Obvious. --kizzle 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. It is evident other reasons floated around, but we can't ignore the fact that the major and most important and published argument was WMDHolland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. See Blair's tests for Iraq Disarmament.--Darrelljon 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. That's certainly the primary focus of the Joint Resolution authorizing the war. Derex 00:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. I would estimate WMD head-of-state-speech-hours outnumbered non-WMD head-of-state-speech-hours by at least a ratio of 10:1 -- Mike1024 (t/c) 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Condi Rice. Mushroom Cloud. Aluminum Tubes. Sixteen Words. Skyraider 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who think the casus belli-(main officially stated reason) of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Was Not WMD-(Iraq Disarmament Crisis)

  1. WMD was only one thread (though probably the most important one) in the larger argument that Iraq was a threat to U.S. security and interests. The legal justification was violation of UNSC resolutions by hampering weapons inspections. Eluchil404 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. It's unrealistic to think that a president must publicly elucidate all the rationales for a major foreign policy or military action. See my comments below which touch on this. I would agree that WMDs and the attendant risks of SH possibly having them, was the major announced rationale to invade, but as per Eluchil404, I feel there is more to the story. Also, I feel it very narrow to try to paint Bush as a liar over the WMDs. Do a Google News search for "Jamie Glazov" and read up on some of his writings. If Glasov is correct, there is more to the story on the WMDs. Hdtopo 00:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    He may not be a liar, but when the majority of experts doubt the veracity of the claim, pursuing the invasion anyway is at best foolhardy. However, purists are technically not incorrect when asserting that when stating there is damming evidence, when in fact there is no more than suspicion, it would constitute a lie.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    I don't understand the reasoning advanced against Bush on the Iraq issue. Fact: USA had previously helped Saddam against Iran. Fact: USA has long seen Iran as the major threat in Middle East. Fact: Saddam hemmed and hawed so long on the WMD inspections, he gave USA/UK an opening. Fact: Getting rid of Saddam and getting troops over there to threaten Iran was a twofer for the USA. Anyone who gets too hung up on the WMD "truth" angle is missing the big picture. Strategically, invading Iraq was a positive net gain for USA power. Now then, whether it was "right", "moral" or "just" in the absolute sense, who can say? However, over time, it will become clear that invading Iraq was analogous to Teddy R. and the Rough Riders. For USA, Iraq was was a very worthwile war strategically. Very much like the Spanish American War. Ultimately, USA power will grow measurably as a reuslt. Is that a "good" thing? Again, who can say...? Hdtopo 21:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. There was evidence that WMDs did not exist before the invasion which the U.S. government knew about, so this was not the main reason. See [54] Madder 00:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The most technical/precise definition of casus belli (as stated in that article) are the formal grievances listed in an official declaration of war. However, there wasn't any formal declaration of war for the Iraq conflict... congress instead authorized the President to use force under the War Powers act without actually 'declaring war'. Therefor there are no 'casus belli' ('causes of war') here because in strict terms of international law there is no 'war'. I would agree that the "main officially stated reason" for the Iraq 'War' was the threat claimed to be posed by WMD. However, I think that 'casus belli' should be taken out of the equation because that is a non-technical usage... while others apply an equally non-technical usage meaning 'all listed reasons for the war', of which WMD was not the only one. This definitional confusion should be avoided. Further, I don't think (I could be wrong) that anyone is arguing that WMD were not the "main officially stated reason"... just that this should not be presented as the only or overarching reason with the other stated grounds excluded from the article... with which I also agree. --CBDunkerson 00:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

the War power act only allows short-term, limited military campaigns. i don't believe this war would fall into that category. Kevin Baastalk 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all you don't even know what the War Powers Act is, it doesn't allow short term military campaigns. Its a set of guidelines to limit the presidents power. The timelines you seem to be mistaking are in the reporting section, after X time, the president has to report what is going on to Congress, not that the conflict has to end, however that leads to the next statement. If you need a link to the actual War Powers Resolution/Act, I will be willing to provide one. Nice to see your return after your failed adminship btw. --Zer0faults 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually you are wrong since May 1st symbolized the end of major combat operations, since then the war ended and its been a rebuilding process. I know, you dont believe the war ended, more people died in the 3 years after the war then died during the 1 month time it took to topple the regime. However as much as you may not like it, there is your answer as to why its relevant. Bush stuck to the time limit according to when major combat operations against Iraqi military forces ended. --Zer0faults 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see that I had misunderstood the war powers act. Admittedly, all that i had known about it was what i had heard. RE adminship: i was happy to see that some people actually read my answers to the questions, looked in depth into my contributions, and reasoned critically. but that's quite a tangent. on my quick perusal, i didn't see anything in the act about "major combat operations", only about the commitment of military forces (and this makes sense to me because it's empirical rather than semantic). and i saw that if congress thinks the troops are still needed, the deadline can be extended for as long as one likes. as you believe the war in iraq is over, then i imagine you believe that, since there is no longer any "war" in iraq, the "war on terror" is not currently being fought in iraq (assuming, it, too, is not over)? or are you implying that they are two different wars? (also, please see WP:CIVIL.) Kevin Baastalk 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The war between the US and Iraqi regime is over. You can read the overview on this very article, it explains what the second phase of this conflict is and who it is with. Oddly enough people keep stating al-Qaeda got to Iraq after the invasion, wouldn't that then mean the US is fighting them now and it would indeed be part of the "war on terror"? --Zer0faults 10:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to abide by this poll as even by your own standards listed above its bias. The term casus belli is mentioned even though you are stating you feel there was no casus belli and it should not be mentioned. This question doesnt even take into account if there was other reasons. Noone is saying WMD's was not highly publicized, but it was not the only reason stated for going to war and I pointed that out. Not only did I point that out, but I proved that the United States does not sign formal declarations of war since the passing of The War Powers Act. --Zer0faults 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This poll also goes against the Mediation Cabal as CBDunkerson was asked to step in and weigh his view, its found here. Also Mr. Tibbs even went against Nescio's reccomendation which he asked Nescio for here and can be found above. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and I state again, the rules regarding straw polls state the questions are to be voted on first. This has not occured and is not even a valid straw poll in its own right. See Wikipedia:Straw_polls section "Creating a survey" point (2) " Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." Sorry Mr. Tibbs you are violating even that Wiki Guideline as Straw Polls are not policy and not binding. I do not believe you ever attempted to come to a concensus as you refuse to move on your view, I have attempted to find a middleground 4 times now and both issues of mediation found against your view, one of them by an admin your hand selected. Not only that but I even was willing to side with the person you asked to come here, Nescio, however you wont even stand by his proposal. --Zer0faults 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to participate if you don't want to. Kevin Baastalk 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your rude, unecessary comment. Next time you respond to something I write, please address a relevant part of it. If you even have a rebuttal for anything listed above. --Zer0faults 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but this is an entirely biased poll that misrepresents both the position advocated by myself and others, but also misrepresents what casus belli is. The definition of casus belli is the justifications put forward for a war. Noone is saying Iraq's alleged WMD's was not a justification for war, but rather, it was indeed one of the justifications put forward, among others. I beleive it proper to recognize all given justifications, not just one reason, not half the reasons, but all. As casus belli is the word for such official justifications, we have no choice but recognize them as such. Rangeley 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note - my views are not binding. I'm generally against any sort of 'have an admin pick a side and beat up the other side' situation. I think Mr. Tibbs has been trying to settle this by poll as a quick simple way of gathering a consensus - and that's a reasonable idea. I just feel that there is too much nebulosity of definition on this matter for it to really 'satisfy' everyone. Forget all the wiki-lawyering and antagonism and questions of international law... what do people want added and/or removed from the article on this whole 'casus belli' (however you are defining it) issue and why? Does anyone want to exclude any mention of WMD as being the most widely referenced reason? Does anyone want to exclude any mention of there having been other reasons? If nobody wants to exclude either of those things then we should just be dealing with how to present them both with a NPOV. --CBDunkerson 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My issue with this is Mr. Tibbs stating, in the article via an edit, that other reasons were not the casus belli prior to war. This is incorrect, and not at all factual. I am 100% in support of stating that the United States government put a focus on weapons of mass destruction and the threat of them. They have admitted this. This is factual. But Mr. Tibbs has taken a stance even further than this, stating that WMD was the casus belli. This is untrue, as casus belli is the reasons and justifications for beginning a war given by a government. Stating that the other officially given reasons and justifications were not infact officially given reasons and justifications is false. I would like to hope this poll was made with good intentions, but this is such a clear cut, non debatable issue that it seems quite the stretch. It is tiresome when obstructive tactics are used, usually as an attempt to change the issue from who is right to who has more people, and in this case there will be noone voting the other way as the position he assigned it represents noone. The issue is not whether it was a reason, but instead that it was one of many reasons, all of which are "given reasons or justifications" or casus belli. We shouldnt need a poll to figure that one out. Rangeley 20:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If anything, doesn't the lack of consensus demonstrate rather clearly that more than one opinion must be represented in the article? WMDs may have been the primary given cause, but they were hardly the ONLY one.70.132.42.16 10:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Serendipitiously.....

If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. All but four of the rationales originated with the administration of President George W. Bush. The study also finds that the Bush administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein early on – only five months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says, News Bureau, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From the abstract of the thesis:
Though not all of the statements for some officials could be found, this project analyzed every statement from President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (more than 150 remarks and interviews containing the topic “Iraq”) during the months chosen for review. The results showed that twenty-seven rationales for the war on Iraq were used at one time or another, twenty-three of which can be attributed to the administration. Five rationales were prominent in all three phases: the war on terror, the desire to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the lack of inspections, the desire to remove the Hussein regime, and the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. One rationale surfaced initially and gained favor over time: the interest in liberating the people of Iraq. One other rationale emerged later and became very important to official sources and the media: the imminent threat that Iraq posed, though the words “imminent threat” did not appear in official statements of the administration but became the catch-phrase in the media and the public. The other twenty rationales can be classified as secondary and remaining rationales. Thus, the war on Iraq was broad and its rationales encompassed a wide array of topics and concerns, from terrorism to oil, from protecting peace and freedom to finishing unfinished business. pdf of the thesis

Gzuckier 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's written fairly well, and it looks on the surface to be pretty thoroughly researched. Gzuckier, do you want to give a shot at the intro? (propose a version on the talk page?) Kevin Baastalk 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I like this also if it can be merged into the intro or used to replace the current POV slanted one. --Zer0faults 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Death Toll

Why is no mention of deaths made in the opening paragraphs of this conflict?

Pretty much every other conflict article I have come across: Vietnam War, World War 2, World War 1, Falklands_War, etc.

...all place information on estimated number of deaths within the introductory paragraphs for the obvious reason that it is one of the most important pieces of information regarding a conflict. Any sort of estimated deaths figure seems to be strangly absent from the introduction of this article and is hard to find even within in the main body. Canderra 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't over yet. The opening paragraph isn't a good place for stuff that changes on a daily basis. There are also just wildly varying estimates on the total civillian deaths. Eventually it'll get sorted out and make sense to put a final estimate in the lead. --CBDunkerson 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment copied from my talk page

I ask you revert back the changes. Anoranza made the following changes [55] and simpyl wrote "revert to keep results in intro in line with results in box" as her summary which is obviously misleading as her intentions. She has been asked repeatedly to provide a resolution # which she claims exists, and has changed her story to it was voted on, to it was withdrawn, to it was never actually submitted. Your revert back to her version removes the work and edits I have done since then, and enforces her ability to revert without proper explanation. --Zer0faults 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

it would seem that your version conveniently leaves out certain facts. I think it is important that any controversial article makes sure the details get mentioned. Lack thereof can be considered to be violating NPOV, or at best misleading.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
IF you look at my edit you would see that nothing was actually removed from the previous edit. You have not addressed the issue relating to your reversion back however, as Anoranza did not specify her reasons for the revert, and her revery covers numerous changes made to the article which seem not to be in contention. It was stated the article's opening paragraph was too long, I attempted to consolidate as we have reasons for war being mentioned no where near the rest of them ... Also you reverted back to Anoranza's version which she still has failed to cite, That the UN voted or was submitted a resolution by the US. The term that keeps being used is "US failed to get a resolution" however if you look at that statement it makes no sense as resolutions are not given, the US would make one and submit it for voting. So can you specify a resolution #? Do you feel "Coalition of the Willing" is POV? Do you find "aiding to terrorism" to make more sense then "aiding of terrorists"? These are changes you removed without stating why, please explain your actions for the community. --Zer0faults 12:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an overview and its jumping around too much. It starts by stating there was no UN support ... then it says US invaded ... Then it highlights WMD's ... then it states once again UN didnt support ... Next paragraph starts by stating other reasons ... then back to WMD's yet again. Is not the comment by Koffi Annan enough to state there was no UN support? If anything the failure to get UN support + Koffi Annan statement should be given its own paragraph after the paragraph talking about who attacked and why. The 3rd paragraph should also have mention of WMD's removed as its already covered in the prior paragraph. It seems as though the mention of WMD's is out of place, this paragraph is talking about other points in the Resolution, if you like I can extend it by highlighting some of those. However we should have Un support information alone, and WMD information alone. Does anyone else not think this article is jumpnig around a bit too much in the first 3 paragraphs, if not why, if so why? --Zer0faults 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Overview

I am reccomending changing the second and third paragraphs with the following on the ground that they jump around too much and fail to mention all the reasons for going to war. I feel too much weight is being put into WMD's and the article reads very POV as the moment something other then WMD's is mentioned, it is placed next to yet another sentence stating what is already in the paragraph above says, WMD's were a big reason for war. I typed this up in hopes of taking that very large paragraph that jumps around and organizing it. If you feel I am leaving something out, feel free to bring it to my attention and I will work it in. I am not trying to exclude information, simply organize it:

In 2003 the United States, United Kingdom and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq to removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. The governments of the United States and the United Kingdom felt it was the necesary action to take after both France and Russia stated they would not support any further resolutions on Iraq, under any circumstances. [56] The prior United Nations Security Council Resolution, 1441, had expired on December 8th, 2002 and no other resolution had been brought to the Security Council for vote. The goal of the UN resolution was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's), and enforce prior resolutions calling for Iraq to allow UNIMOVIC and IAEA officials complete access to Iraqi facilities to affirm Saddam had destroyed his chemical and biological weapons. Without the support of the United Nations, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's has stated that, "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the U.N. Charter." [57]

The war went ahead without UN support when the United States 107th Congress passed the House Joint Resolution 114 "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." [58] This resolution, while not an official declaration of war, is cited by the President as authorization to invade Iraq. In the United Kingdom a debate was held on March 18th in the U.K. Parliament to decide if the country should goto war with Iraq. By a vote of 412 to 149, the United Kingdom entered the war citing Iraq's violation of UN Resolutions 678 and 1441[59].

