Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Enduring Freedom article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

--Kumioko 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Commentary on the Name of Operation

The phrase enduring is ambiguous, and it is somewhat surprising that this ambiguity was not raised in these discussions.

In the usual intended sense it obviously referred to freedom that would last. Others, could view it as meaning that freedom imposed by American weaponry is something to be endured. --Eclecticology, Thursday, May 30, 2002

Chomsky pointed this out early in the campaign @ http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--04.htm
The other point is, nobody seems to have noticed it but, the word ‘enduring’ is actually ambiguous. It can mean ‘lasting’ or it can mean ‘suffering from’. So, I’m enduring pain is another interpretation of ‘enduring’ and, in fact, if you think of the kind of freedom they impose and enduring freedom in the other sense, that is: ‘somehow living with the horrendous consequences of it,’ is not an inaccurate description.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the original name of the operation was "Infinite Justice" not "Ultimate Justice." Factician 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Per my comment above, I am changing the text to say the initial name was "Infinite Justice" rather than "Ultimate Justice." The reference from The Guardian does state "Ultimate," however, I have found numerouse mainstream sources that confirm that it was actually "Infinite." These include CNN, the BBC, Salon, and other articles from The Guardian, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/20/infinite_justice/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563722.stm http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/gen.america.under.attack/ Factician 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Goodthinkfulness... though I distinctly remember a lot of back peddaling, and doublethink/newspeak (like many other, horribale mistakes made in this ongoing international disaster...) Both citations are correct, it was called BOTH, most sources including the 911_comission omit the second as they are precieved as synonymous... but there you have it, Wiki is not with out "Eric Arthur Blair-esk" problems. I will not be supprised if my entry here is deleted aswell... To Quote only the first two Headers of the "newspeak" article here on wiki "Basic principles of Newspeak" (Subcatagorised as:) "To remove synonyms & antonyms"... John Doe or Jane Doe 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of OEF

"the campaign is regarded as limited to punishing the Taliban and eliminating their potential to attack the US again": this makes it sound like the Taliban have attacked the US before. Is that so? If not, perhaps it should be rephrased.--branko

The view of the US, i.e., the Bush administration, is that the Taliban did attack the US before; they regard the 9/11 attacks as being done by (or at the behest of) the Taliaban.
No, they don't. They believe the were carried about by Al-Qaida, at the beshest of bin Laden with the support of the Taliban -- User:GWO
Oh, my mistake. Then the US is punished the Taliban for supporting Al-Qaida. This is getting tricky. Feel free to revert my edits, if I messed up. --Ed Poor 09:27 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
Naturally, the 'pedia can neither support nor oppose this position. So the rephrasing should clarify that the "before" and "again" represent the US position. As in The US believes that the Taliban conducted or supported the 9/11 attacks, and the campaign is intended both as to punish the Taliban for 9/11 and to prevent them from attacking the US again. (If needed, we might add something like the following Mustapha Buwalla, a spokesman for the Blah Blah Coalition, denies that the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11 and thus regards the US campaign as totally unwarranted, labeling it an "act of naked imperialist aggression.") --Ed Poor 09:18 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)


[edit] redundant with US invasion of Afghanistan

I think this page should redirect to U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which gives a much more thorough treatment to the same subject. DanKeshet


I disagree, Dan. This page serves as a sort of disambiguation page. Furthermore, the "Operation" and the "invasion" are not identical.

  • Here is one difference: OEF was a campaign to stop and/or punish the Taliban. The invasion of Afghanistan was a tactic used in that campaign.
  • Another difference is that the invasion itself has been the subject of speculation and commentary. Is it for nation-building? Is it a violation of sovereignty? Does it constitute an "attack on" Afghanistan? Meanwhile, OEF (the military campaign) has a focused objective.

