Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about 2003 invasion of Iraq. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Redirect =

Some links saying simply 'Iraq' redirect here; this doesn't seem useful as some people will want information on the country itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.70.77 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Tidbits

"The weapons for which the US and coalition partners invaded have not been found." Ahahahahahahaha oh wow. I wonder why that could be? Gaiacarra (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

     Yes, they were.  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=0606220555545.07o4imol&show_article=1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.54.8.46 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Those were the remains of weapons, not functional weapons themselves. The US has thousands of tons of degraded chemical weapons like that lying around in ammo dumps - they aren't good for anything but polluting groundwater.

Your not funny. SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

why does saddam have a death cross? he was not killed in the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.154.76 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Archives, etc

This article may contain material merged from a duplicate article, now archived at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Other, along with its complete history; its Talk: page has similarly been archived at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Other-Talk. Noel (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

/Archive 1 – 17 March 2003 to 24 February 2005
/Fpahl vs Silverback (topical) – 8 October 2004
/Archive 2 – 5 August 2005
/Archive 3 – 8 February 2006
/Archive 4 – Feb 2006-Aug 2006
/Archive 5 - Aug 2006-Feb 2007

Error in the very first sentence.

So the invasion of iraq was carried out by the US only and not a coalition of countries huh? That will come as news to the worlds historians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.8.105.64 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

point taken, but you seem to mistake the 'invasion' and occupation here. the only other party involved in the actual invasion with troops on the ground was the U.K. the (small) bulk of the 'coalition' forces from other countries, led by poland, arrived long after the fall of baghdad to participate in the occupation.

The United Kingdom made up 25% of the invasion force. The opening sentence says it was an invasion by the U.S. (only) The opening sentence is inacurate, it should be changed.

The opening sentence does not now, did not at the time you made this comment, nor has it ever, to my knowledge, made the claim that the US was the only force in the invasion. It simply did not also say that there were other countries as part of the coalition. Omission is not the same thing as explicitly stating "it was only the US".--chris.lawson 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly can be taken that way, though. I would think one of the aims of an encyclopedia would not only be factual accuracy but also in not wanting to inadvertently allow a wrong impression to be made through omission.--71.243.79.56 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

let's call a spade a spade, folks. i edited it again to indicate United States as the invading country. there is certainly adequate room given to the description of the coalition in the subsequent lines of the opening paragraph.

Someone put a nice euphemistic phrase "multinational forces" in, which I think should make the US apologists fairly happy. I just added a "US-led" prefix, as a bow to the numerical reality (really, the US role and the Polish role, were, um, not equal :)) ~~

I personally do not like nitpicking some things to death but in the interest of placating those who do, why not either have a small section that fleshes out the controversy or, in the very least, explain where "invasion" ends and "occupation" begins.

One might also consider that if any country offered support during the invasion, such as "use of airbases" or "use of radar facilities" etc then they should definitely be mentioned, at least, as supporting the invading force. Your use of the phrase, "the US apologists" betrays a tremendous bias but, ultimately, I think the impression Wiki SHOULD be giving is not a pro-this or anti-that viewpoint but, as one would think obvious, as factual an accounting as possible. Let's put the politics aside and just say exactly what happened as we should and sorry if I didn't use all the proper Wiki lingo.--71.243.79.56 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition to casus belli

I added something to the casus belli. The most clear-cut justification for the war was the numerous occasions in which Iraq violated the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War. For example: Iraqi forces opening fire, or preparing to open fire (i.e. SAMs acquiring missile lock on aircraft), on any Coalition forces (namely the Coalition aircraft patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones) would cause Iraq to be in violation of the cease-fire, in which case any Coalition member who so chose could resume hostilities with Iraq. And there were numerous instances (sometimes as many as one a week) of Iraqi AAA firing on (or SAMs acquiring a lock on) U.S and British aircraft. I just figured that this should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

This comment above is inacurate. The ceasefire in 1991 was between the UN and Iraq -not individual member states and Iraq. Secondly, the no fly zones were established by the US, UK and France (although France later pulled out of enforcing them). They categorically were not under the authority of the UN -no Resolution proposes or endorses them. As a result of this, any attacks by Iraq on USUK aircraft in the no fly zones were legitimate acts of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter -it was the flights themselves that were illegal actions by the US and UK. Therefore, Iraqi attacks on coalition aircraft cannot be considered a justification for the invasion.Dwtray2007 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of war on terror?

Was this invasion part of war on terror? If yes, why doesn't this article mention this (for instance in the infobox)? If not, why is Ba'athist Iraq named as "Targets of Operations" in infobox of war on terror article? A bit of inconsistency... :-\

Rationale

The rationale section had a very unencyclopedic sentence regarding the asserted relation between al-Qaeda and Hussein. I have replaced it with the accepted facts--that the link was asserted on the basis of faulty intelligence and later disproved; this has, of course, been accepted by both supporters and opponents of the invasion. Benzocane 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping others will help me improve the Rationale section. Mackabean has made some good edits, but it still needs work. I've altered a few of Mackabean's revisions (the style, not the content). It seems to me that the Rationale section is one of the most important sections of the entry and should be expanded and clarified. Benzocane 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made further edits to this section. The general thrust of the edits is to 1. Explain that WMDs together with Iraq's purported link to terrorism were the major pre-war justifications of the invasion. And that 2. As those justifications have been challenged, the rationale has shifted to humanitarian issues. What do people think? Are these changes helpful? --Mackabean 18:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think these edits are useful. Keep it up! I think the article has made considerable progress in the last few days--thanks for your help.Benzocane 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read this article and update the Rationale section accordingly.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1

I was trying to track down an online copy of the Cheney Energy Plan, to see how clearly it spelled out in 2001 the occupation of Iraq as a strategic plan. I mean, granted, if you pay any attention to the US oil consumption numbers, and the export numbers, and the historical contribution of Saudi Arabia as the mainstay of preserving the US economy, its obviously an important step in the Cheney (et al.) strategic plan, but I think for anything like this article, where apologists will wish to push propaganda points-of-view (rather understandably so, to be fair), it would be better to quote documents written by Cheney et al. if at all possible.