Among the reasons listed for war in HJ Res 114 and debated in the U.K. Parliament are: weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, failure to comply with United Nations resolutions, the threat of Iraq using its weapons against US interests or directly against the US, the threat of Saddam Hussein giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, Saddam's support of terrorist organizations, the attempt in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and, Iraq's violation of the no-fly zone. Many of these have come under scrutiny as President Bush has gone on to say that "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."[60] Since the end of major combat operations on May 1st 2003, weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found and the links of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda have been called into question[61].

--Zer0faults 14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tibbs Reversions

Can you please explain to the community why you reverted my edits here considering your summary does not actually give a reason. People editing articles are encouraged to leave details in the summary box and if possible on the talk page. So please tell us what caused the reversion with no summary? --Zer0faults 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This coming from a person who's reverted via popups without using an edit summary countless times. Again, no one is obligated to argue endlessly with you. I've explained to you countless times why certain edits are inappropriate and in most cases you just come back with non-answers, like "Your arguement fails to prove you are correctly using the term casus belli."[62] Or snide bad faith remarks like: "If you feel you do not need to respond to me, then you failed here, and on the talk page. Also, well this is a message for Kevin Baas, so unless he is you? you aren't being addressed here. Good bye Mr Tibbs. I would make a sad face, but I dont think there are wikiemotes."[63]. Frankly, I'm not going to pander to your hunger for conflict or the endless filibustering. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You failed in mediation cabal, then failed again when you asked an admin to comment on that cabal, then failed again when Nescio came to comment. Even the admin you hand picked said your vote, which violates Wiki policy was not suitable to address the concerns of the people here. Yet here you are saying I am filibustering? --Zer0faults 02:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

what constitutes legal casus belli in the United States

By the U.S. Constitution, "all treaties entered into, or which shall be entered into, under the authority of the united states, are the supreme law of the land".

By the U.N. charter, there are only two legal casus belli:

  1. Self-defense
  2. Explicit U.N. authorization

The administation focused their propaganda efforts on both of them. (for instance, they cited U.N. resolution 1441, which, contrary to what they have said, does not authorize military action. if you don't believe me, read it.) But the pre-dominant focus was on self-defense, and if "clear and present danger" is a stretch, u.n. authorization is a space odyssey. therefore, if we are concerned with "casus belli" as a legal term, we seem to have but one option.

But i don't think we should restrict our focus so narrowly. There is much more interesting and important information surrounding the question "Why did we invade Iraq?" Kevin Baastalk 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The UN Charter does not override the US Constitution, to say that would mean that HJ Res 114 was in fact the closest document to a declaration of war, since the US cannot declare war then anymore. It would also mean that no member nation or the UN uses declarations of war, as the UN also uses "Authorization of Force Resolutions" So I ask, are you really confirming that the United States cannot declare war on their own unless either of those two conditions are met? That would signify why no nations has used a formal declaration of war since the end of WW2 and support my conclusions. While it would make the Iraq War internationally illegal, it would also confirm I was correct in stating the casus belli are pointed out in HJ Res 114. --Zer0faults 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Since the US has signed these treaties they are bound by it. If not, treaties become null and void as countries can ignore them as they see fit. To declare war, or even without it, and engage in any act of war as signatory to the UN, is considered to be a war of aggression if it does not meet standards under international law. Feel free to read about jus in bello, jus ad bellum, Nürenberg principles, war crimes, crime against peace, war of aggression, command responsibility and the relevant UN charter.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so are you are in fact reaffirming what I said, since the US cannot declare war without UN support unless attacked, and this war is as you call it a war of agression, then the US used the means it is allowed to do, "authorization of Force" by congress correct? Therefore the casus belli would be in Res 114, since it would be the closest thing to a declaration of war. I see you haven't disputed this part. --Zer0faults 10:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
We can do this dance indefinitely, but my last comment on this is: a war of aggression is ipso facto illegal. Or better yet, ,it is the ultimate war crime! You can argue till you're blue in the face, but illegal still is illegal. Although the US advanced several reasons for their attack, they do not constitute a legal justification.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So now you are saying there is no casus belli at all because the war was illegal in international law, but that still means it was legal to the US according to its laws. This dance isn't indefinatly just because you now do not want to admit that by removing res 1441 from the equation calling the war illegal in international eyes, that you are left with res 114. This only goes indefinatly cause your own logic reinforces my view that res 114 is the determination for casus belli, can you indefinatly avoid admitting that? Noone here is even debating if the war was internationally legal or not ... --Zer0faults 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting view. This war is illegal under international law, yet mysteriously legal under US law. Ever heard of contradictio in terminis?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason you didnt state contradiction? There seems to be a love of latin terms going around. I say to you Vincit omnia veritas --Zer0faults 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If we went your route and removed res 114 and res 1441 from the equation then we are left with no legal documents, which means we need another deciding factor for "occassion of war", I think present to you Bush's speech in front of the UN [64] or even Bush's ultimatum to Iraq 2 nights before the invasion [65]. Both of those prove that the other reasons mentioned in Res 114 are once again casus belli, and both of those were provided by Mr. Tibbs as credible sources for determining casus belli, which I have to add, does not mean "one" reason, if you read the article it states as an example Isreal had numerous casus belli --Zer0faults 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You can advanced a million reasons to invade another country. I for example like to invade France. Reason? Great ski-pistes, great hiking, beautiful women, excellent wine and food. Hey, they do not constitute a legal justification for war? That doesn't count. Since I offer it as reason, it is thereby a valid reason. Just like Bush having a reason to invade Iraq. See the logical fallacy in there?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying Bush can start an illegal war as you call it, but cannot give a reason why he did it? You want to list WMD's as a legal justificatino for war, yet say the war was not justified legally. So, if we remove all legal aspects then we are left with "what they said". So I offer once again Bush's speech in front of the UN [66], Bush's speech to the people of the United States 2 days before war [67]. The only way I can see you not accepting those either is if you are stating that since the war is illegal, noone gets to determine why it happened, which means then that there is no casus belli at all and one will never be created. Just to point out we here have no proof to judge if Bush was lying for why he went to war. --Zer0faults 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What part of a stated reason is not equal to a legal justification, do you not understand?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Officially are you stating that the term casus belli should not be used to mean 'occassion of war', meaning reasons someone states? So you are then saying there is no casus belli for going to war? No reasons at all that would fit the term casus belli --Zer0faults 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Resolution 1441 calls 678 which states any member nation may use force. Have you read 678? Did you know that on January 11th Resolution 1441 became void as the IEAE had not reported to the UN as required by the resolution? Did you know that in February inspectors found 2 long range missiles that were in violation of passed resolutions? --Zer0faults 02:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the multitude of legal scholars disputing 1441 as sufficient and in fact suggesting the invasion of Iraq is not compatible with the law? Most notably Mr Annan?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you failed to address the issue above and that is resolution 678 calling for member nations to do as necessary. Resolution 678 does not end with "will remain ceized" either. --Zer0faults 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
When you refuse to read the rebuttals I already provided, I think continuing this debate with your circular logic is pointless.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No comment on 678 still? you can keep replying and totally ignoring it, call it circle logic etc. However when you fail to address it, its quite obvious you have nothing to go against it. --Zer0faults 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This entire talk page section is rife with WP:OR violation original research thinking. For your information: If a USA law is broken, then a USA penalty must apply, not an international one. Read the above quote, it says: supreme law of the land, not supreme law of the world. Now for the reciprocal, regarding that a treaty becomes the "supreme law of the land", indeed, that's what the Consititution says. However, anything which is already in the Constitution supercedes all laws. It's the Constitution itself from which all laws in USA derive their authority. The way to think about this is analogous to "diplimatic status". When a car in NYC has embassy plates, the drivers are never impeded or arrested, even when they "break laws". For any authority which is spelled out in the Constitution, no "law" can be made which is higher than it. The confusion here is some editors are mistaking ministerial element, the law (the subordinate) with the self-government element, the Constitution (the master). Anything specifically noted in the Constitution is a form of a "wild card" which "trumps" any and all USA laws (and also international ones, provided USA remains unconquored). This, in essence is the ethos of the USA "We the people..." system. It's simply not possible to "prove" USA acted illegally or that President Bush violated laws by ordering Iraq war. And while this may well seem to be possible in the theoretical abstract; on the basis which USA laws are founded, it simply cannot be proven as there is no valid starting point for the legal arguments. We really need to stop playing amatuer Constitutional Scholar here and keep these article free from partisan bickering. From my vantage point, this kind of dialog make me want to steer clear of this article. Hdtopo 08:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. I will only ask one thing. Are you saying that (hypothetically) when a country authorizes war crimes in its constitution, no citizen of said country can be prosecuted for it? More to the point, why is SH on trial, as I doubt under his constitution he committed any crime?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Answering you in reverse order: If I am not mistaken, Saddam is on trial for charges that Iraqis were sentenced to death under orders from him after show trials. Apparently, even under the rules of Iraq in place when SH was in power, such charges, if true, could result in death penalty. As for your hypothetical question, the answer would be yes, so far as an internal prosecution goes, provided that country's constitution occupies the pinnacle of authority in that country. However, as evidenced by Nuremburg, the leaders of defeated nations can be put to death if those who defeat them intend it. As I see it, we are confusing the logic of the application of written laws ("Law Premise A + Fact Set B = Penalty C") with the politics of raw political power. Self-governance always eventually boils down to raw power. IFF you have the power to stay free, you can do so, if you so choose. If not, you will likely be conquered by someone eventually. History proves this. Currently, the power to stay free is retained by those countries which have a) no target value or b) defense resources (including allies) which exceed the attack resources of adversaries. Such attacks need not be direct and can be very long term in application. Iraq had target value to a number of countries but had no powerful allies willing to stand up for her, at least not in a conventional sense. Russia and France pursued a powerful disinformation campaign and a behind-the-scenes aid program towards Iraq, but neither was willing to fight UK/USA, etc. to defend Iraq. Currently in the world, there are three major spheres of power: China, Russia, USA; two minor ones: UK/Commonwealth Nations (including Australia), France and several lesser: India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan and several possible emerging ones; Brazil, Iran, Poland. There are also stumbling blocks: Cuba, North Korea and some places where things may happen soon: Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Venezuela. As I see it, the true reasons for various actions by countries always align with fundamental shifts and trends in power. However, planning along those lines is always a very high echelon affair and is not discussed publicly. I am guessing that had Iraq not been a potential de-stabilizing force in a critical area, USA would have let the 1991 enforcement against Iraq lapse. However, Saddam did have ambitions to gain power, he was seeking powerful weapons and that, combined with the risk that he would invite China and/or Russia to deeper involvement in Mid-East oil control, made him an unacceptable risk. Anyone who thinks that WMD was the only reason USA went to get him, does not follow these things carefully enough. Next up will be Castro. USA will not allow Cuba to invite China too deeply into Western Hemisphere oil operations. Same thing with Hugo Chavez. So long as minor leaders only say "USA sucks", USA won't bother with them, but if they threaten USA's vital strategic interests, then things happen. Look a Vietnam. It amazes me that many don't understand what USA was doing there. It was a lengthy war of attrition fought for the tri-purpose of USSR/China containment, field testing of weapons and USA muscle flexing. USA only decamped when it's long- term-strategic interests were satisfied. Subjugation of Vietnam was never a goal or requirement. It was a sumo-wrestling match, fought between USA and RUSSIA/CHINA with NVA/Viet Cong as proxies. When looking at world politics, always remember one thing: Extremely wealthy people generally prefer stability over conflict and those same people generally control every country. The modern community of nations (including the UN) gravitates towards those scenarios which they expect/hope will bring stability. This has always been true, and any assessments of Geopolitical events ought to been seen through this prism. As to the morality of this, well New Age Gaiaist types (Western Liberals) suggest that living in harmony with nature and containing the cruel impulses of Man will end conflict, Social Statist types (like France) think cradle-to-grave oversight and involvment by Government is best, Ruthless Calculators such as China adhere to Lenin's maxim "probe with the bayonnet..." and Capitalists like USA think private ownership of property and social freedoms give people an incentive to make nice. However, there is no easy answer and to think otherwise is silly. The best which can be hoped for is a "Mexican Standoff" between opposing forces. Properly balanced opposing forces drive power. Look at the crankshaft of a automobile or truck engine. And look at the combustion chamber. Balance and Containment. Those are the essential elements of stable power. Some say that USA over-reached in Iraq and made a power imbalance. This might be true. Others though, say that one was coming anyway and it was better to act towards power containment than wait and see. Who's right ? I don't know, do you? Hdtopo 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. If I understand you correctly you agree with me. As long as suspects remain in their own country they are safe from prosecution, but should they travel abroad they are subject to international law and will be prosecuted accordingly. More to the point, if the war in Iraq is illegal, the US may choose to ignore it, but the international community might proceed with an indictment. As to the various reasons you explain -political, economical and military- that I subscribe to, which will be the main reason why nobody will ever be held accountable for this war and the atrocities we see happening. Of course, this lack of accountability is exactly what drives terrorism in the first place. As is evidenced by several reports stating the rise of terrorism is a direct result of Iraq. There is a double-standard, and people feel there is no other way to be heard.
As to "power containment," it is evident that there needs to be balance, through military AND diplomatic means. Military hegemony by one party is never a good option, being a very good argument against current US-policy and being a very solid way of ensuring the rise of a dictatorship. Further, there is the old adagium if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In addition, the Art of War clearly explains why invading Iraq was a stupid move. All this can lead to only one conclusion, the US stumbled into a hornets' nest, was woefully unprepared, was horribly inadequate equipt and it was therefore inevitable the current situation would arise. Am I against any intervention? No, there are situations where we have to. However, again referring to Sun Tzu, no war should be started without sufficient knowledge of the enemy, your allies, the local conditions, and a plan for when the war is over. Without these, as evidenced by Iraq, the only assurance is it will end in a debacle.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply in brief, in no particular order: a) Sun Tzu made it very clear that waiting does not accrue to your benefit if your adversary is growing in strength. b) Terrorists who actually commit the acts, (such as Mohammed Atta) are not easily explained; simplistic expressions of X "drives terrorism", don't suffice. c) True, Bush will never be "held to account"; the drive by some to impeach him will fail. d) Iraq will not be a debacle; rather, it will be more along the lines of USA's long term relationship with the Philippines. e) It was broke and did need fixing. f) Sun Tzu was not the only military genius. Napoleon knew a few things as well. His basic method was to make sure your defenses are in order, then strike quickly, in force. And finally; the Baath crew which USA deposed were bad guys. Iraq, the Middle East and the world are better off now that they are gone. Anyway, I think we agree in part and disagree in part. Personally, I do not feel that the USA led 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal. Not by USA standards, not by International law standards. And I do not feel it was a war of aggression. Sorry to see that viewpoints are so polarized here. Perhaps I'll edit this article at some point, but for now, I think I'll pass. Hdtopo 21:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of your points is:

a Sun Tzu explicitly stated that war is not about winning, but ensuring your own safety. In addition, he clearly explains that jumping into war with insufficient information of all the parameters (which as we know has been done in Iraq) should not happen. If you are unprepaired Sun Tzu advises to avoid war.