Thus, the topics are sufficiently distinct to stand alone. Please don't delete this article, unless (A) you merge everything it says into the other article and (B) others get a chance to see that your merge really is better. --Ed Poor

This is wrong. Operation Enduring Freedom was the name for the military campaign, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The name for the political framework under which the campaign was taken is the War on Terrorism. I will attempt to merge any content from here into U.S. invasion of Afghanistan before redirecting. DanKeshet

Last call for further objections before I redirect this page tomorrow. Every useful piece of information in this article is now covered in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan article. DanKeshet

If you say all the content is merged and in, I trust you. Just leave this talk page, okay? --Ed Poor 15:09 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

This page should absolutely be redirected to U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Newspeak of the US government has no place here. --SpinyNorman 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, some asshole has a bot that automatically reverts attempts to redirect this page to the better article. What a scumbag! --SpinyNorman 23:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are inappropriate here, also perhaps that is a symbol you should attempt to seek a discussion instead of just moving it. I vote its fine. US invasion of Afghanistan is not appropriate, if you read the article you would see why. Operation Enduring Freedom is larger then 1 conflict. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resurgency

I realize that there's a link on the article that goes to a page that addresses this fact, but I still think that it should be mentioned within this article under the heading "Effectiveness of U.S. invasion of Afghanistan" that there has been a resurgency of Taliban forces in Southern Afghanistan, and that the Taliban in addition to other warlords retain a great amount of sovereignty outide the area around Kabul.

[edit] mujahiddeen

...the Taliban also had their mujahiddeen

[edit] "War on terror"

As this is a widely criticized propaganda term it should not be used without quotation marks and further comment. Añoranza 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear on when propaganda stops and policy or historical jargon begins; is it possible for a propaganda term to pass into circulation and become generally accepted, international and bipartisan policy motives? would it not be sufficient to qualify it with something like the 'US declared war on terror' and save discussion for the war on terror page? Mrdthree 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I second the idea presented by Mrdthree, I think this discussion needs to be decided on the appropriate page War on Terrorism. If that article is allowed to stay then that would signify that it is infact not a propaganda term in Wikipedia eyes. --Zer0faults 01:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Propaganda terms are often notable and can very well have their own articles. But they should not be used without quotation marks and a statement that they are propaganda terms when used elsewhere. Añoranza 00:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Its a government policy. IT has been existence for 4 years. It has had ramifications. These need to be studied. WHether you like it or not is irrelevant.Mrdthree 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to second this, its government policy and should be documented.Mrdthree has a good arguement. --Zer0faults 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It is documented, and it is indeed irrelevant if we like it. It is relevant that the term is propaganda and widely criticized. This must be noted in a neutral encyclopedia. Añoranza 01:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Please follow concensus, as you asked me to on 2003 invasion of Iraq, which I no longer edit. Thank you. --Zer0faults 01:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As there is no consensus that the propaganda term is no propaganda term the neutrality tag need s to stay. Añoranza 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
First its not a neutrality tag, its a comment you are leaving, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on how to use POV tags and where they are appropriate. Also myself and Mrdthree have stated we feel this is not the appropriate section, where as you alone seem to contend that, hence the concensus is against you. I follow concensus in other articles where you voted against my view, please respect it here. You cannot support concensus then directly violate it elsewhere. --Zer0faults 14:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As you know very well, there is another user who agrees that the propaganda term cannot be used without quotation marks and comment. [1] As you refuse to allow a specified NPOV tag I have to put the big one for the whole article, complete overkill. Añoranza 19:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that POV tags are overkill feel free to discuss it on the appropriate Wiki policy page. --Zer0faults 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
As I already explained I fell that a POV tag for a whole article is an overkill if the neutrailty of only one phrase is disputed. Usually there is an NPOV tag for headers or sections in such cases, but in a box it does not work. Obviously if there was a reasonable debate it could be handled here rather than make it a general wikipedia policy problem. Añoranza 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you managed to find the correct tags, now that you have tagged it can you please lay out your factual information below regarding why you did it, so people can present counter arguements and perhaps we can come to a concensus on the issue. --Zer0faults 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JTF GTMO

I wanted to know why JTF GTMO is not included as an operation in Operation Enduring Freedom? can anyone address why JTF GTMO was deleted, and WHY? JTF-GTMO falls under OEF. WHy has it been ommitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Go ahead and include it and let me know what it is. Añoranza 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine I understand how is does have a title of "Operation" however maybe we can expand this page to include geography of how large this operation is. Bottom line JTF GTMO is part of OEF, should be included somewhere.


