Talk:Multinational force in Iraq/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Canada 1.1 1 Liason Officer 2 NZ Casualty 3 Hondurian withdraw 4 Dutch section 5 Iraqi soldiers 6 UK 7 Italy 8 Occupation & Resistance 9 Norway,Tonga and Singapore 10 Ruling of Ukraine's "Verkhovna Rada" 11 Hungarians are gone 12 Quick Victory 13 Distinction among forces: coalition vs. reconstruction 14 Insurgents Section not relevant to the topic 15 Reference 16 Finding consensus on images 17 Images 18 source/context 19 Participants 20 Change of Title: to "Coalition of the Willing" 21 Contractors 22 Possible Italian withdrawal 23 Conscription a non-issue 24 Move 24.1 Split instead? 25 Afghanistan 26 Romania 27 +100 states to 1 state...

[edit] Canada

The part about the involvent of Canada in the conflict is misleading. It says "Canada, which was heavily critisized for abstaining from the conflict by citizens on both sides of the Canada/US border". Actually, the government of Canada intended to participate in the War, but overwhelming protests and public opinion led the governement to change his mind and abstain from sending soldiers. So, it's the other way around: the governent was eavily critisized in Canada when it was found out canadian soldiers were in fact embedded in US forces.

Above statement is also incorrect. There is no evidence that the government of Canada intended to participate in the war. Paul Heinbecker, Canadian Permanent Representative to the UN (00-03), worked very hard to obtain more time for weapons inspectors. Europe was willing (UK, Fr., Germany, Russia), but US had not interest. There were NEVER protests against the Government of Canada. Protests occurred after Canada decided to stay out of the war, and were centred on the US. Canada was criticised by opposition parties for the participation of less than ten navy personnel participating in Iraq on a NATO exchange. However, Canada's participation in the Coalition and now NATO operations in Afghanistan frees 2300 US troops to fight in Iraq, and the New Democratic Party is correct in stating that this is de facto aid to the US operation, since it would be Americans in Kandahar if Canada wasn't there.

[edit] 1 Liason Officer

Is there really only one Canadian trooper in Iraq? If so, who is it?Ye Olde Luke 05:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NZ Casualty

The referance to New Zealand suffering a casualty in iraq appears to be wrong, I can't find any referance on the NZDF website and it doesn't google.

--Alec

[edit] Hondurian withdraw

I think that the Hondurian governement said it's decision was justified by the nomination of the former US ambassador in Honduras John Negroponte as US ambassador in Iraq. But it has to be checked.

[edit] Dutch section

• Netherlands - Independent contingent of 1,400 troops in Samawah (Southern Iraq). On June 1st, government renewed troop stay through 2005. Netherlands has lost two soldiers in a separate insurgent attacks. In addition, one Danish civilian engineer was killed in March 2004 in an attack.

one Danish civilian engineer.. -> Souldn't this be: -> one Dutch civilian engineer.. - Golf

• • I reinserted this fact with Danish changed into Dutch... - Golf 17:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi soldiers

So when do we start including "Iraqi soldiers" as part of the multi-national coalition?

Are US-UK forces the only military operating inside Iraq now? (September 2004)

Is the new sovereign Iraqi government using foreign armies to prop itself up, or does it have forces of its own?

If Iraq does have an army again, is it only "keeping order" in quiet, peaceful places? Or does this new Iraqi army have a role in putting down the anti-democratic insurgency? --Uncle Ed 19:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Look, the entire warfare that is being waged in Iraq is tribal. This simply means that local Warlord/Clerics are using there influence in trying to get more power. It is an old way of rule that we can see all over history and currently in counties like Afghanistan. There is nothing to be done about this by any other country/army. Basically if we would have wanted a stable Iraq we would have wanted Sadam Housein in power. And than gradually transformed the country into an Democracy by putting money in the pockets of the people... Golf 18:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] UK

The text says, Blair is planning an expansion. But according to the latest news [1], a reduction is more likely. How old/accurate is the "expansion" info? This needs to be updated -- Chris 73 Talk 04:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Italy

it saysIn March 2004, four Italian mercenaries were taken hostage in Iraq. no italian newspaper thinks they were mercenaries

No Nazi newspapers called Nazi soldiers 'monsters' or 'war criminals'.

...and in fact many Italian sources called them mercenari, including the particularly authoritative judgement of judge Giuseppe De Benedictis, who was in charge of investigations regarding the kidnapping [2]. Judge De Benedictis meant this as a technical, not derogatory term: he said it was a "question of grammar" [3].