b Terrorism is very easily explained if you are willing to try and see things from another perspective. I know that most US citizens, more importantly the administration, are unwilling/incapable of doing so, and I agree that in that case it is very difficult to analyse peoples motives. The first thing IMHO, in any conflict, is to look at your own actions and words because "it takes two to tango."

I read in another article you stating that everyone involved in a conflict needs to respect the Geneva Convention and those "insurgents" are also protected under the Geneva Convention. Yet you are arguing here that civilians are an acceptable target ... You just argued in Haditha Massacre that civilians are never to be targeted. Are you stating insurgents should be protected under the Geneva Convention but not have to follow it themselves? There are international laws about indiscriminate use of arms you know. --Zer0faults 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Where am I arguing that civilians are fair game? Again you misinterpret my words.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What act of terrorism do you feel the world is not understanding in regards to the Iraqi population? --zero faults talk 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What act of terrorism? You mean people fighting against an oppressor?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton
So you feel car bombs blowing up in crowded markets are fighting against the oppressor? So technically there are no acts of terrorism if a justification is given that its fighting against the oppressor, you know its been said that bin Ladens attacks on the US were for that reason, are you taking the side that he is not a terrorist? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You just asked the 60 billion euro question, what exactly is the difference between a terrorist and a freedomfighter? Thank you for finally understanding. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Again you do not answer the questions, I guess that says enough about your answers however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The answer is evident to those who are willing to look. Many Iraqis feel they are fighting an invading army. Others, you for instance, see what they do as terrorism. Clearly, it is difficult to differentiate between the two. Hence, the million years old, and still not concluded, attempts at reaching consensus over a definition of terrorism. Personally I think terrorism is what the loser in a conflict does. The winner, by definition is innocent of any transgression. If terrorism is defined by actions taken, than the US are engaged in inherently similar behaviour as the so-called terrorists. Your unwillingness to implement the term terrorism based on actions, and not partisan deliberations, proves my point. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You argued that the US commited a terrorist act by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however that goes against your statement since Japan was the loser in that war. Your arguements are highly inconsistent. Blowing up civilians is terrorism. You can look up the definition in the dictionary:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

They will all be quite similar, blowing up a car bomb in a crowded market is highly illegal I would think even in Iraq, and is obviously an intimidation tactic employed for political reasons. I think you are the one debating what terrorism is. If they were following the rules of the Geneva Convention they would not be conducting illegal acts and not be terrorists. Its quite simple ... You see to refer to the Geneva Convention when you want to state that US forces are acting illegally, yet here you seem to dismiss it as not relevant to these "freedom fighters". You still have not cited your opinion on 9/11, act of a terrorist, or act of a freedom fighter? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
When did anyone call dropping the bomb an act of terrorism? QED. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You misrepresent my words since I never said the GC only apply to the US. Second, contrary to your assertion I am not taking any position, I merely ask question s in an attempt to show that the world is not simply black and whit, evil vs good. In other words, if killing 3,000 innocent civilians is seen as terrorism, I am very interested on your view of how to call the killing of > 100,000 innocent civilians. Before ypou start your red herring claiming the figure is to high, please explain the difference between >100,000 and > 30,000 innocent civilians in comparison to 3,000. The question remains the same. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This is also why I removed White Phosphorous from the human rights section. Its only a chemical weapon when used against a civilian population on purpose, else its an incendiary weapon. Its interesting because what stops a freedom fighter from being a terrorist is who they target. To claim insurgents are not terrorists when they use an IED to kill 5 people and 1 soldier, would mean its also ok for a soldier to kill 5 innocent people to get 1 insurgent? --Zer0faults 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Use against any person, even soldiers, makes it a chemical weapon.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It wasnt even used on soldiers ... So its a moot point. You never addressed the terrorist / freedom fighter issue as well. White Phosforous being used in Fallujah to illuminate is a designated use under UN guildelines, the UN you hold so dear. --zero faults talk 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are well aware that it was used to drive out the enemy. This to me does not sound like illumination.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be well aware of things that there is no proof of, care to supply a quote by the commanding officer stating he did it to drive the enemy out? Considering it was used at night how can you be so sure? If it wasn't for your hate of the US perhaps you would be more objective about it. How about you provide proof it was used to draw the enemy out from some relevant to the authorizing of it and I will suspend my arguement on this matter. --zero faults talk 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It was the official response, but to indulge in your appetite for ignoring facts I will try and provide the comment.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Waiting ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

c Indeed, that he isn't impeached shows the inherent political nature of the process, and that the original idea of "checks and balances" does not work if the President's party is in control of both houses.

Are you stating then that if he remains in office after the next election, if the Democratic Party manages to take control of either House or Senate, that you will drop your arguement completly? --Zer0faults 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that the lack of investigation, into what are serious allegations, is telling.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Allegations and evidence are two different things. People are not guilty till proven innocent in the United States and there is no evidence regarding reasons to impeach, just people assuming he did X, saying he did Y for Z reason. Luckily in the US you need to present proof to be taken seriously. --zero faults talk 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, innocent untill proven guilty does not preclude investigating the allegations. But as we have seen investigating whether or not the NSA program violates the law, whether or not there is policy regarding torture, whether or not the case against Iraq was manipulated, whether or not innocent civilians are kidnapped worldwide, (need I go on?) none of this is being investigated. Why?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The courts have already ruled on the kidnapping and over seas bases. There was already an investigation into them as well. There is also a call in Congress about the NSA program and if it violates law or not, they arent sure if it would require a FISA warrant. So that leaves the policy on torture which I haven't kept track of since Bush said we dont torture people and it wasn't mentioned again on the news. As for Iraq information, manipulated by who? If you feel the entire US government manipulated the information then its not really a case for the government is it, perhaps you should complain to the UN that they have not opened a case for it. Oddly enough the intelligence wasn't ever wrong. Just misinterpreted, so that means you want to fall back on Downing Street Memo's that noone ever really got to see, so what evidence is there to investigate? You can't say ok Bob wants you to find out if Ed is a killer, then open an investigation into it with no proof. --zero faults talk 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
How can you misinterpret the numerous warnings that these allegations are not supported by fact. As to the Yellowcake, again there were warnings regarding its veracity. To ignore to mountain of evidence, that numerous people outside the government reported to the administration and its officials that, there were serious doubts on their entire case, is naive to say the least.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I proved you were wrong as many of the issues you said there was no investigation for, that are actually was or is currently. Unless you can disprove the ones that are currently factually investigated, then I believe this point is moot. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
So, the fact there is no investigation proves there were no warnings? Others might think that the lack of checks and balances (intelligence failure or manipulation, torture, NSA - impeachment anybody) proves there is no Congressional oversight. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Read what I wrote, it says there was investigations for many of the things you listed ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources to show there are investigations into 1 discrepancies surrounding the invasion of Iraq, 2 the alleged legality of the NSA program, 3 the pssibility torture was not only done by some "bad apples," 4 the alleged kidnpping of civilians around the world, 5 the constitutionality of signing statements as reinterpretation of the law. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You edit articles which state Alberto GOnzales has reviewd the program, COngress has in front of it a bill stating the parameters of such a program, it was reviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, sorry but you are now asking for info you already have. Discrepencies surrounding the invasion? O yes your disbelief in it, unfortunatly there is no proof of wrong doing, in our country we do not investigate when there is no ground proof. Possible torture? says who that is credible? There is already an investigation into the events of Hamadiya, it says it on the articles page, perhaps you should read the articles for the events you want information for. Alleged kidnapping of civilians, well the UN has already investigated and ruled, maybe you should see the extraordinary rendition article. Do your own research, just because you do not want to research something doesnt mean it does not exist. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please focus on fact and not opinion. Gonzalez is the same man who disallowed investigation into the legallity of the NSA program, it is the same man who wrote the "torture memos." To claim that his review is sufficient to warrant oversight is analogues to claiming the gangleaders have assured us there is no criminal activity in their neighbourhood. Furhter, you are well aware that Congress, or even the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not totally informed of the exact nature of the NSA program. To deny discrepancies regarding Iraq is to deny no WMD or links to 9-11 have been found. Any business comany would investigate what went wrong, not the US. There is now an investigation regarding several incidents involving alleged murders,but you know that initially the military thought there were no grounds for such an investigation and it was killed. Only after the press reported on it, suddenly the military thought, well what do do you think, shall we investigate? Remarkably similar to Abu Graib. To ignore the testimony of several victims is telling. Further, why did the administration point to security as reason for dismissing the Ahrar case? I have yet to hear a denial, which is telling again. But more to the point, is there an investigation into the legality of the NSA program, is there an investigation into alleged involved of officials in torture? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This neesd to be made clear to you, without proof, the US legal system does not investigate things. You cannot goto a police station, say you were tortured with no evidence etc. and expect a full scale investigation. Furthermore you are assuming no investigationst ook place because none were on websites you have found, that is obsurd in its own right, just as you keep assuming International law overwrites domestic law in the US, not taking into account the Supreme Court ruling. You keep making assumptions, just because you do not know of something, because the news did not cover something, does not mean it never happened. Also Abu GHraib is a different story as the news broke it, the army was not aware till after it happened, but you know this already and are once again arguing things you already know to be false. Also there are immediate investigations by the military whenever civilians are killed after fighting has ceased, they are even mentioned in the Haditha article that I know you have looked at. Stop arguing points you know to be false. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You know perfectly well that the initial investigation had the unsavory smell of a cover up. It was not untill the press got hold of the stort that we now have an investigation. Don't forget that. As to the US legal system, if there are grounds for suspicion an investigation is started. And contrary to your assertion, witness reports constitute sufficient evidence to investigate. If not, no woman is able to bring charges of rape against her assailant. As to international law, I never said that inside the US it has influence. More importantly, exactly because the US refuses such a thing it tries to frustrate the ICC, but that is another story. Please try and understand the difference between inside and outside the US borders. Within the US US law prevails, outside US citizens are subject to local law and international law. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore just because you disagree with his decisions do not make them wrong. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact you agree does not make them correct. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No but the fact that the Supreme Court agrees makes it law. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So, the Supreme court said that there should be no investigation into suspected crimes? I would love to see that ruling. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Dont know where I said, thanks for putting words into my mouth. I am ending my involvement in this thread as it now seems to have taken a turn for the worse. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You point to the honourable Mr G, I only observe he is involved in every evasion of the law under the guise of: if the president does it it ain't illegal. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

d Iraq is a debacle. Instead of emphasizing the elections, you might look at the multitide of killings, assaults and event that under any other circumstance would be called civil war.

This leaves an interesting issue, you want to argue its a civil war, that the people are fighting eachother. However you never support the idea with a factual statement on the percentage of people dying to Shiite Sunni unrest as opposed to dying in fighting with Coalition Forces etc. What exactly constitutes a civil war to you? I know you can post articles on events, but can you prove there is enough killing going on to warrant the use of a civil war, and at what percent do you even state its a civil war? --Zer0faults 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
When two groups, that are part of ONE country, start fighting eachother on a grand scale, that to me constitutes civil war. I knmow politically correct people avoid civil war, genocide, torture, kidnapping, et cetera, since using these would force them to take action. Therefore the international community has adopted new terms to obfuscate the fact there is a major problem.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Grand scale? once again I ask you post your numbers of related deaths to total deaths ... I await your statistics. You want to call it a civil war, then prove it, else you are just quoting a former leader. --zero faults talk 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, it takes > 10.000 killings a day before it is a civil war. Civil war is not dependent on an arbitrary number.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I now see your statistics on Iraqi's killed to sectarian violence? I mean you are basing your civil war allegations on factual information you have aquired right? --zero faults talk 16:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to explain when sectarian violence becomes civil war. If there are > 10000000 victims a day?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, so you have no stats at all. Thank you. I am done with this point as well. You can't argue there is a civil war then state your evidence is th elack of proof that there is not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
When an entire country is dominated by bombing, sectarian killing, et cetera, that used to be a civil war, regardless of the number of victims. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you just admit you have no facts or figures and just going by the former presidents quote? Post some facts that show its a civil war, not just that a sunni killed a shiite, that almost like me saying the US is in a civil war cause 50 african americans were killed by caucasians this year. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Read the definition of civil war. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the article on civil war, you are probably reffering to the sentence however that says "some" historians would consider insurgency a civil war, "if" they are fighting by conventional warfare. I think there was some more statements that show its not really a widely held idea. Still waiting on your statistics though. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course a 1000 bodies each month is normal in any democracy.[68] Hardly cause to think that thousands of killings each month might be seen as civil war. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

e It was not broke, unless you are arguing that we should invade every country that is not a democracy. To claim there was an acute problem is the talking points of Bushco and, as we know today, that was not only incorrect, the current state of affairs is far worse.