_______________Do you mean Gitmo, Cuba?? if you do: It doesnt belong anywhere near OEF as a combat operation. Let those prison guards go deploy somewhere and see some real combat instead of chilling in sunny cuba playing soccer with al-queda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.88.211 (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What was the original name of OEF?

I remember it had the word "Crusade" in it but Bush changed it after he realized that it sent the wrong message. I'm surprised that the article doesn't even bring that up.

The name you are referring to is "Infinite Justice"-it is included int he article

  • Yeah, that's right. I was thinking about the fact that while it was named "Infinite Justice", Bush referred to it as a "crusade".
    • It had both the name "Infinite Justice" precided by "Ultimate Justice" first because of the exageration of the word infinite, then because Islamic clerics pointed out that only Allah can provide Ultimate Justice... I found it quite funny that FOX news had a real hard time keeping up with the frequent name changes. John Doe or Jane Doe 10:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

  • is anyone opposed to adding a geography potion to show that this operation, and units are not just in Afghanistan, HOA, and the Phiilipines?

RUSMCUSA

[edit] 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 07:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV flag

I removed the POV flag from the template includer (Part of War on Terrorism). The flag is at the wrong place; the user who put it there argues that the term War on Terrorism is not a neutral term (the POV flag is already in place in the concerned article). Even if that were the case, it was no bearing on the neutrality of the statement "Part of the War on Terrorism", because it doesn't matter how you term the NATO anti-terror operations: Operation Enduring Freedom IS part of them. This has nothing to do with a personal point-of-view. Putting the flag there in the first place was a logical fallacy on part of the user who did so. Cheers, Something Wicked 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia?

In the article it lists Russia as one of the combatants on the U.S. side, but I wasn't aware of Russia providing any military assistance. Anyone have any info? --Skyler Streng 08:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Have U.N forces had any involvement in Afghanistan post U.S invasion - i thought they had - i.e peacekeeping forces, but probably got that confused with NATO forces...Any info?

I have been wondering the same myself... Esaborio 08:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this ponderous also; I've never heard of Russia contributing. On the contrary, I would think of Russia aagainst the war. Also, Germany isn't listed as one of the combatants and they are one of NATO's military leaders.--Porsche997SBS 05:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Russian military advisors are located in Afghanistan and possibly a motorized infantry division. The infantry division is denied. Russia also supplies intelligence to the US in support. [2]


Actually we (Russia) ARE in this. We've been fighting in Chechnya for over a decade now. Except no one seems to be on OUR side in that war. While evry one supports the US and NATO in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, when it comes to Russia and the Chechen War, everyone seems to be on the Chechen side! And don't forget, in the first Afghan War, the Soviet one, the Americans GAVE Taliban, who were called Mujahadeen back then, and I know this, I was in that war, the West gave them money and weapons! You, NATO people, say you fight for democracy? I say you are all fucking hypocrites who like seeing Russian soldiers die! Damn you all to hell!

