Talk:United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This text was originally located at Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. A complete history for the text may be found there. - Montréalais 05:05 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

War on Iraq? Why not War with Iraq? on is not NPOV. -- Zoe

Excuse me? It's quite obvious that Iraq will not declare war against the US anytime soon, isn't it? --Eloquence 05:08 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
So what? It takes two sides to fight. Again I say, this is not NPOV. -- Zoe
"It takes two sides to fight." is not a valid argument in this case. The only countries at the moment to make war-like actions are the USA and GB. Even if Iraq is in breach of every UN resolution, that does not mean that they have declared war, or that they are indeed engaging in warfare. --snoyes 05:11 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
Really? How many American and British planes have been fired on in the last ten years? How many Americans or British planes have fired first in that time period? -- Zoe
Sorry I can't give you any precise statistics on that. I do however know that SAM sites have been destroyed without provocation - in line with Shrubs preventative warfare doctrine that legitimizes war against someone/something if in some unspecified time in the future it may pose a threat to the interests of the USA. I would say that amassing a large army on the border of someone's country (akin to the cuban missile crisis) is a war-like act. And last time I checked the country surrounded was Iraq and not the USA or GB. --snoyes 05:26 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I really want to change this to something like ... "proposed Iraqi war" or something like that. -- Zoe

How about "war against Iraq"? - Hephaestos

Both War on Iraq and War with Iraq are POV.

  • on means a one sided war waged against Iraq, which not everyone would agree with, they arguing that Iraq is the one triggering off a war by non-compliance with UN resolutions.
  • with implies both sides fighting each other, with two sides 'deciding' to fight each other, which is equally POV, because you are then implying that Iraq wants to fight the US, and that Iraq is choosing to go to war, which is highly debatable.

One balance, I'd prefer 'on' to 'with', for it is one side that is doing all the war talk and moving its military into position, not two. JTD 05:21 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC) (paraphrased)

I can live with against - Zoe

If you want to push this, i'll concede to against. --snoyes 05:28 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
Both against and on sound fine to me, and largely equivalent. --Eloquence 05:34 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

It still doesn't feel right, but then both words bring with them perceptions of a POV agenda. A better wording might be [The UN Security Council and Proposed Iraq War]. It doesn't contain any word that in any way indicates a belief as to whether it is a 'war on Iraq' (which is the terminology used by those opposing war, who argue that one side (the US) is proposing a war not being sought by Iraq) or the 'war with Iraq' (which is the wording often used by 'pro-war' sides, implying a two sided conflict, with Iraq starting it through its failure to fulfil the UN requirements, and the US as the responder to, not causer of the conflict. As things stand, our title does implicitly take sides on whether it is a one sided or two sided conflict. Any observations? JTD 00:19 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Well, "proposed Iraq war" works for me too; I was just suggesting something off-the-cuff that I thought would be acceptable to both the pro- and anti- factions. The main thing is to keep the wording as unbiased as possible. (At the risk of labeling myself, btw, I consider myself "anti-", and didn't see "war with" as being all that "pro-". In retrospect, I can see it being problematic as suggesting it's a "done deal.") But whatever works. If both sides agree, there's a good chance it's NPOV. (I might also add, most of the talking heads on FOX and whatnot, whom I consider to be "pro-", use the term "war on Iraq" almost exclusively.) - Hephaestos 00:51 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Looks like you guys figured it out just fine, JTD! -'Vert p.s. English is clumsy. (clumbsy?) Although.. "proposed" makes more sense, the date being Late Feb 2003 and not June... Also, why not Condense to or War against Iraq. The idea of the UN security council as a separate issue - apart from the Proposed war to disarm Hussein, Threats of war against Iraq US hostile actions against Iraq, US dominance of the Middle East chapter 11, Middle East tensions, Chapter 16, US Iraqui relations, ;;Arggh!!!

One problem is that 'war on Iraq' has two meanings. It could mean

  • war on (the issue of) Iraq - a neutral meaning
  • war (waged) on Iraq - which implies war waged, with the wager, the US, being the agressor.

It is a linguistic nightmare trying to use a title that will not be read in a way that is seen as offering a Wikipedia judgment on the validity or otherwise of the war. proposed Iraq war is totally neutral and interpretation-proof. It is 'proposed' but doesn't say by whom. It would be a war if it goes ahead, and if so the country at issue would be Iraq. I suppose if the war does happen, we are going to face a lot of problems over terminology to be used that is NPOV, because what seems NPOV to one person with one view of the conflict might not seem NPOV to an opposing view. As Stevertigo so correctly put it, 'Arggh!' JTD 01:24 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I like proposed Iraq war better than war against Iraq. "Against" still has POV elements that implies an agressor. --mav 05:57 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
Exactly - I think all the articles on what's to come belong on a "wikiprotopedia" along with all of the future presidents, kings, scienfic theories and knowledge that we yet do not have - including futre wikipedia software interface technology....