Iraq being broke is obviously a figure of speech. You seem to want WMD's mentioned in the overview and voted that it was the main reason for gonig to war, yet here you are stating the reason was because it was not a democracy. At what point do you feel its broke. Saddam's sons had rape rooms, Kuwaiti POW's were to be used as human shields, he is on trial right now for the massacre of a 100+ people, he has used chemical weapons, attacked isreal during the first Gulf War without provocation, Invaded Kuwait and insists its part of Iraq, Shot at planes patrolling the no-fly zone, kicked out UN inspectors for over 3 years, cheated the Oil-for-Food programme setup by the UN to brnd aide to the country. I am sure there is a bigger list, I am also sure you wouldn't say the problem was just that he wasnt a democracy. --Zer0faults 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, you are well aware that other countries are in possesion of WMD's while the US for some reason fails to find that enough cause to invade.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I see for some reason you ignore anything not mentioning WMD's that I listed above, your failure to address any other point speaks volumes. --zero faults talk 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You still fail to admit that there are numerous countries that do the same as Iraq but are not invaded. Please explain why North Korea is not invaded.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I answered you below, you cannot take 3 of the 10 and say that all were covered. What you missed is listed below regarding the numerous items I mentioned. --zero faults talk 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Accumulating trumped up charges, that turn out to be bogus, does not negate the fact that China and North-Korea are more dangerous to their cirtizens and the world than SH was. But hey, clear and present danger has become redefined under the newspeakdoublespeak logic of you and other Bush supporters.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have sourced them all before, I won't do it again, you know about the PALF. You know about the raping and torture, he is being tried by the Iraqi's for it, you know about the massacre in that town ... You believe there is a civil war without facts cause a former Iraqi official says it, then when the government in Iraq says Saddam did XYZ you call that into question. Seems like you only believe the facts that are against the US. I am done on this point as you have proved any of the things I listed to be false. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You know none of these warrant an immediate invasion. And again you are ignoring China and North Korea that are guilty of the same transgressions and are more dangerous but somehow were not invaded. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of those trangressions, not all. You keep naming countries that have done some, but not all, so name a country that has done all, or you are failing over and over to make the point. My point is "noone has done all", you are saying some countries have done some. Do you see the problem? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In short, since war is illegal unless there is an imminent threat, can you provide evidence of such a threat in the case of Iraq? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Missiles extending beyond the allowed reach were found, such missles could have been used to attack US military positions or US allies such as Isreal, which had previously been attacked by Saddam. Also there was Iraq's constantly growing number of attacks on US planes in the no-fly zone as well as lockons. There was also Saddam's funding of the PALF, which it a terrorist organization and can attack anyone anywhere. Did you read the resolution? Also I have already proved that according to the US the war was legal. The Supreme Court decides in the end what is legal and what isn't and since Congress supported the war, its been deamed legal. Ruling is below and you have yet to prove anything against it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The no-fly zone was invented by the US and had no valid existence under international law. Besides, why should any country tolerate foreign fighter planes within its border? I already responded to the ludicrous terrorist claim by pointing out that the US is funding terrorist themselves. If the US can do that, why should SH be punished for it? I know that the US thinks the war is legal, just as SH thinks he can torture and murder. But thinking it does not make it legal under international law, that is outside the jurisdiction of any US court. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You fail to understand that the ceasefire call for protection of the Kurdish and minority populations in the North and South of Iraq, they do not setup specifically a no-fly zone, however they do not need to. You arguement "why should any country tolerate foreign fighter planes within its border" is based on your lack of understanding of the ceasefire agreement. Also if the US supports terrorism, which is not a fact, that does not make it ludacris that Iraq supports terrorism, they do not negate eachother, its still a fact he did. Also if you followed the case against Saddam, he is actually being charged with violating Iraq law partially, he acted illegally according to the laws of his own country, he is also being put on trial by his own country, not the US. Once again Nomen I ask you to do some research before making claims that are false. Also I have already stated to you, if you feel the war in Iraq was illegal, write to the ICJ, they have not taken the case and you seem to feel they are being negligent in not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Iraq did not support terrorism. I merely observe that you must be consistent, therefore since we know OBL, IRA, FARC, and many other terrorist organisations were supported by the US logic dictates that the US is guilty of the same connection you are saying SH had. As to the implementation of the ceasefire, I think it is up to the UN and not the US to interpret how it should be enforced. You must be joking if you assert that the US is uninvolved in the trial against SH. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess this is over as well since you have admitted to all of the SH atrocities and have yet to name a country that has done all of them, please see original topic. I am not interested in entertaining theories on what the US is guilty of due to past relations that may or may not have happened. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to ignore China and North Korea yet again. Every time you are confronted with uncomfortable information you ignore it. Good strategy. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please show me the news articles that depict China and/or Korea firing SAM's at US planes. Paying terrorists to blow themselves up in Palestine, which in itself is an attack against a member nation (Isreal). Using chemical weapons on a population they are in conflict with. These would all hve to be under the governments current leader obviously. I await your proof that those nations did all of the activities I stated earlier. Please reply on my talk page, I will not be replying here anymore. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


f We all know that Iraq is not a Blitzkrieg, and every military expert outside of the administration said it was very likely this would not be a matter of days.

It kind of was, kind of wasnt. The army itself defending the country fell apart pretty quickly. Blitzkrieg doesn't mean everything is fine, it just means a quick attack. The attack itself was very quickly, the war ended in less then a month. However the violence now isn't because of Saddam's army still fighting is it? So it very much was a blitz and was very successful in its goal, to destroy Saddam's forces. The term doesn't reffer to rebuilding the place you just blitzed through. --Zer0faults 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
A blitzkrieg should be over by now. To claim that the war in Iraq is over but what we are seeing is some unrest is yet another example of the smoke and mirrors technique.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes smoke and mirrors ... sure ... care to adress the point that its not Saddam's forces still fighting. You call it a civil war, wouldnt that mean that some of its not even people fighting coalition forces? Once again a blitzkreig is not about the cleanup afterwards. Your poor choice of a term not mine.
Odd logic. There is no clean-up, the fighting never stopped.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't even have to reply, just ask yourself is it the standing Iraqi Army that is fighting the Coalition forces? If so then they are blowing up civilians and violating the Geneva convention themselves, if not then the war ended when it was said to have ended. Their Commander was captured and noone replaced him, are you really arguing the US is fighting the Iraqi military? --zero faults talk 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidently in your world civil war does not exist.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Good job addressing the issue. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
interesting observation from someone who is incapable of answering simple questions but who is very good in ignoring uncomforable facts. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, you have not answered the questions. Do so or can we end this thread? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

g Whether or not they were "bad guys" is irrelevant. Bush is not advocating regime change for all "bad guys." Is he?. His duplicity is evident because many other "bad guys" are in his favour because of military, economical and political opportunism.

So your saying that since there is more then 1 "bad guy" you have to attack all or none? Lets examine that, so we see two people doing bad things and we have to attack both at the same time in order to not show prejudice in who we attack. Can you show me examples in history when a nation attacked every "bad" nation on the map at the exact same time? --Zer0faults 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to explain why of all the candidates SH had to be attacked. WMD, we know North-Korea poses a more serious threat. Civli rights, again, North-Korea bigger problems, but feel free to read about Darfur, China, Chechnya, et cetera. I can go on, but you know what my point is. Of all the possible countries that need intervention, Iraq had the least problems. Hence, you can't make a distinction, therefore you should not be so eager to intervene.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
WMD's + Human Rights + POW's + existing Security Council Resolutions + PALF funding of suicide bombers + shooting at Coalition planes in the no-fly zone + Brutal repression of Kurds + Shite Sunni imbalance + Sons Rape rooms ... Those places above have one reason, not all of them, that is why. --zero faults talk 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
North Korea or China: Human rights, non-existent, WMD, we know they have them, POW's, we know they have them. Please, just admit that none of the reasons advanced make Iraq more threatening than North Korea or China.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So we skipped firing on US/US planes, repression of a majority population, family raping and torturing people, funding terrorism. Once again if you arent going to address all the issues then you are only proving my point, none of your named nations have as many issues. --zero faults talk 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Please you are using circular logic and keep evading the similar transgressions by other nations. Of course the US has compiled a million argument, among which several that were years old. Clearly they were only accumulating alleged misdeeds to warrant an invasion. As to funding terrorism, feel free to mention principal supporter of Mr Bin Laden.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Again avoiding all the reasons. This is the last time I am responding to any of your arguements cause you aren't making any. Just keep US bashing instead of stating which nation had all those issues. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Having a million reasons, does not a valid argument to invade make. And again you wilfully ignore China and Norht Korea to which almost every reason for Iraq also aplly. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The leaders are opressing a majority religious group? They shot at US planes, the president and sons have rape rooms? they paid terrorists to blow themselves up? they had a banned weapons program? they kicked out IEAE officials? they slaughtered 100+ people in one town and are currently on trial for it? Please stop. You say its not valid, I say it is, the fact of the matter is most countries havent commited as many violations, and none of the ones you mention repeatedly as if you were quoting CNN editorials, has done those things. Especially shooting down US planes in the no-fly zone, which itself is an act worthy or removing a ceasefire. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to read about China and human rights (i.e. Falun gong), slaughtering people (i.e. Tiananmen Square), censoring information related to human rights and prosecuting those how write about it. Please do not ignore facts uncomfortable to your world view. For the record, the inspectors SH kicked out of Iraq were ordered to leave by Bush since he wanted to invade. At the time of the invasion there was cooperation with IAEA and the UN. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should closed examine the articles you participate in, its stated in the UN resolution 1441 by the UN that Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in. call the UN if you feel they are lying. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you missed, month after month, the numerous television/newspaper/radio/internet reports on Hans Blix asking for more time to investigate. And just as remarkable as having missed the weaponinspectors going through Iraq, you also missed the fact they had to leave in a hurry since Mr Bush decided he had to invade. Do you need additional sources for what I just said, or have you heard about it before? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, I am talking about the 3+ years after the first war. You did know there was a group already formed that was disbanded since Saddam would not allow them back in right? if you goto the website for the original group it talks about it, then you can goto the site for the original group and see some of the highlites such as Saddam's forces firing warning shots at them while driving off with nuclear reactor based components etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Shall we talk about what happened in 1863? Or 1978? Point is, that in the months prior to the invasion inspectors were allowed and doing their job. Since they were present in Iraq and allowed to conduct their investigation it is incorrect to refer to what happend years before. At the time of invasion SH did comply so that argument is absolutely invalid. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That isnt the point, you are attempting to prove me wrong that inspectors were not allowed in, then you go onto ignore the whole point of them being kicked out by citing other events that are not relevant to those inspectors. Normally when someone makes such an erroneous mistake they apologize, not attempt to divert the arguement elsewhere. Also your statements are false, Blix never stated that Saddam fully met the terms of the resolution he actually stated that they were "active or even proactive" regarding past due issues, then stated that there actions 4 months after the passing of the resolution obviously did not meet the immediate clause of said resolution. Selective quoting is perhaps what is messing up your understanding. Furthermore they found 2 missiles that did exceed the limits of the resolutions, as it was not just about chemical weapons, but also about weapon systems that would allow them to attack their neighbors. Read the original resolutions they are on the UN website. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that inspectors had to flee out of Iraq in order not to get bombed by Bush disproves your point. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You are still ignoring the fact hat I was talking about the past inspectors. I am not participating in this thread as you are seemingly attempting to twist my words after they have been explained to you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No I am not. Or paraphrasing a speech I recently heard, you see a problem on monday (no inspectors allowed), device a solution and implement it on wednesday, regardless of what happens on tuesday (inspectors allowed). Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is innuendo, but its not very clear what you are trying to say, anyway further replies that you would like me to read, please put them on my talk page as this thread is getting too long. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

h As to war of aggression. Since the US was not under threat, self-defense is not applicable. Second, the UN did not support the invasion. Under international law this means that the agreed upon parameters to legitimize war are not fulfilled. Any war that violates jus ad bellum, by definition is a crime against peace and a war of aggression.