Italy is erroneously coloured purple as having formerly had forces in Iraq. However, even with the new decision from Prodi, the Italian forces remain in Italy and no fixed date has been set for their withdrawal. Rune X2 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation & Resistance

Cut from article:

Many cities and villages across Iraq have been encircled by occupation forces; and thousands of Iraqis having been arrested and killed to crush popular resistance in order to occupation.

"Many" means more than a few. Please list thes cities and villages somewhere further down in the article -- preferably in the same or next paragraph.

"Thousands ... killed" fails to distinguish between unarmed civilian non-combatants and armed insurgents (such as guerrillas or terrorists).

---

Dozens of 'American civilians' killed fails to distinguish between murderers & theives such as 'civil engineers' & mercenaries and innocents such as aid workers & missionaries.'

"Popular resistance" is POV. Please cite opinion polls or other sources, if you think "resistance" to "occupation" has popular support. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

'Liberation', 'nation-building' are also POVs, which you mostly hear from the side of the US public.

[edit] Norway,Tonga and Singapore

Are these troops still there?Because the official MNFI website does not list them as participants and if they include 12 Moldovans,they'd certainly include 45 Tongans? Also I think as long as Norwegians are still there (even if only ten) I'd still count them as participating.

The 45 Tongan marines are still there. Norway has 10 liasion officers in Iraq. Singapore has some kind of a ship in the Gulf with 180 crewmembers, but no soldiers on the ground.

[edit] Ruling of Ukraine's "Verkhovna Rada"

Does this mean all Ukrainian troops will be withdrawn from Iraq? If so, what kind of time frame are we looking at?

[edit] Hungarians are gone

News today said the Hungarians completed their withdrawal,so I'll change their status.

[edit] Quick Victory

I removed the following text from the introduction:

After a quick military victory (attributed by some to "shock and awe") the Coalition -- primarily an initiative of the United States with major support from the United Kingdom -- hunkered down to a long period of occupation.

The military is not yet victorious. There are as many coalition casualties now as there were in the first few months[4].

Ben Arnold 13:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction among forces: coalition vs. reconstruction

It is not clear what role each nation played in Iraq. Not all were part of the invading coalition, but only there for reconstruction purposes (eg. NZ). The opening paragraphs paint quite a different picture. Daniel Collins 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)\

[edit] Insurgents Section not relevant to the topic

And also biased.

[edit] Reference

If anyone's interested, this article is used as a source in Niall Ferguson's Colossus:The Rise and Fall of the American Empire as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq#Invasion_coalition in chapter 4 notes. Sjjb 09:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finding consensus on images

On 11th December, User:Pisslub-S removed the image Polish_soldiers_iraq.jpg from this article and replaced it with six other images. I would like to apologise for reverting this edit as most of the pictures were reasonable. However, the violent images at the head of the article did not relate directly to the focus of the article (the composition of the multinational force) and in this way were biased. I in no way want the censorship of any of these incredibly important (historic, and internationally infamous) images which are verified and have been published by the Washington Times, e.t.c. but these images should be placed in relevant articles such as Human_rights_in_post-Saddam_Iraq. I will happily support any attempt to place such images in the relevant articles.

For this article I propose that the images Ro_apc.jpg, and Ied_alert2.jpg, 10845_danish-troops-3-8-2004.jpg and the original Polish_soldiers_iraq.jpg are replaced in the article. Some will need a crown copyright tag. I would like to hear other opinions on this. Sjjb 14:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I removed the photo of the Polish soldiers because I believe that both the neutral and the bad sides of the coalition need to be publicised. I think that images of dead Iraqi civilians and guerillas are relevant because the majority are caused by the occupying forces. Instead, they are displayed as if they are defending their country, and the Iraqis are the invaders.

I have no problem with keeping images of the soldiers, as long as their victims are also included. This is the case with almost any article on war or conflict in Wikipedia, and the current events in Iraq are no different.

[edit] source/context

The first American President known to have publicly mentioned acting with a "Coalition of the Willing" in place of a UN Mandate was Bill Clinton. Source it, put it in context Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No source after almost a year; it's been removed, along with the following sentence.--Planetary 05:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

A general comment, has anyone noticed that most of the most visible leaders of the Iraqi war/coalition of the willing Bush, Blair and that Italian guy are all in deep trouble for one reason or another now? I wonder if Howard will be next... Nil Einne 12:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a simplistic comment you make. Who were the 2 main guys against the war? Schroeder (of Germany) & Chirac (of France). What's happened to Schroeder? He was turfed out because he ran an inefficient government who's timidity, in terms of economic reform, undermined his authority - whilst Chirac, who initially wanted to run for another term as President next year, is a lame-duck President who's authority is leeching away to Sarkozy & De Villepin in lieu of next year's election. Seems they're certainly not doing any better than Blair, Bush or Howard (Mr. 70% Approval Rating!) Don't think Howard will be next Nil, no matter your wishful thinking. jkm 22:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of Title: to "Coalition of the Willing"

The term "Coalition of the Willing" is used predominatly in the article and the talk, and the term "Multinational force in Iraq" is not.