How about a top to bottom re-write of all of these articles? -:) ==='Vert===

In Favour of using 'Proposed Iraq War'

  • JTD
  • Zoe
  • Tuf Kat
  • Mav
  • Hephaestos
  • 'Vert (I think I'm interpreting your view correct, Sv. If I am wrong, just remove your name, JTD)

Want to keep 'War on Iraq'

Want 'World War III-The Invasion of Iraq'

no seriously

The Iraq Conflict

Not to make everybody upset, but a truly NPOV title would take the Iraqi POV into account, and they sometimes state that the war has already begun. Susan Mason

Except for the fact that this is a bogus claim. It is a historical fact that this proposed war has not begun. In fact, when it does begin, if it does, it will be covered by every news network in the world. NPOV titles don't include paranoid imagination used to justify anti-American propaganda. RK

Go stand in south-eastern or northern Iraq (along the Turkish border) and it will become overwhlemingly clear that an air campaign is ongoing. Also, the Pentagon has announced that US Special Forces have been operating inside Iraq for about a month. Sounds like a war to me. Oh, and when the US invades Iraq without a formal declaration of war, will u continue to call it the Iraq-War or will u instead call it the "Iraq Police Action" or the "Iraq Skirmish"? Susan Mason

As no-one opposed the proposed change (I sent messages around to everyone to had taken part in the debate, and left a number of messages on the summary asking for opinions) and everyone who did reply supported the change (except Susan, who wanted 'World War III: The Invasion of Iraq') I have made the change that had almost unanimous agreement. I'm going to start correcting the links now. JTD 00:28 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC) (paraphrased)

how about Iraq Conflict - certainly this qualifies as an ongoing conflict Susan Mason

Conflict is too ambiguous - it could mean anything. 'proposed Iraq' is the nearest thing to a NPOV title we all could come up with. And yes I know Iraq claims a war is already going on, but that is a POV. War for something like Wiki has to mean a formally declared, legally declared war, and no formal war has been declared, which is why the UN is debating this issue, to see if they can agree on a formal declaration through the UN system. Anyway Susan, this debate has been going on for days and days and days now. There have been messages flying around, notes on this page, a couple of summary notes left on the recent changes page, etc. It is a bit late now to want to go back to basics and start renaming everything again. We have been through at least three renamings, with rows over whether to talk about the 'war on Iraq' or the 'war with Iraq'. All sides rallied around 'proposed Iraq war' as the most neutral term, because it is proposed, would be a war and is about Iraq, and avoids the problems using a preposition causes over who is waging war on whom, whether it is a one-sided or two-sided war, with implicit POV meanings attached. JTD 03:52 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC).

Especially the analysis part of this article seems to me horrible POV (France, Germany and Russia are against the war because they like Iraq so much ...), and the analysis as well as some of the country statements are outdated, too. (E.g., Mexico didn't hint it will support the US; there was no UN security council majority in sight, even with the threat of freezing US developmental aid to some of the African and Latin American members etc. etc.). till we *) 16:25 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think the article was nicer to read with the sections for each country. That way the reader could click on the country he was interested in at the top and go there directly. Just because some countries had only one sentence should not mean that this should all be one big section. Get-back-world-respect 14:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] French and Russian oil contracts.

A couple of references.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/29/MN116803.DTL

"The French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop Majnoon, a field near the Iranian border with estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels. Moscow has a $3.5 billion, 23-year agreement for several huge Iraqi fields that gives a lead position to a Russian oil consortium led by LukOil.

http://www.informationwar.org/articlesofinterest/iraq/oil_french_companies_april2003.htm "Certainly, until the war started, one of the firms that seemed most likely to get its hands on Iraqi oil was France's biggest company, TotalFinaElf."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm

"During the 1990s, Russia’s Lukoil, China National Petroleum Corporation and France’s TotalFinaElf held contract talks with the government of Iraq over plans to develop Iraqi fields as soon as sanctions are lifted. Lukoil reached an agreement in 1997 to develop Iraq’s West Qurna field, while China National signed an agreement for the North Rumailah field in the same year (China’s oil import needs from the Persian Gulf will grow from 0.5 million barrels per day in 1997 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2020, making China one of the region’s most important customers).(9) France’s Total at the same time held talks for future development of the fabulous Majnun field."

[edit] Biased Views?

This is my first time making an edit here on any wikipedia.org page. Excuse me if I do not do something up to par with the wikipedia standards. Under the section: Position of UN Security Council members, the opinions of all the countries are given. However, for the countries such as Russia, France the USA, there is additional information added which is not needed. Why is it included that Russia had a 4.7 billion dollar oil contract with Iraq? Or why is it included that a French bank was running the oil for food programme? If these facts are so important, than perhaps the fact that 46.2% of Iraqi exports came to the USA in 2000, according to the 2002 CIA World Factbook, the factbook in publication the year we invaded Iraq. I honestly feel this information should either a) be left out all together, or b) be placed in a seperate section of the page titled something to the effect of "Possible Influences on Security Council Member Decisions."

The 2002 CIA World Factbook is availble for download here: https://www.cia.gov/cia/download.html A simple google search for "world factbook 2002" will also return many results.

Please feel free to change my post to better reflect the standards of wikipedia.org, but please keep the general meaning behind my message intact. If I need to be contacted for any reason, my email address is anthron@gmail.com

Completely right, this is a page about the countries' positions on the war and not about what people speculate about what influenced those positions. Quite ridiculous to reason that it was French and Russian oil contracts that made the Council oppose the war when billions of people all over the world opposed it. Get-back-world-respect 12:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Date Clarity (minor issue)

It didn't seem immediately obvious to me which year this statement referred to:

"British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50% to 30% by March."

At first, I thought this was current info, but then saw a previous statement said the events happened from 2002-2003. A date should include a year.

[edit] What a fraud

So it is ignored when Iraq buys off 3 members of the veto-wielding security council members but trumpeted when the US buys off non-veto wielding members. What a fraud. 65.185.190.240 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the proof? And France opposed the war not from being bought by Iraq but by the opinion of their political leaders. Get your facts straight! 128.250.6.243 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There Are No Citations - OR

This entire article lacks one citation. Any edits without citations are subject to deletion as OR. Most or all of this article will be deleted if not supported. So, offer some. Raggz 06:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand the relationship between WP:OR and WP:CITE. Because text does not have a citation does not necessarily mean it is WP:OR, and does not mean that it is necessarily appropriate to wholesale remove it. It would be more appropriate to place the {{Unreferenced}} template at the top. Cheers, JCO312 21:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)