                 Sergei

[edit] Propaganda term

Please note that the title of this article is a propaganda term and thus should not be used when avoidable. Añoranza 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to redirect this to the much better article US invasion of Afghanistan but was thwarted by some weasel's moronic "bot". Any thoughts (other than boiling the bot's creator in oil)? --SpinyNorman 00:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It responds to page blankings, have you considered adding the redirect, without actually blanking the contents of the page? --172.148.254.250 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
also your redirect was malformed, so the bot probably just took it for vandalism.. I'm not sure the redirect is going to go over well, but I've fixed it for you anyway--172.148.254.250 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Even worse, redirecting to U.S. invasion of Afghanistan creates a double redirect--172.148.254.250 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
also, when one merges an article, one typically merges the content too, not just a redirect--172.148.254.250 00:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This article and US invasion of Afghanistan are not to be merged, they are not similar incontent. Anyone who reads this article would see Operation Enduring Freedom is an umbrella name for 3 other operations taking place around the world. Please read the articles before taking up other peoples campaigns. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • He called an anti-vandalbot a biased pusher of rightwing propaganda, what happened to the days where you actually used believable starwmen? It used to be an art form for you, now it's just some kind of strange campaign against wikipedia, get over yourself--172.148.254.250 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone who isn't a non-entity wants to come along and restore the article, be my guest, I couldn't care less, spend all your time flaming yourself, see if I care--172.148.254.250 01:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks, and nothing was directed at the bot, as the bot stopped the blanking of the article, it did not move it ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • seriously, you used to be better at this--172.148.254.250 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not avoiding a block, I'm ignoring you, that's completly different--152.163.100.197 02:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] semi protected

I have semi protected this page to stop this nonsense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it was becoming counter-productive. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move / Merge Question

A lot of the material in this article overlaps with that in Operation Enduring Freedom. It might be worthwhile to merge most of it here and turn the other page into a disambiguation (of sorts) between the Afghanistan and Phillipines operations. Kirill Lokshin 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree.--James Bond 13:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, Operation Enduring Freedom is about the umbrella operations, 3 to be exact. It would be inappopriate to merge it into (1) erasing the other 2 operations. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
My point was that we shouldn't split the actual narrative of the operations in Afghanistan between that page and this one. The Operation Enduring Freedom article should be written at a fairly global level, discussing all three operations (or just disambiguating between them, since all of them have articles in their own right); right now, it's basically a copy of this article with some details stripped out. Kirill Lokshin 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Operation Enduring Freedom should be expanded, but not merged obviously. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article with the propaganda title should be made into a redirect. Añoranza 04:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So you feel the content relating to the 2 other operations should be discarded? OEF is not just about Afghanistan, it may serve you well to read the article before commenting further. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please read what others write before you comment on it. Or don't you know what disambiguation means? Añoranza 04:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Another rude comment. I will not replying to you further here today because of this. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This is also being discussed in the wrong place as the merge tag points to the talk page of OEF, therefore not all users may be able to find where this discussion is taking place. Can we move it over there? I will copy and paste everyones comments. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OEF should not be merged by should have a geographical account of what is goin on, and should have a link tot he war in afghanistan, war in phillipines, was in Horn of Arica, the GTMO camp......this article just deals with afghansitan, and that is what is wrong here....Rob 03:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct I was working on expanding the Phillipines article this week and will work on gathering information for the others, then incorporating summaries into here, just give me time. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Overhaul

I got bored and expanded the article, and cut down on the Afghan information. What does everyone think? I still need to gather more information regarding OEF-HOA and create at least a military stub for it. However the information regarding OEF-P is now in place as well as a smaller OEF-A section and a OEF-HOA mentioning. This should stop people from actually wanting to merge the article now that its individuality has been established. More to come. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it is is better structured, however a MAP, with all countries desgnated as countries where OEF is being conducted would help the article...As yu have said OEF is not just Afghanistan, Phillipines, or even HOA, its Uzbekisan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, all these things.....Here is a link to the US. Army's versiaon of OEF, they clarify OEF for combat zone purposes.... https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/TAGD/awards/Message_Reference_Index/Subfolder__151-175/159.pdf ...wartime awards for OEF https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/TAGD/awards/Message_Reference_Index/Subfolder__151-175/157.pdf ...designated Global war on Terror area (omit Afghanistan, and Iraq, and you have the entire geographical outline for OEF) BOTTOM LINE, OEF IS MUCH MORE THAN AFGHANISTAN, LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!Rob 10:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also to make it easier, the Globar War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal may be used for a reference for geography purposes. Rob 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That just says where soldiers are that can be included, however articles would need to be written so I need information about the actual operations being conducted if you can supply that. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well GTMO is one of them (the GTMO Bay Detention facility camp, Kosovo Operations are probably classified for OEF purposes, but it's a start.Rob 10:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page?