So would you use this same arguement to say the United States participation in WW2 was unjust since only Japan attacked the US directly and so any fighting against German soldiers was in fact a violation of what would be the Geneva Convention. How about US intervention in Somalia, that was also wrong since the US was not directly attacked by Somalia, or well any nation. The UN itself allows for countries to intervene under humanitarian reasons, disarmament, civil wars, genocide etc. So stating that any war or military action for that matter that is not started via the direct attack against the nations itself is false. Nations or threats against member nations are also a reason to goto war, as what allowed Operation Desert Storm. Six-Day War was also then illegal as it was preemptive hence a "war of agression." I do not think you know enough about international law and its compexities to cite anything, you are after all one who argued that the war could not be legal according to US but illegal according to international law, the First Circuit Court of Appeals however ruled against you on that. As acts of congress passed after take precedent according to US law. --Zer0faults 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice try. Again, the US is bound by international law. By your reasoning any country can adopt a law nullifying international law. By alowing that international law has become a joke.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see below, you cant simply say "nice try" after someone presents evidence, its further supported below. You can read the decision yourself Whitney v. Robertson. Its time you stop arguing about this, its been stated by the Supreme Court, CNN links can no longer substantiate a real arguement against. --zero faults talk 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that by adopting a new law a country can evade international law? And if so, what the heck do we do with international law if all we have to do is create a new law and presto, no treaty can bind us?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Instead of debating it with me, how about you read the below and see the Supreme Courts ruling for yourself. If you have a problem with it then speak to the Justices that heard the case. Their ruling is pretty explanatory its not really open to interpretation, but feel free to read it and decide on your own. Its almost like saying the reverse, if something is made international law, then it effects every nation regardless of if they vote for it to be a law, so the UN would then have the right to override every nations laws ... Does that make equal sense to you? Perhaps it does, but regardless the Supreme Court ruling is just that, the law of the US. You can argue with me till you are blue in the face, argue with them if you feel ist wrong. --zero faults talk 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is bordering on stupidity. What is the point of any treaty when you can just ignore it? The only way it works is if international law suprcedes national law. Stay focussed please.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Again you are arguing with the wrong person. THe ruling also stated that treaty's arent ignored but if they both cannot be filled then the latest takes precedent. So you are dramatizing the ruling. If you think about it logically, if the US signs onto a treaty then changes their mind, like any law shouldnt they be able to ratify it? They ratify international treaties with acts of congress. Again call the supreme court if you have a problem --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
A treaty that has been ratified is legally binding. No matter what any Judge, VP or POTUS asserts. I will no longer respond to what is turning into circular reasoning and is looking alot like I am discussin with an editor not interested in advancing the article. It is bordering on bleep-bleep behaviour. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you managed to provide such legally persuasive evidence as I have given you a direct legal ruling from the Supreme Court ... This issue is closed as you are not brining evidence, just your personal opinion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You fail to understand that domestic courts can't rule for international disputes. Hence the International Court of Justice. But keep it closed, otherwise you might be forced to amend your erroneous opinion. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Civil courts do not handle criminal issues. Possibly there are courts for different things? Anyway, you still have yet to prove the Supreme Court ruling is wrong. You really cannot do that because the Supreme Court has the final say in the US, and they have spoken. Have a problem with it, contact them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nobody denies that a Supreme court, in any country, rules on the local laws. However, you ignore the fact that local judges cannot rule in cases that fall outside the country. Again, that's why we have the ICJ. Or, are you suggesting the US supreme court has jurisdiction over conflicts in other countries?

Supreme Court says war was legal according to US ... end of story regarding the US. You have a problem with ICJ, then write them a letter, but do not blame their short comings on anyone else. So what we have here is the ICJ not taking the case as noone has brought it before them, or they feel its not their issue and the US Supreme Court saying its legal, you lack a foot to stand on here. Perhaps you should write to either asking to have your opinion met with a court case. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I am unable to explain the difference between inside and outside US territory, and therefore the principle of juridiction, I think we should call it a day. As you do not understand my pointing out that no US court has jurisdiction outside the US, you evidently fail to understand that such a court cannot rule on crimes committed outside the US. To clarify, I never denied that such a court can decide that a suspect shall not be tried as long as he is within US borders. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The ICJ has not taken the case, so its not illegal until its ruled to be, innocent until proven guilty. All your double talk just goes around to the same point. The Supreme Court said was is legal in US, ICJ has not taken case, so its not been ruled on in terms of international law. Perhaps you should write to them, or file something to get your case heard. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea, a crime is only committed after a court has ruled on it. This supports the aphorism that a crimininal is he who gets caught, but I always saw that as a joke. Innocent untill proven guilty does not mean that a certain person has not violated the law, it only means he will not be punished for it untill a court rules on it. You know the ICJ or ICC will never try US citizerns because the will frustrate a fair hearing by strongarming the court. Remember the Hague invasion act? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does mean that, see someone who has broken the law is guilty of a crime ... As for your problems with the ICJ / iCC, I suggest you write them a letter or something as its out of my hands. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


i Editors may not agree, as we do, but I think the general manner of conduct is civil. I have seen worse, as long as people discuss in a civilized tone I do not mind difference of opinion. Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have personally found some replies to me as very uncivil, such as calling my edits lame, and saying i am attempting a filibuster when I explain someone is breaking a wiki guideline they are attempting to use, then there is the wikilawyering comments, being told i was being obtuse etc. --Zer0faults 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the wonderful discussion it should be known that The First Circuit Court of Appeals already ruled stating "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." it went on to state "The court found that other actions by Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war ... provided enough indication of congressional approval."

A "declaration of war" is not necessary to fulfill the requirements of the constitution in the eyes of the court, as the constitution "envisages the joint participation of the Congress and the executive in determining the scale and duration of hostilities." and that is what HJ Res 114 goes onto accomplish.

Furthermore they stated:

"The Supreme Court recently and forcefully reiterated that, notwithstanding the Constitution's vesting of "all legislative power" in Congress, enactments which leave discretion to the executive branch are permissible as long as they offer some "intelligible principle" to guide that discretion."

So you see the courts have ruled and further upheld the ruling that there is no illegal transfer of power and that HJ Res 114 accomplishes for all purposes what a "declaration of war" accomplishes "a join participation of congress and the executive". --Zer0faults 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And further for those still arguing that the UN Charter overrides the US Constitution, The Supreme Court in Whitney v. Robertson stated:

"By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing . . . with an act of legislation. . . . if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other".

This would mean the authorization to use force would override the UN Charter, since it came last. Acts of Congress do not get overridden by the UN Charter. That would obviously negate parts of the constitution ... what US court would allow that? --Zer0faults 15:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Since no US court has any international effect this ruling is redundant. For matters of international law we as a rule refer to the International Court of Justice. But more importantly, you still have not explained what would happen if every country amended its Constitution to claim it is no longer bound by international law. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. You support the notion that any law that hinders the President in his duty as Commander in Chief is unconstitutional, and as such can be ignored. While I think it is a recipe for anarchy, since any smart lawyer can argue that any law is hindering the him, resulting in the Nixonian premise that as Commander in Chief the President never acts illegally, since, if he did violate any law, that law was unconstitutional in the first place. See the rationales offered by Yoo and Gonzales himself. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What you think is not grounds for anything. If the ICJ thought it was its place to take up the case they would, you cannot call it illegal when there as been no ruling to that effect. a lack of a case in the ICJ does not determine action to be illegal. SO far the only ruling is by the Supreme Court which states the war according to the US is legal. We can agree to disagree, but ist on the basis that your personal opinion is not a matter for the ICJ to follow. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a court fails to prosecute is no evidence of innocence. You know there are numerous reasons for not prosecuting:
      • Logistical:there simply is insufficient capacity to try every single crime.
      • Political, although we dislike the thought, not all suspects are treated equally. Regarding the US, the fact that there is a law allowing the US to invade Holland, should any Amwerican stand trial for war crimes (which in light of numerous incidents would be more than expected), is a very good example. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Also I did not state my view, I did not state anything to this effect:

"You support the notion that any law that hinders the President in his duty as Commander in Chief is unconstitutional, and as such can be ignored"

I simply have pointed out to you the Supreme Courts ruling, which is not on that basis at all. Read the ruling, stop putting words in peoples mouth. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as you fail to understand that US courts do not have jurisdiction outside the US, you will not understand that outside the US international law still exists, and US citizens are liable for prosecution. War crimes may be allowed within the US but outside I venture to guess that that is not the case. Exactly why the US-administration is fighting the ICC, since it is well aware of the risk. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Liable for prosecution yes, possibly, have been put on trial no. Hence your point is moot. You cannot state its illegal then state there is no ruling. Also the US is not fighting the ICC, they just choose not to sign the document, they put on trial their own soldiers and have a system they feel is not compatible with the ICC. Once again so you possibly get it this time, a lack of ruling is not a guilty verdict. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It is illegal to steal, I steal your TV, I am not caught therefore I have not stolen your TV. Better yet, since no court has ruled on it (I am not caught remember?) stealing your TV was not even illegal. Only after the courts have said that I violate the law by stealing your TV is it illegal. Untill such time stealing is legal.
The fact that the main actors in the abuse scandal (who drafted the legal opinions contending torture is legal and the GC do not have to be obeyed) are still not investigated makes the claim the US seriously prosecutes suspected war criminals ludicrous. My lai has proven that you can have an official massacre but oddly enough nobody is guilty.
As to frustrating the ICC, how would you call the blatant blackmailing and threats against countries not to cooperate with the ICC in case of a suspected US war criminal? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not know what these accusations and conspiracies you speak of are. You are also obviously mixing up the act with the crime. You are not guilty of stealing my TV until a judge says you are, however you may have removed the TV from my possession. As for if its illegal, that is for the court to decide, they may find that I owed you the TV or that the TV was hazard in my house and its removal was warranted, etc. I am no longer participating in these threads as I believe you are diverting from your original points I commented on, and this talk page is starting to look obscenely unorderly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I admire your courage to admit this discussion is going nowhere as long as you keep using circular logic and fail to address the inconsistencies in your arguments. The fact that you think judges decide what is legal or illegal is a prime example of our inability to understand each other. My view of the justice system is that the LAW decides what is legal or illegal, and that judges merely look at a case and interpret the law in relation to a certain conflict and decide whethter or not it applies. So, in case of the TV, the judge does not decide whether or not stealing is illegal - we already know that is illegal since that is what the law says- he is asked to decide if the TV was stolen. If it turns out I did not steal your TV I did nothing illegal. In other words he rules on the question have I stolen, and not on is stealing illegal. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your example as displayed by your own assumptions is you are stating a fact and having legallity on it talked about as an after affect. However its not a fact that the US has done anything illegal. Your example is flawed, hence your logic is flawed. A real example would be me accusing you of taking the TV. Which is equivalent to you accusing the US of actions. In that example you would have to prove it happened and a judge would rule if it did. If its ruled against the person, then they commited an illegal act. Your who example is flawed for that reason, you assume you know for a fact that the US did XYZ. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Flawed logic indeed. Do tell, why is comparing a judge that has to decide whether taking a TV is stealing different from a judge having to decide whether invading a country is a war of aggression? That is, if you agree there is a war. For based on "you would have to prove it happened" it sounds as if you suggest the US is not involved in any war. Let's see what we can prove.

  • Iraq was invaded and there is a war. I will assume you do not contest this, but should you want to I can provide sources to substantiate that the US is at war in Iraq.
  • Iraq was not about to invade the US:
    • Simply because it is impossible logically and on military grounds. The speed with which the Iraq army was defeated makes this suggestion laughable.
    • WMD attack. No missiles could reach the US, but if they could Iraq did not have WMD.
    • Iraq might order terrorists. No link with terrorism has been found, most notably there is no connection with 9-11. Aside from that, if ties to terrorism suffice to warrant invasion we can invade many other countries, among which the US as you well know.
  • The UN did not support the invasion. As it became clear the UN would not endorse military intervention the US went ahead anyway.
  • Under international law there are only two legal justifications for war: 1 Self-defense, 2 UN support. When these conditions are not met international law defines such a war as a war of aggression.
  • It is evident the US did not act out of self-defense since no imminent threat existed, nor was it supported by the UN. Do the maths.

Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I already explained it. In the case of the TV, you are stating the TV was stolen as a fact, therefore the judges ruling would be based on a fact. I am not sure why you are failing to grasp this concept, normally when a case is brought to a judge the events are in dispute, meaning the facts are not determined or there is an attempt to show circumstances of justification. As for your points they are old and have already been discussed repeatedly in this very section, oddly enough you are resurfacing some you already conceded to, such as the PALF incident. Also self defense does not involve an invasion of the attacking country, see Kosovo, they were not about to attack the US either directly. However you should be aware they did have weapons that could reach Isreal, a country they had fired SCUD missles at before. As for WMD attack, you didnt even read the resolution if you think the US justification was a direct missle strike, perhaps you should read it. You seem to have this misunderstanding of what self defense is, Germany did not attack the US directly either. Korea did not, Vietnam did not, the first gulf war saddam did not. See, the first Gulf war was approved by the UN for protecting Kuwait, so why cant the US launch an attack to protect other gulf nations? Your logic is flawed, you state an authorization of war as being either "self-defense" or "UN approval" which is incomplete, it disregards the exact reasons the Un would give approval, those would actually be the reasons. Threats to member states and defense of member states is whats included in their that you glossed over. Perhaps you should ask Isreal if they felt threatened by Saddam's weapons then get back to me, as Isreal is a member state. Also I am through with this discussion as its not even relevant to the article if you want to continue it feel free to post on my appropriate talk space and I will decide then if I want to continue. You have also once again attempted to argue something you know is false, saddams link to terrorism as he himself admitted to giving the money to the PALF. My participation in this section is over, as I feel its becoming a never ended lopped arguement. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • You are evidently not able/willing to see things other than your own narrow way, or even respond to valid questions, so it is fitting you withdraw and stop your monologue.
      • Taking a TV is a fact, invading Iraq is a fact. What is the difference? No dispute here. The dispute is whether taking a TV is stealing and whether invading Iraq is a war of agggression. You talk alot, but have not explained what is wrong with that view.
      • Since SH was never capable of attacking the US self-defense is a ludicrous argument. Even when we argue he supported terrorism, and terrorists may attack the US, you still have not explained why other countries supporting terrorism more directly pose no threat and are not invaded. As an aside, have you heard of guilt by association? Of course, there are the numerous terrorist organisations supported by the US you keep ignoring. Silly me, that were no terrorist organisations. I forgot that OBL became a terrorist after 9-11 and after he started opposing the US. As long as the target was Russia he was merely ..., what exactly?
      • Defending other countries is indeed warranted under the UN Charter. However, you fail to understand that is what UN support means. If the UN feels it needs to intervene it is legal. Without UN support this argument is not applicable. I could be mistaken, but I think the UN did not support invading Iraq.
  • Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Once again the reason you are coinfusing things is because taking my TV is not stealing my TV, get the difference? You could have taken the TV cause I told you that you could, then accused you of stealing it. The TV is taken, but not stolen until a judge rules on the crime, get it? I dont understand why this is not being understood. The US invaded, but did not illegally invade unless a judge rules. You study logic statements it seems yet this is not being grasped for some reason. So what determines if the war is illegal is a judge, and none have ruled in your favor, the one you want to, hasnt taken the case. So its not illegal until a judge says so. Furthermore I find it amusing that while you say the US cannot attack countries even if US lawmakers support the war, you would then say its only ok if UN supports the war, which is just another governing body. Do you realize that if 2 perm member countries worked together they can basically lock the Security Council into never going to war with a particular nation? This is why the UN is undergoing organizational changes. I am not really sure why you keep proposing that the US has to attack every nation that has terrorist at the exact same time in order to make everyone happy. Iraq was not the first war if you remmeber, they invaded Afghanistan under the same pretense, the War on Terror, which I know you deny. This is from below:

"The idea that the US has to attack every nation that contains terrorists at the same time is slightly flawed. Have you considered that launching a simultaneous invasion of 8+ nations may be impossible? Just to point out, the US is involved in a few nations in the form of funding anti-terrorism units, special operations soldiers to assist the current governments fight against terrorism, and negotiating with nations to take a harder stance against terrorist in their country, Pakistan, Phillipines, Afghanistan (you should know), Iraq (this invasion), Ethiopia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Thailand etc"

So as you see there was intervention and aide to numerous countries at the same time, we just do not have the troops to actually fully invade numerous nations at the same time, something I am sure you are aware of, so not sure why you keep wondering why the US does not do it. Its like saying intervention in Somalia was wrong cause 10 other nations were under the same economic situation and needed humanitarian aid, so we should have never helpedm or the UN should not have gone into Kosovo because ethnic cleansing was taking place in Africa at the same time and they didnt send troops into both. Do you see the problem with that logic? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, please reply on my talk page not here. This is no longer relevant to this page and is messing up their discussion page. I will only reply there, including if you continue to post here, the replies will be on my page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Debate over the intro

Does anyone feel that the intro should only mention WMD's and not list the other reasons listed for going to war, by the US or the UK? This includes Bush's Ultimatum 2 nights before invasion, Bush's speech to the UN, House Joint Resolution 114 "Authorization to Use Armed Forces in Iraq Resolution 2002", UN Resolution 1441, 689, 707, 715, 1284 and UK Parliament debate. All of these documents/speechs highlight other reasons for going to war other then WMD's and all were filed, or in the case of speech's held before the war took place.

I am trying to gauge if people feel that Bush never said any reason other then WMD's or if they feel WMD's was just a big reason or most publicized reason. Please give feedback, comments etc. I am asking this just to give people an idea, because of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, we as documenting history for this project need to show all information and not provide undue weight to only one of the reasons. --Zer0faults 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The war is most notable for
  1. a UN Security Council veto power lying to the Council
  2. spying on other members
  3. breaking the UN Charter with a war of aggression
  4. in spite of the biggest ever worldwide protests
  5. admitting that as holder of the biggest arsenal of WMD in the world it used WMD as the primary claimed reason just to appease the others
  6. documenting its own human rights abuses for the world press in the form of home videos
  7. inspiring the most widespread terrorism ever.

This should be reflected in the intro. Añoranza 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its an overview, if you mention WMD's then you have to mention that even the UN thought they were there by passing 1441. If you mention terrorism then I can add Zarqawi and al-Qeada in Iraq and his presence before the invasion. If you state there was lying to the SC then you have to prove that, which well you can't. Spying on other members? you really feel that is to go into an overview? Feel free to add what you want, I wont even remove your content, but I feel the following are important:

  1. Past resolutions by UN stating Iraq and terrorism, human rights violations, WMD's.
  2. Iraq's support of PALF if terrorism is mentioned.
  3. Al Zarqawi if terrorism is mentioned as he was in Iraq prior to invasion.
  4. UN stating that WMD's are not allowed by Iraq, no such statement against US.
  5. No proof ever offered of lying, just speculation and editorials.

Take in mind this is an overview and my additions would be to stop Undue Weight from taking hold of this article. --Zer0faults 16:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I think the article is best left as is, it is an overview after all. --Zer0faults 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Uranium Niger deal document presented by the US was shown to be a forgery the day after. If the UN can do this that fast you have to be a cynic to doubt that it was an intentional US lie. And the presence of whoever in Iraq before the war changes nothing about the fact that only after the invasion started the outrage became that widespread that violent Musilms have supporters around the world now, the number of attacks skyrocketed and the US got the worst reputation ever.
As to WMD treaties: "Negotiations for a legally binding verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention proceeded for years. In 2001, negotiations ended when the Bush administration rejected an effort by other signatories to create a protocol for verification, arguing that it would interfere with legitimate biological research." Añoranza 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This isnt a debate. I am simply telling you what would be added to stop the overview from undue weight if you insisted on adding those points to the overview, where they shouldn't be in the first place. The overview is not a place to make arguements. Also I dont see your point at all regarding WMD treaties, unless you claim to be an expert on the treaty and its implications etc, I dont know why you would even mention it. Also it was not shown who made the forgery, just that the document was a forgery, once again no proof US lied. Your bias however is becoming apparent, though I have faith you edit this article to present facts and for it to be NPOV. --Zer0faults 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Human rights abuses

I'm sure there were many examples of human right abuses and massacres commited by the US troops or US special forces. I've added some, but I'm sure I've left many out. Can anyone help in expanding the list? siddharth 06:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will work on it tomorrow by adding more abuses by both US and Iraqi and Insurgent forces. There have been many abuses on all sides. Hopefully any research you do will be to display human rights violations in general, not just US ones. --Zer0faults 13:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, the Brits also had their share. [69] [70] [71] But the US Marines made it to Current Events again by slaughtering 24 civilians. Añoranza 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this in reply to me? I dont see the relevance? --Zer0faults 16:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

In an attempt to settle this in a civil matter. What in your edit do you feel is being removed? your edit and mine are side by side here. I appreciate a response from you so we can resolve this, I do not want you to feel that your edits are being left out. Thank you. --Zer0faults 15:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

After the invasion no weapons of mass destruction were found and the Bush administration has since admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.[72][73] There is disagreement over the extent to which this inaccuracy was a matter of deceit or of intelligence failure. [74][75] Some politicians now regret their vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and feel they were misled regarding Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.[76] missing. Blix' quote "these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation." selective given the international consensus that more time should be given for the inspections as no threat could be seen. U.S. abandoned its efforts to receive U.N. endorsement for an invasion of Iraq euphemist given the international outrage about the violation of the UN Charter. Añoranza 15:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue of it being against International law etc takes place 2 more paragraphs down where its discussed about the polls. IT shouldn't be in the overview at all in my opinion as its arguementative, but I will add it to the paragraph discussing the polls so everything is complete, fair enough? --Zer0faults 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up can you clarify what you are saying regarding the Blix quote?

these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation.

This was what follows "active or proactive", a quote I did not add. It was misleading to have just that mentioned without stating what was said before or after. Blix was regarding issues that were outstanding when he said there cooperation was proactive or active, hence its misleading to represent it as a general comment on their cooperation. I added the final portion of the quote, its actually one sentence. --Zer0faults 16:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the current look if you are, nice to reach a concensus finally --Zer0faults 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the section of Human Rights Abuses, is there any reason my stub on depleted uranium keeps getting removed?

Cause you are not responding to calls on this discussion page about sources, correct formatting and etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio's feeling of Undue Weight

Can you please post what sentences in this revert you feel were giving undue weight toward US? Maybe we can reach a middle ground instead of a revert war. --Zer0faults 16:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to Michael Smith editorial.

In the section on Prior to the invasion someone added the following as a response to an explanation in a magazine editorial by one Michael Smith why some Iraqi installations were bombed:

While Mr. Smith's thesis regarding the purpose of this attack may be correct, he makes no mention as to why such an action would have been necessary. US forces could have easily entered Iraq via surface transport, thus negating any concerns of being detected by Iraqi air defense units.

Now, I know nothing about war strategies and/or tactics but even I can tell this response is an opinion (just as the explanation in the editorial is an opinion) and needs a source for it to be included. Lawyer2b 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering its an editorial and neither of these two seem to be of particular military knowledge, both should be removed. Who is Michael Smith to make such accusations, does he have any particular knowledge of military engagements? Can that quote be found anywhere else other then an editorial, i would prefer if the source was changed all together. --zero faults talk 11:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. He is a reporter who "writes on defence matters for the Sunday Times." That alone probably doesn't make him an expert but it may be that he had expert sources for the information. The reference link wasn't working so I fixed it. Take a look at his article and let me know what you think. Lawyer2b 12:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay Garner Section

Can anyone provide more sources for this section, perhaps make it something more then just what Jay Garner said. It seems as its just one persons idea and other then his opinion isnt actually supported by any facts. I am planning to remove it if more isnt added to it to support his ideas are not just his alone, preffering of course a real news source and not a bias sources requotting of his opinion. --zero faults talk 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I totally disagree with the idea of removing it and while I am personally proudly and clearly biased in favor of the United States, I want NPOV articles. So what if the quote is from a biased source? Garner, who is not just "some man on the street" I might add, did say it and it is a valid opinion that is correctly cited. Lawyer2b 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Its an entire paragraph on what Jay Garner said ... Doesnt seem like its being a bit overdone? perhaps shortening it or something. a retired general should not get his own paragraph when he isnt saying anything but opinion, he doesnt even claim to have proof of what he says. --zero faults talk 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq- the "Tar baby"

I have often wondered how we dragged ouselves into our current situation. I look back and realize every claim or reason for the invasion of Iraq was under false pretense. However, it seems the general consensus today that the reason we are in Iraq and the Middle-East is because we are waging a "war on terror." Who believes that rubbish? If we were fighting a "war on terrorism" then why are we only fighting in Iraq? There is terrorism everywhere on our planet. Obviously there are other motives at work in our current affairs. That is the most fundamental flaw in the whole idea of "war on terrorism." Now we are stuck deeper than I believe we can ever withdraw from our mess. There has been a long chain of material fabrication, lies, deceit, and ignorance that has befallen our very consciousness. I think it is time we open our eyes and our mind to the cruel truth. Whatever allusion that has been made to Iraq and 9/11 is obviously methods of yellow journalism. There is no such connection between the two, except fabrication and pretense. It is important as Americans that we understand where we stand in the world. America has a short, yet cruel and deceitful history of killing, torturing, and capitalizing on it all. Money is by far the greatest addiction to grasp man. The American dream is deeply rooted in the pleasure of placing your hands on the cash, but it comes with a curse. That curse is what we see today, saw yesterday, and will see tommorrow. My question is what will be the "Briar Patch"? --Existential Thinker 04:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Recommended references:FTW Watch THE TRUTH AND LIES OF 9/11[77] Enjoy!

Since I believe this "rubbish", I posted a reply on your talk page.  :-) Lawyer2b 08:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Haditha massacre

By including the "Haditha Massacre" in the Human Rights Abuse section, we are effectively convicting the Marines that are currently on trial. I think we need to wait until the trial is over.

Disagree.
All I see is the listing "Haditha killings (Under investigation)." Is the word Massacre used? If not, I believe it should be because this word fits every version of the story presented in the public, including Time, the US Marines, and the Iraqi Government. - Seele June 8, 2006.


I agree with Seele, this is about (current) history, not law. Just because something hasn't been decided by a court doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, if for example the Serbian army (JNA) didn't court martial those responsible for the Racak massacre in Kosovo doesn't mean that massacre didn't happen. It should be enough in the article to just mention that the marines charged/suspected of the massacre have not yet been convicted.KarlXII 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, you cannot call it a human rights violation if its not stated what happened there. How can peoples human rights been violated if perhaps as the marines said they were shooting at them. Also your statement "have not yet been convicted" is kind of the thing we are attempting to avoid. Without guilt or a better understanding of the situation I think its premature to put it in the human rights violation section. Personally I think they did it, however the jury is still out and the facts are not even all gathered yet. I would not object to it being placed elsewhere under incidents or investigations perhaps, a section thats title shows their has been no decision no the topic. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as long as NPOV, NOR, WP:Verifiability are maintainted you can call it a human rights violation even if it is untrue. As Wikipedia says "As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Like it or not, as long as there are reputable sources calling it a massacre and/or a human rights violation than it can be included in the article. In this case, the hard part is not NOR or Verifiability, it's NPOV, but there is also sufficent reliable sources contradicting the original reports that even NPOV is more a 'how to write it properly' issue.--Bobblehead 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling it a human rights violation in itself is POV. Every statement made in the media says allegedly or is alleged or some other form stating its not a fact, other then editorials. You cannot verify that it happened the way you are saying, there for you cannot state it as a fact cause you fail to be able to verify it. I also do no tthink anyone would appreciate you attempting to manipulate wiki policy for the sake of adding POV into an article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Vietnam

I see a lot of similarities between this war and the Vietnam War -- I believe a section should be added, documenting these similarities.

Only if warefare experts make that comparison and we can cite to them in reliable sources. On issues like this, it's especially important to avoid speculation and individualized assertions.
Agreed.
"Warefare experts"[sic]] are by nature deferential to warfare, and viewing war from a warrish point of view, rather than from a human one. We need not wait for "warefare experts" to make any comparisons. There have been plenty made already by various sources. -Ste|vertigo 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Has anyone bothered to consider the 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children who have paid with their lives because of Bush wanting to act macho? How many millions have been displaced? I see very little about the human cost.....and no this is not liberalism, this is just the reality of what is on the ground. As a returned GI I find this page offensive, as it treats the war so clinically.