My 2 cents. --P-Chan 18:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I propopse a move below. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contractors

What's with the use of apostrophes on the word contractor? It's a term for any private personell contributing to the reconstruction, which could be both security measures and, for example, building a bridge. The way some of you use this term, one would think it's a synonym to private military contractor. I'm sorry sensationalists, the structural engineers aren't armed with machine guns. Joffeloff 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Most contractors, regardless of whether they are truck drivers, engineers, or armed mercenaries are in essence working for the occupying troops, and even those who don't carry guns often pay other PMC firms to guard them. But I agree, the distinction between their roles should be made clearer.

[edit] Possible Italian withdrawal

The Union appears to have won the elections in Italy. Part of their platform is immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Since Italy has over 2,000 troops in Iraq, this could be a fairly big deal. We'll have to see what happens. --Descendall 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conscription a non-issue

From the article:

Some of the countries in the coalition (Poland, Romania, South Korea) still practice conscription, which raises the issue of whether some of the military forces might not be part of the coalition voluntarily.

But of course there are a fair number of professional British and American soldiers opposed to the intervention as well; the coalition is one of national militaries, not of individual soldiers. I'll remove this bit if noone objects.--Pharos 07:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I believe that the original and only reason for this section was to emphasize the "unwillingness" in the Coalition of the "Willing", which I think is a point worth mentioning. Also, removing the piece on conscription would make this section entirely on Costa Rica's exit, and I am not sure that deserves a whole section. I guess we need more comments on what to do with this material. TheMrE 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Although South Korea does practice conscription, it appears that the Zaytun Division is an all-volunteer force. See this Korea Times article. Perhaps the same is true for Poland and Romania?-- Visviva 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Denmark also has conscription, but only sends volunteers to Iraq. But even if it wasn’t so, the whole issue would remain quite irrelevant, since it’s not a coalition of individuals but a coalition of countries. Rune X2 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

More common title, used by international and U.S. media. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection. This seems like a grossly POV title to me. WP:NPOV trumps Wikipedia:Use common names. -- Visviva 05:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I object. Especially since the current forces are not the original coaltion. In fact, there used to be a seperate article called 'coalition of the willing' but it was merged into this one. Czolgolz 05:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection. Polish soldiers are a part of the Multinational force in Iraq yet polish media never use the polish equivalent of the term "coalition of the willing". Maybe the the term "coalition of the willing" is only frequently used in the US? Mieciu K 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 10:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I object What about Afghanistan??? it was a member of the "coalition of the willing" lol. Furthermore there is no mention of what has happened to its troops. It is coloured in blue in the first image but not the second. In my opinion the term is Bush propaganda and should not be given much credit. What is the translation to spanish? "la coalicion de los deseosos" ? It makes it sound as a bunch of gays who want it up their arses. 88.15.59.243 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split instead?

My bad. Now that I think back on it a split would have been more appropriate than a move. "Coalition of the Willing" is worthy of its own article, just perhaps not this one. Would having a daughter article for the original members of the MNF called Coalition of the Willing be unreasonable or should that be an article about the ter

[edit] Afghanistan

What happened with its troops? There is no mention of it role in the coalition, except that it is coloured blue in the first image.88.15.59.243 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania

Someone moved Romania to the withdrawn countries section. I knew they were planning on pulling out by now, but does anyone have a source? Also, how do you edit that template? Czolgolz 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Romania has NOT withdrawn from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/09/content_5306736.htm How do you edit that template that shows them as withdrawn? Czolgolz 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] +100 states to 1 state...

• is there a similar article with the deads by country?
• does anyone know why Israel didn't sent any men? same for the Taiwanese. thanks.
• a "+10,000" "+100,000" separated chart cells would be more neutral (or fair) as it would show the real face of this "multinational" force. To send 3,000 men is not really like sending 250,000... don't you agree?
• Amazing! why Mongolia is involved with this? it was a sovietic country and the people in the capital are starving as much as those in North Korea. purely unbelievable! must be some economical support deal with the US behind this isn't it? Shame On You 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)