As it mostly says the same as United States war in Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines, and Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa, I think this should be used as a disambiguation page for those three articles. Opinions? Esaborio 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding, this is a larger operation. the sub part of such operation are listed by name. There for its not that there is numerous article with almost the same name, but that those operations are sub operation under this umbrella name. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It needs to be a disambiguation page because OBVIOUSLY OEF (which redirects here) stands for more than Iraq Attaq Part Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.151.35 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

E.g., http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/OEF Acronym Definition OEF Operation Enduring Freedom (US government response to September 11, 2001 terrorism attacks) OEF Ocean Environmental File OEF Ojai Education Foundation (Ojai, CA) OEF Open End Fund OEF Open Experimentation Framework OEF Open-End Face OEF Operational Efficiency Factor OEF Optimal Extension Fields (elliptic curve cryptosystems) OEF Oregon Entrepreneurs Forum OEF Organization Enhancement Fund OEF Oxford Economic Forecasting


[edit] Vandalized

I just stopped by this article to visit and noticed it has been vandalized. I'm not familiar with how to quickly revert it... is there an easy way to report vandalizing to editors? What is the best thing to do when you spot this sort of thing? Crimson30 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] french special troops withdrawal: jan.2007

french minister of defense Michèle Alliot-Marie has officially announced yesterday sunday 17 dec 2006, the French Special Forces ("Forces Spéciales") consisting of 200 men will leave afghanistan in early january 2007. the remaining troops will be 2,000-200= 1,800 troops. Cliché Online 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheesy

I know how the US is putting a lot of effort into the war but man, the name "enduring freedom" is so corny. And "Operation Iraqi freedom" is even worse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.227.201.157 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why are other coalition flags missing?

(Edited) I added back in Georgia (OEF-Pankisi Gorge). Also, Canada's specific partitipation is mentioned in the article, but not the UK's contribution, other than as a surface combatant as part of CTF-150. --Petercorless 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The flags are missing because the Georgian force is not an active combatant in the fight. Also the reason the Canadians have their own section is because they have only come under NATO command during the summer of '06, prior to that, but after the 2003-5 Kabul mission, they were an individual self commanding combatant creating their own missions to hunt Taliban.

-- This is incorrect. Canada has participated in OEF since July 2005 under OP Archer. See the Canadian Department of Natioanl Defence website: http://www.cefcom.forces.gc.ca/site/ops/archer/index_e.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.40.165 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pankisi Gorge

Why is Operation Enduring Freedom - Pankisi Gorge deleted yet again? Wasn't this a real part of OEF? --Petercorless 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

People keep blowing away Pankisi Gorge... Can we have a discussion as to whether this is a real part of OEF? --Petercorless 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason it is being taken off is because the region does not see any large scale action as the other areas do. And the article it is connected to is very poor quality.

That does not mean the activity did not occur historically. The article has since been edited and improved. I think there is some POV occurring where people are simply disinterested and blowing it away. I'll add it back --Petercorless 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


______________ Its more then just the "Georgia Train and whatever program" that you guys have. Special Forces are training Georgian troops, and other SOF units are hunting down Chechnya's al queda with Russian Spetsznaz. So im changing it back to OEF- Pankisi Gorge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.88.211 (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening image

Is there not a better image we could use for the front page, rather than that horrendous cheesy US propoganda? It's a disgrace to wikipedia imo. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 22:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed image. Hopefully it is more acceptable. --Petercorless 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally think that's much better, thanks. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

US propoganda??? That is the official patch for OEF you dumbshit. Nothing to do with propoganda.