Its an encyclopedia, its not suppose to treat the subject with anything in mind but the facts. If you want to add a verifiable source of displaced iraqi's and their effects etc its more then welcomed. However try not to insert statements like "because of Bush wanting to act macho" into the article as its clearly a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you are a new editor you may want to consult WP:NPOV before editing, however anything to improve the article is welcomed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a shoutout for personal opinion. Yes, I believe this war is terrible, that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died and over 3,000 coalition forces have died ever since the Hussein overthrow, plus the insurgents, according to Donald Rumsfeld himself on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, "go up and down". This, in my opinion, is utterly rediculous, however even with my opinions, this is NOT a place for it. I recommend message boards to vent your opinion, and I proudly use them every day as a "punching bag", if you will, to vent out my feelings. I also move to add note of the 12-hour debate going on in the House and debate in the Senate over this new bill to officially count Iraq as part of the War on Terror and to put off a timetable for a while. In fact, with a senior member of Wikipedia's permission, I'd like to start an article on this bill, as it has direct effect on the American people and the families of those that are fighting and serving or those who have had men die in the line of duty. John D'Adamo 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not a senior member, but starting the article does not seem to have any negative implications, it is a particularly important bill related to this event. As for mentioning it, I think we should wait on both mentioning and creating till after the debate, this way we can say what the result was and have it be more complete. It will be over by tomorrow anyway, are the definatly voting after the debate? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, it got shut down by the House. It really is too bad, as it means we're not even close to getting out of Iraq. John D'Adamo 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

U.S. equipment losses

The "U.S. equipment losses" has very dubious surcing from what appears to be a Partisan web site/organization. Can someone look into this?

What seems to be the problem? The report cited is from the Lexington Institute, but the information in the report comes straight from the military. Other sources all appear to be in order. Is there a specific point you have an issue with? Publicus 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about their issue, but is it possible to find these sources as released by the military, that way we have a first hand source? Not a complaint, jsut a reccomendation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, much better to have a first hand source. I'll keep looking.Publicus 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloated Lead

As I was trying to clean up the article I realized that the main casualty in the edit war over casus belli has been the lead paragraph. As people have attempted to represent each side by sticking in more sentences and citations the lead has become unwieldy. I know that this has been a contentious debate, and people have worked hard to improve this article and attain NPOV, but surely much of this information does not belong in the opening paragraph. An article this important and with so much effort put into it deserves to be readable and well structured. Pages such as Gulf War, Vietnam War and American Civil War do a good job of keeping only bare essentials in the opening and deferring controversy to later sections. I am going to work on tightening the opening by moving content to other sections. I do not wish to engage in debate about the war itself, I only want to beautify what is already an informative and well sourced article. I would appreciate any comments. Nscheffey 10:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

While I support you, you will not be able to edit the article to remove the reasons given for going to war, according to some editors if you remove WMD's they will just revert you. However I will always add the other reasons if WMD's are mentioned without stating the rest of the reasons given as per Undue Weight. If you remove any mention of the conspiracy some editors will just revert it, as they feel mentions of polls and koffi annans quotes should be in the header as well as trivia about its naming by the press secretary. Good luck though, hopefully you can trim down the junk in there. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason For Iraq Invasion?

I have a fiew Questions maybe someone could answere for me. A bunch of friends and i have been carefully trying to follow the war and the progress of the U.S.A. in Iraq. However, we are extremely confused to why they invaded in the first place. I have read many articles and have herd many theories regarding the invasion. I am from Canada and we have not sent any troops to aid the U.S.A in Iraq, but we have sent troops to Afghanistan to help out. In my understanding, it was Afghanistan who attacked the U.S.A in 9/ 11, right? So we have NATO, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, New Zealand, Italy, and Germany stationed in Afghanistan. My question is: why are the Amercians in Iraq if it is Afghanistan who has attacked them? So how can it be a war on terrorism if Iraq never attacked The US? I am sorry this is such a dumb question i was just hopeing someone could give me an educated answere other then "because Saddam is a jerk". I've herd about the weopons of mass destruction, but even if they did have nuclar weopons i'm sure its no where NEAR as much as the states has. ( i personally don't even think ANYONE should be aloud to have nuclear weopons .. but i'll keep on dreaming , right? ) I was also wondering why other countries have not joined the U.S.A in Iraq if it is as seriouse as i've been hearing. Thanks!

               ( although i originally posted this around the 6th i am just signing it now as i had forgot to - --Summer 16:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC) ) btw: ty everyone for the great feedback :)
Great input! Questions are always valued, in my opnion, over answers. So to your great dismay I will say that you are definitely on to something that many individuals are unable to grasp (i.e. that the idea and policy of the U.S. and the "War on Terrorism" is an utterly absurb conconction). If it is a "war on terror" then why are we only in Iraq, or at least have our focus there. Sure Suddam was a terrible dictator, but that doesn't justify a "war on terror". Iraq is one country that terrorism exists in, not all terrorism. If this war, the Iraq War, is trully a "war on terrorism" then what about all the other countries with terrorism? Are they next? Or is it geostrategy? I will provide questions to your questions, but answers I cannot give and neither can anyone else.--Existential Thinker 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea that the US has to attack every nation that contains terrorists at the same time is slightly flawed. Have you considered that launching a simultaneous invasion of 8+ nations may be impossible? Just to point out, the US is involved in a few nations in the form of funding anti-terrorism units, special operations soldiers to assist the current governments fight against terrorism, and negotiating with nations to take a harder stance against terrorist in their country, Pakistan, Phillipines, Afghanistan (you should know), Iraq (this invasion), Ethiopia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Thailand etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly my point why it is not a "war on terrorism".--Existential Thinker 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Your point that its not a war on terrorism; is that the US is fighting terrorists in 2 countries at the same time + funding operations or providing troops for at least 5 other operations? I do not understand, can you please elaborate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Putting that indent is messing up formatting, at least for me that is. But to address your questions. The US did not attack Afghanistan because it was attacked by Afghanistan, it attacked because they were harboring Osama bin Laden, who the US felt was behind the attacks. It has been confirmed by bin Laden after first denying it, he said he choose the hijackers himself. The taliban regime refused to turn over bin Laden to the US and so we launched an attack against them, partially because they were also a religiously oppressive regime. The main reason however was harboring bin Laden. There has been some talk that they told the US they would not get him for them, but they would not stop the US from getting him also, but that is just talk.
Isn't everything talk?--Existential Thinker 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
As for Iraq. Iraqi is part of the "war on terror" philosophy in which the US has pledged to remove regimes that support terrorism and harbor them, its also an extension of the cease fire between the US and Iraqi. The war in technical terms never ended, it was stopped in the form of a cease fire. The UN Security Council resolution 1441, the last to be passed not necessarily the most important, stated weapons of mass destruction as its primary reason, however also states previous resolutions. The previous resolutions cover issues of Kuwaiti POW's, returning Kuwaiti property, support of terrorists, human rights violations and I believe previous resolutions from the close of the first war regarding the removal of weapons inspectors. The US passed its own Resolution regarding Iraq, it actually passed more then one, however the last and most cited is Resolution 114. This resolution highlites weapons of mass destruction and their spread to terrorists, Saddams direct support for terrorism, human rights violations, POW's, Kuwaiti property, violations of the US/UK imposed no-fly zones, previous use of chemical weapons. As for why other countries have not joined the US, well that is false quite a few countries offered troops and relief workers as well as military personel for rebuilding infrastructure etc. The problem is many have left after members of their armed forces or relief workers were held hostage and used for ransom, like Japan. Since the war was highly protested and elected officials have to get votes, standing for a war that people are not for isnt always a good thing.
Yet the the U.S. is one the largest suppliers to terrorists in the world (e.g. Taliban) and the NYSE supports many terrorists leaders' investments (in fact the bin Laden family has a large some of stock in Pepsi Co.). The more you dig the more you will find to support this conclusion, but I must warn you I have been doing that for the past 6 years of my young adult life. In other words, it takes a lot of research to come to any reasonable conclusion.--Existential Thinker 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the sins of one man were to be cast upon that man's entire extended family...I hear they have a similar policy in North Korea where if a man commits a so-called "state crime", he and his entire extended family are either killed or imprisoned. Perhaps you need to research many members of Bin Laden's family who have publicly and repeatedly denounced him and his actions...including a niece of his who (I believe) is still attending school in NYC. --Jeravicious 18:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Its not even the porduct of much research, I seen Farenheit 9/11 and the whole Bush link to the Carlyle Group and what they have money in, which is about everything etc. The family disowned bin Laden long ago, I did not think anyone was actually debating that fact, he was a disgrace to them for his beliefs and how bad he made them look. Oddly enough all this does not change a single thing I wrote above, the Republicans believe the GWOT encompasses Iraq, the Dems dont. People were held hostage so their governments would leave, some did after those incidents, some lowered their troops numbers etc. The "US is bad also" arguement does negate other arguements. I can be a school bully, and yet still beat up on school bullys for beating up on nerds. Look at all the countries with nukes telling Iran they cannot have them, its not about being equal, and the world political arena is not based on it either. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As for weapons of mass destruction there has been plenty of debate. Primarily the fear was Saddam restarted these programs after the first war, this idea was supported by the fact that Iraq would not permit inspectors back in after the close of the war. Saddam had developed and used Chemical Weapons on the Kurdish population in the north, as well as the Iranian government. Its been speculated the US had given Saddam the precursors to these weapons for there use in this manor, however I do not believe its been proven for a fact that was the intended use, these things are verified easily. The other worry was the nuclear weapons program, Saddam before the first war was attempting to create a nuclear weapons program. The original inspection team from the UN had actually been issued warning shots while pursuing a truck carrying a component for nuclear weapons development, they later recovered and destroyed the piece. So the idea basically is that Saddam started these programs back up while inspectors were not around. During inspections that resumed before this current war the inspectors said the iraqi government produced documentation that X ammount of anthrax and VX were destroyed, they went on to say that it only made them worry how much was actually made, as that portion is not documented. However the inspectors did not find any WMD's during their time, and the US did not find any afterwards. The inspectors report states they feel Saddam was planning to restart the program once sanctions were lifted. The sanctions are things such as the Oil-for-Food programme the UN setup selling Iraqi oil for humanitarian causes for the people. It was later found out that some countries were allowing Saddam to exploit this program, however no countries will be named here as its speculation and I have not confirmed any of those thoughts personally.
Actually the EU supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war and suppiled them with WMDs, of which included chemical weapons that were used in the gasing of the Kurds.--Existential Thinker 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope these answers help you and your friends. I tried to cover everything in as much detail and as NPOV as I could. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Also in regards to nuclear weapons, while I also agree noone should have them, the US and other nations have signed basically a cease fire on creating nuclear weapons. Its been agreed by certain nations in the UN that certain other countries should not have these weapons, such as Iran, leading to the current crisis there. However they also agreed that certain nations can have these weapons, particularly the perm members of the Security Council. This has been debated however recently by the Iranian government as its pointed at Israels possession of a nuke, a country that under UN rules is not permitted to have one. That however is another arguement and is based on the idea that the middle east should stay a nuclear weapon free location. So its not really a who has more issue, or even who has them and is pointing at other having them, its more that the UN has declared who cannot have them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yet the U.S. will continue to make nuclear weapons.--Existential Thinker 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My honourable co-editor did not state the facts entirely correct. The reasons advanced for invading Iraq are the reasons advanced by Bush. Many critics, among which several NATO countries, had strong doubts as to the presented case. Most importantly the alleged WMD were disputed. Many felt there was insufficient evidence to warrant invasion and would not support military intervention, and because of that Bush went ahead without UN support. The claimed support by numerous countries was more emotional than military. Except for Britain, no major contribution was made regarding troops and resources. The suggested war against terror and spreading democracy is considered by many to be at odds with the Bush administration's close ties to known dictators. As to nuclear weapons, clearly the US is violating the treaty itself by developing so-called bunker busters. And Iran is entirely within its right, under the NPT, to develop nuclear energy as long as is does not make weapons, which it said it would not. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where I was wrong, but :

"While a nuclear penetrator (the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator", or "RNEP") was never built, the DOE was allotted budget to develop it, and tests were conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory."

Again please read the articles or at least do your own research, there has never been a Bunker Buster (nuclear) used in the battlefield. Or even made past the test phases. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the offered quote only substantiates my words that the US government is developing a bunker buster, I do not understand what it is Mr Zero is trying to tell us. The claim that it was never used is odious, since any weapon we can think of was, at some time, never used. It does not preclude the possibility it will be. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the article and be enlightened, the program has long been scrapped. Good job again Nomen. Research is a valuable tool, at least read the articles on wikipedia if you aren,t going to read the treaties themselves and do your own outside research, it helps. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't be gullable, the TIA was cancelled but the TSP is interestingly similar. Besides, you apparently know what the administration is doing beyond public scrutiny, I admire that. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh yes, if we cannot prove it, we will just say they are doing it behind the scenes. I am done responding to this thread as it now is based on conspiracy theories and not facts. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out I am not naive.

  • As you know, investigation in to the discrepancies surrounding the invasion of Iraq has been frustrated. Why?
  • The VP actively fights a new bill prohibiting torture, in effect claiming torture should be possible. Why does he do that if the US does not torture?
  • Legal advise states that to avoid legal challenges for war crimes the best thing to do is to refute the GC, see the torture memos. Investigation into this has been thwarted.
  • The Bush administration redefines torture in such a way that only if inflicted wounds cause death is it torture, contrary to the official definition under international law. Investigation into this has been thwarted.
  • NSA program is possibly illegal but any investigation into the matter is thwarted.
  • Without whistleblowers we would not know of this NSA program, what is the response to disclosing an illegal program, 1 there is no investigation, 2 those pointing out the administration is engaged in violating the law are prosecuted. Mind you, not those who break the law, but those who tell us about people breaking the law.
  • TIA was not allowed to continue, enter the NSA program. It is of course utterly paranoid to suggest that an administration that already proved it did not stop the program, although it was told to do so, would simply continue it yet again.