____________ Lets take that main image off and replace it with something else, put a SOF unit in it, not some leg unit. OEF is and has always been a Special Ops led war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.88.211 (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Some of the images in this article come from screen grabs of Combat Camera from the Canadian Department of National Defence, thus in copywrite infringement.

The DND allows for full use of it's images so long you cite it.

[edit] Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan. Overview

The largest chunk of the Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan section is about Canada, making it Canadian-centric. For consistency there would have to be a separate sub-section about the US, Britain (and then maybe the Dutch and so on). This would make the article a mess. Secondly the distinctions would be artificial. Canadians and Brits supporting Americans; Brits supporting Canadians. Canadians supporting Brits. Also some parts of the Canadian section related to ISAF and NATO-Southern Afghanistan, not OEF. Maybe the detail should be put in separate British and Canadian ops in Afghanistan articles.

As there is more detail in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article, I’ve stuck to the background. Chwyatt 12:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the country of Belgium not mentioned?

When looking at the flags of the participating countries, I found that the country of Belgium is not mentioned in the list. I know for a fact that Belgium has a military contingent and aircraft participating in OEF. Can you update your page please? Thank you. J-P Ryckewaert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.98.210 (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Belgium troop and F-16 deployments have been in support of ISAF, not OEF. Different from Dutch, Danish and Norwegian troop and F-16 deployments that supported both ISAF and OEF. Chwyatt 08:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name changes and controversy

I think there should be a section at the bottom about the three names used for this operation, and the controversy it caused... I think it would be both relevent and interesting as it could link to many other articles discussing the controversy behind this and many operations in the Middle East. Currently I did not see anything about the controvertial issues behind this operation exept for a small section in the begining. John Doe or Jane Doe 10:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Biased?

Reading through this article, I felt it was biased towards the US. It paints the Taliban as a purely evil organization, and the US as some sort of saint. Some of it reads like pro-war propaganda, and the criticism section is miniscule. I'm used to taking wiki articles with a grain of salt, but not to this extent. I don't feel like I actually learned anything from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.189.26 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don’t see the bias myself. Giving an account of the war does not mean one supports it. Adding criticism to every military operation would make it biased against the war. Bias works both ways. And the article points to an article specifically on criticism. If anything, one could argue there is a bias against the war on terrorism. There is a full article on criticism (Criticism of the War on Terrorism), but no equivalent on defending the objectives.
And the Taliban were a disgusting organisation. Who can argue with that? Chwyatt (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the pirate flag here?

Unless there is evidence that 21st century Somali ‘pirates’ are flying 18th century English pirate flags, I cannot see a reason to add that flag. And if those 21st century Somali ‘pirates’ are not flying a flag, why add a flag that is nothing to do with them? There is no official pirate flag. Chwyatt (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Further reasons not to have the ‘pirate flag’
The popular image of pirates, which the Jolly Roger represents, in the popular imagination, is nothing like the reality of pirates operating of the African coast in the 21st century. The only reason as some have said for having Jolly Roger is that it represents pirates. But modern piracy is a world apart from the popular myths or reality of 18th century piracy.
Further, two different pirate flags appeared, so there is no single common pirate flag. And no ‘official generic pirate flag’.
It has been said that Islamic terrorists don’t fly the flag of jihad. If that is the case, then that is a reason not to have the flag of jihad.
It simply isn’t encyclopaedic. Chwyatt (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Chwyatt since it seems its just you and me going back and forth on this thing for the moment, i say lets have some additional input on the issue, should the pirate flag be displayed? Should just a black flag be displayed? Or should no flag be displayed? Any input from other members (besides the two of us that is) would be greatly appreciated...XaverGreen (talk)

[edit] North Korea

Does anyone have a source to support the claim that the DPRK is helping rebel factions? It just doesnt add up for a atheist state to help islamic rebels, though it would not suprise me much with NK's track record.--SelfQ (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A week later and still no source, I will go ahead and remove the claim. --SelfQ (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)