Clearly, in the face of so many oddities, reflecting on them is certainly not comparable to conspiracy theories. The fact you refuse to even admit there are many strange things tells me you are gullable. All I ask of you is to explain why even a serious investigation is not allowed. You don't have to answer, you are correct that continuing your monologue is not helping this article. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Strange thing" and "supporting evidence" and different things. My personal opinion which is different then what can be proven is that the NSA has always been spying on people in the country illegally, do I have any proof? Nope, which is why I do not put it into an article. Is there any proof the NSA did spy on domestic calls? There is proof the accidentally spied on one because of them using an itnernational cellphone. This does not equate to spying on domestic calls, if you made a grammatical error in a post, am I to say you have flooded wikipedia with giberish cause your posts are filled with grammatical errors? of course not, that would be stretching the situation, you keep asserting illegality before anyone has ruled such. If you want to continue the circle logic one could simply state, if it was illegal a court would have taken the case already.
As for definitions of torture, the government has its own opinions on what it is and does not feel outside courts deciding on it is appropriate, they also do not feel its appropriate for outside courts to judge their soldiers. So far soldiers have been punished for the crimes they have been found guilty of, I do not see what the big issue is. Unless you are contending there is a conspiracy to allow soldiers to violate the Geneva Convention and get away with it.
Investigation into the war has been frustrated ... I do not understand this vague statement, its not saying who is investigating, who is supporting that person or organization or who is frustrating it. If you mean some guy off the street wants classified documents to prove something, then I am happy its frustrated. The issue here is my personal opinion and what can be proven and stated factually are two different things. You keep telling me things I already believe, I think Bush is evil, I think Saddam is a pet project to make Republicans vote, same as gay marriage issues. I do not believe however that I can substantiate factually most fo what I believe and that is what this is about. I won't continue this because its a battle of opinions and I feel neither of us is really supporting our points adequatly with sources and information, and so we are both looking bad on this talk page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Also you keep saying "a serious investigation is not allowed" but this is actually false, the entire senate intelligence committee is being briefed on the NSA program, they are normally the only group that over sees such an issue. So the appropriate people now have access to what they need, not just a select group of 8.
There are serious investigations already ongoing by the Red Cross which has released reports already regarding Guantanamo Bay and the UN has as well and laid down a reccomendation. As for anyone else? Well the Senate controls the funding for Guantanamo as they do for all military bases and its on Cuba ... I mean the Senate can stop funding it, or Castro can attempt to attack it ... There are options here that noone wants to explore, if enough people in the Senate want it closed, they will stop funding it.
Serious investigations into the torture ... I do not know of any brought before US courts off the top of my head, but if you know of any point them to me and I can see what the courts ruling was. A tortured person cannot be prevented from making a court claim, it amy get thrown out, but then judge has to explain why. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

I have my opinions on the war, but this page is god damn ugly. We are letting the controversial nature of the subject fuck up the whole layout of the article. We need to incorporate the various arguments without sacrificing readibility and clarity. I'm going to streamline this thing, arguments be damned. Let me know what you think. Nscheffey 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work, prepare to get reverted however. But I agree with your changes at least, the overview was horribly ugly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing how much better the article looks w/o that monster intro. Rmt2m 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's actually supposed to have a monster intro according to WP:LEAD. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD section reccomends an intro no longer then 3-4 paragraphs, that does not state it has to be 3-4 paragraphs. Please see: Korean_war, Vietnam War, United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Seven_Days_War, Gulf_war ... etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No, WP:LEAD states exactly how long an intro should be: "The length should be one to three paragraphs, depending on the length of the entire article, and should never be limited to one or two short sentences." -- Mr. Tibbs 07:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you want to do Mr. Tibbs add back WMD's so I can add back the other reasons because of Undue Weight, just remember, its you starting an edit war because your the only one with a problem with the lead, do not try to blame it on me, I will just be enforcing Undue Weight. I hope I will be seeing you changing all the other overviews in the other articles I mentioned, considering you are concerned with policy and not just using policy to enforce your POV. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. Rmt2m 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I had an issue with this as the above user has posted this on pages that are not part of the dispute, the dispute is over the Operation Just Cause article. I am not going to make a comment on every section however addressing the problem with their posting, I left a comment on their page, one I am sure they will respond to. At least they are not calling me a sockpuppet in attempts to get people to voice their opinion against me like they have been noted to be doing, even after it was proven wrong. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"one I am sure they will respond to". Definitely the kind of behavior this RfC is about. It's not an article RfC about Operation Just Cause. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I figured you would as you have been staring at my contribution list everytime you login. However this is an inappropriate place for this conversation to be carrying on, remember this is suppose to be a neutral statement above, you are inflamming the situation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I replied on your talk page where its appropriate, this page is filled with lots fo talk that does not belong here, I do not wish to continue the pattern. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the heads up. I commented. Morton DevonshireYo

What is this RFC message doing here? It looks like it's being used as a weapon. Haizum 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

US wounded in infobox

Rather than revert this edit by Publicus, I figured I'd create a section on the discussion page. As Publicus notes, the number of US wounded in action is important, however, the lack of non-US wounded is not a valid justification for removing it. It should be justification for ADDING the counts for the other parties. The only issue is finding a source similar to icasualties.org that counts the non-US wounded.--Bobblehead 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You must keep in mind that most of the wounded in action have generally lost a limb or suffered some sort of lifelong debilitating injury (Brain damage the most typical) thereby permanently removing them from military service, hence for practical Purposes the same as a KIA.

Please do not mix wounded and KIA as anything near the same, a soldier can be struck in the foot with shrapnel and be wounded and removed from service, but its not to be confused with KIA. Soldiers can also be wounded and not removed from combat, such as John Kerry. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
(Typically because IED injuries most wounded have some sort of dismemberment injury and to be listed as wounded in action the soldier generally needs to have some sort of injury that permanently removes them from combat.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.34.1.66 (talk • contribs) 03:08, June 19, 2006 (UTC).
Yes but we do not take some incidents and turn them into facts for everyone. As an encyclopedia we should be striving for factually correct standing, blurring two seperate issues would be misleading to the readers. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Being an Encyclopedic article, I think any information about killed and/or wounded should be included in the article, ideally in a table of some sort. If the only info available is on US casualties, then include these all the same. Yes, best would be if it was possible to differentiate between killed (and even better between KIA and accidents) and wounded. KarlXII 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as an encyclopedia as much information as possible should be included. I think we just need a better source perhaps that states the difference between Insurgents and Terrorists, if one even exists for the practices of polling. I am not sure if those keeping track of the dead are asking if those killed are insurgents or terrorists etc. Where does the line get drawn? The terms have almost become inter-changeable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting problem Bobblehead. I think the number of US wounded should be included somewhere--however, we then run into the problem of not fully counting the other wounded from the coalition--and most importantly, the number wounded from the Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians. It's also important to note that this casualties box is a big improvement over the previous table that was used to cover this topic--this box is much more consise. Also, the reason I added the "Iraqi security forces" and the "Insurgents/Terrorists" casualties was to start a conversation about how this conflict is moving from a Saddam vs US/Coalition conflict, to a US/Coalition/New Iraqi vs Old Iraqi/Insurgent/Terrorist conflict. With the shifting loyalties on the ground it is getting much more difficult to count casualties on either side of the conflict. For example--imagine a scenario where an Sunni Iraqi police officer is killed by a Shia Iraqi army officer--which casualty does this example fall under? And then there are the militias, many of the "Iraqi civilian" deaths might also fit into there.Publicus 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

I would invite all who are interested to partake in the discussion that is taking place on this page. Rangeley 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To expand, Rangeley's proposal asserts these conclusions that we are going to vote on:

  • Part of the War on Terrorism means that the US went to Iraq to fight terrorism.
  • That it has been established beyond dispute that Iraq was involved in inrternational terrorism and the Bush administration had no way of knowing otherwise.
  • Resulting in the recognition of the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism.

--kizzle 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the compelling argument is the "The War on Terrorism" is the name of the campaign in which the US Government classifies the Iraq War. The only problem is that the name they chose for their campaign is prejudicial, and every time we use it without equivocation, we grant a huge segment of the political agenda of those prosecuting the war. Right? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That isnt my argument kizzle - and yes, Bacchus. That was edited in by Nomen Nescio as an attempt to distort the topic into a political issue. Rangeley 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm confused - I wasn't trying to agree with Kizzle just then. I was stating the issue as I understand it, not trying to rephrase those bullet points. I think I'm saying that the War in Iraq is definitely part of the campaign in which it is classified by those prosecuting it. I'm also saying that the name of that campaign is itself somewhat prejudicial, and that using it without remark entails picking up some baggage. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No longer confused, possibly redundant now. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying, if it wasnt clear, is that my argument is based on three points, the definition of the campaign, the classification as Iraq as a state sponsor of terror by the USA, and the classification of the Iraq war as a part of the war on terror from the beginning. Nomen continually inserts other points, such as those given by kizzle here. Rangeley 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet you have failed to cite a single source that would provide such a "classification of the Iraq war as part of the war on terror from the beginning". Rkrichbaum 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[78] Rangeley 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I just copied and pasted what was on the project page, I don't know who came up with what. --kizzle 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That is because you conveniently leave out what has been discussed above. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Because its not what we are talking about. Thats generally a good reason to leave it out. Rangeley 23:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Suddenly there's a crew in here. What's with Rkrichbaum's claim that we don't have any sources regarding the US government classifying the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism - is that true? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Near simulpost, Rangeley, hi. Rkrichbaum, what do you say to that link? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I already commented on that source here, scroll down a bit. The war powers resolution does not state that the Iraq war is part of the "war on terror". Some users apparently interpret the Joint Resolution in this way, but strictly avoid any comment on the fact that the conditions set out in this paper, namely that Iraq was harboring 9/11 terrorists, were not true and already in dispute. In addition, there was rarely a public statement averring that Iraq actually did, and the attempts to justify and garner support for this war were clearly focused on WMD claims, as everyone who was alive and conscious at that time is well aware. Thus no source from "the beginning" can be found that actually states that the Iraq invasion was part of the war on terror. (This claim is of a much later date and often cited by Republicans as reason for the troops to stay in Iraq. It clearly is a partisan view and disputed by most democrats in Congress. The overwhelming majority of the population also seems to disagree). Rkrichbaum 00:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;"[79] I dont know what you are looking for, they dont have to state the exact sentence "The Iraq War is part of the War on Terror" for it to be part of it. In this press conference with Bush, Blair, Aznar, and Barasso [80] before the war, Bush states the UN must address Iraq and be responsible "for the capacity to win the war of -- the first war of the 21st century, which is the war against terrorism." And another, [81] which was March 8th was a speech entitled "War on Terror." In it the President states "This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror" with one front being the capture of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad, the other being that the weapons inspector from Iraq has reported to the UNSC on his findings. He goes on to say "He (Saddam) provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries." And finally, on May 1st, Bush announced "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on." [82] I hope that clears things up. Rangeley 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
How many times do people have to tell you that it is not about what who said what and when, but whether stating as a fact, not opinion, that Iraq is invaded to fight terrorism is a fair representation of the known facts, again not opinion. If you want to tell us this is what Bush believed then state seen by Bush as part of the WOT. No, you want it to say part of the WOT, and that is a statement of fact and not opinion. Please see the numerous discussions where this has been told to you before and which you ignore and even refuse to mention in your severely biased poll. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Who started the WOT? Who can add conflicts to the WOT? Why do you think the US went to Iraq? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If the US government coined the term War on Terror then don't they, and they alone, determine who is part of that war. If that is the current party line then it is part of the War on terror. This argument is a joke. It provides Nescio a forum to argue his politics. You can argue until your head explodes. If the US government deems it part of the war on terror then it is.--Looper5920 10:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
In effect you are saying that if Bush says the moon is made of cheese then it is. Interesting opinion. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You can take your condescending attitude somewhere else you arrogant prick. What I am saying is that no one else on the planet is fighting a self proclaimed War on Terror. Thus, they set the terms. It's that simple. If they invade Greenland tomorrow and say it is part of the "War on Terror" then it is. It's the American name for a war that they are fighting. Who decides which conflicts make it up? You? God help us all --Looper5920 11:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Being rude does not become you, and yes, I accept your apology. As to the debate at hand, you still fail to understand the following

  • It is not limited to the US, it is a global conflict therefore it is ludicrous to deny other countries a say in the matter. Again, the US does not decide for the entire planet.
  • We are discussing the validatt of the claim that the US is fighting trerrorism in Iraq. Of course they are today but that is circular logic, or self-fulfulling prophecy if you like. What we have to establish is did the US invade Iraq to fight terrorism? Clearly that is a widely disputed staement and therefore wikipedia should not present this as fact.
  • If the US invades Greenland and the UN denies them that right, no spin, PR or talking points can change the fact that to the rest of the world the invasion of Greenland is a war of aggression and not part of the WOT!

Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me which countries involved int he global conflict have spoken out against the name, and of course source it. -zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
These were the first that came up at Google within 5 minutes: "Schroeder reiterated his commitment to the US-led war on terrorism, a policy he has pursued after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but said a war against Iraq is a different thing."[83]; "Chancellor Schröder told Newsweek that he did not expect a unilateral American action against Iraq, while a government official in the Foreign Ministry spoke harshly against the Americans “settling old scores” and using the war against terror as an excuse for finishing off the Gulf War."[84] Rkrichbaum 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There are not countries saying the name is invalid. They are countries that did not take part in the later conflict. Out of all the nations where the Global War on Terror is being fought, only two are speaking out against Iraq, says much about how the global community feels about its inclusion in the WOT. Also would you consider Phillipines part of the WOT and Operation Enduring Freedom? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you tell me where it says wars of agression cannot be included in the War on Terrorism. Please source this as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
A war of aggression "is the supreme international crime".[85] Defensive military actions is sanctioned, such as in Resolution 1373 which states that "any act of international terrorism, constitute a threat to international peace and security, (...) the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations". Military action against a terrorist threat has therefore to be defined as defensive in nature. Which is why US government officials went out of their way to make their opinion known that Iraq posed an "immediate threat" ... Rkrichbaum 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt matter if its illegal, the point being, you cannot say a war of agression is bad and so any war of agression cannot be the basis for the WOT. That would remove most of WW2 then as well, since Germany started most of those conflicts as wars of agression, see the problem with stating that it has to be excluded ismply because its a war of agression? Most wars start as wars of agression, some one has to cast the first stone so to say. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and it's applicability

In the event that there is a fact disputed by two significant sides, our Neutral Point of View policy requires that we describe both sides of the conflict, as I have attempted to do in the current revision. Please do not engage in stale revert wars over the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)