Logic would be a better analysis of a supposed "Cheney (et al.) strategic plan" rather than alleged documents, to wit, gas is pushing $3.50/gal. and oil is over $105/bar. The U.S. is not receiving (any?) oil shipments from Iraq.

Legality section

I shifted that section of the prelude text discussing the legality of the invasion to an independent section. I did this because 1) it seems that discussions of the legality of the invasion are scattered throughout this entry and should be consolidated for the sake of clarity and in order to avoid needless repetition (the entry is already approaching 100k). 2) The debates about the legality of the invasion were not just part of the prelude to the invasion, but continue. It seems to me this writing could still be improved--I haven't improved the text, just moved it. Thoughts? Benzocane 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the value of a separate legality section. The question of legality is obviously a central and ongoing issue with the invasion, and the discussion of that issue is currently scattered across the article. I will try to do a scan and see if there are other mentions of legal issues that should be moved to this new section. --Mackabean 00:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence: "Bush Administration officials have pointed out that, according to this reasoning, the Clinton Administration's decision to bomb Iraq in 1998 in Operation Desert Fox would also have been a violation of international law." First, it has no source. Second, the fact that other military operations might have violated international law, does not bear on the question of whether or not the invasion was legal. It makes it sound like the Bush administration is saying "It doesn't matter if it's legal; look what Clinton did." This doesn't strike me as an accurate representation of the administration's position. Thoughts?Benzocane 17:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with this change. Certainly the fact that Clinton did it too was not the central legal justification for the Bush Administration. In fact, as I think you point out, just because the Clinton Administration arguably broke international law does not have any bearing on whether the Bush Administration did. But from a political point of view, the Bush Administration definitely used the Clinton bombing campaign to argue that their actions had some kind of precedent. To put it another way, Bush and his advisers argued that if no one made a big stink about the legality of the Clinton bombing campaign, they can't really complain about the legality of the 2003 invasion. I don't think this point is insignificant. Do others have thoughts?--Mackabean 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I made some more changes to this section, adding the following sentences: "These critics have also pointed out that the statements of U.S. officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council Resolution would be required to make an invasion legal. For example, in order to secure Syria's vote in favor of U.N. Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that "there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq"." I think it is an important point that U.S. officials seemed to be suggesting that an invasion would have been illegal without a new resolution (after 1441) but that when they could not get that resolution, they changed their legal arguments. Thoughts on whether this is worth including>?--Mackabean 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My rather limited point is only that the claim "Clinton also violated international law" doesn't bear on whether or not the invasion was legal. Two illegals don't make a legal, so to speak. Since the previous operation has its own entry, it seems to me that debates about its legality should take place there.

I understand your rather limited point, and while I still don't agree that it is irrelevant to this section, I don't feel that strongly. I will go look for the article on Operation Desert Fox to see if it would be appropriate to add discussion of its legality there. --Mackabean 13:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the last paragraph about controversy over whether the war was illegal (specifically comments from Richard Perle and Lord Goldsmith) to the beginning of this section. I think makes the section more readable since the controversy is explained at the beginning of the section, and then rationale for the legality of the invasion follows. Let me know if you disagree. Midwestmax 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that edit makes it more readable or not, but I don't object to it. Benzocane 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the rationale used by Bush, et al., the administration was aware that Hussein posed no threat to his neighbors, let alone the United States. More specifically, the administration knew that he had no WMDs. The notion that they were "mistaken" or "the whole world believed he had them" is not true. This is demonstrated by Powell's and Rice's words in the Spring of 2001. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv The reason I say this is because I think this should be integrated into the article as a definitive statement of two representatives of the administration of what the administration believed.--Spipenge, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Order and length of sections

I think it's a little odd that we list decorations before casualties. It seems to me that the latter should precede the former. Thoughts? I'm going to go ahead and switch their order, but am interested in what others think. Benzocane 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Libya paragraph from the prelude section. The following claim has nothing to do with the prelude to the invasion, rather is an observation about one of its possible effects:

The invasion is claimed to have been a contributing factor to Muammar al-Gaddafi's decision to disclose and give up his nascent nuclear program.^[1] However, the existence of such a weapons program is in doubt,^[2] and some suspect that it suited all involved to exaggerate - or even invent - both the threat posed by the alleged program, and the sacrifice made in abandoning it.

If the concensus is that the paragraph should be in this article, it seems to me that it should be placed in another section. Thoughts? Benzocane 05:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% with Benzocane. I've moved media above decorations and related phrases as it seems to be of more 'encyclopedic' worth.Calicali5 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the decorations section is appropriate. It should be its own page.Calicali5 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Media

I restored the bit about Indymedia that Midwestmax deleted during his edits. I generally think his edits are good, but given the historical role of indy media in the invasion, it seems important to include that information. If anything, I think this section could be expanded, given that this was the first invasion in history that was pretty much on TV all the time. Calicali5 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation in info box

I have removed the assertion that Bush went to war because of an alleged assassination attempt against his father. The source given for this claim says nothing of the sort. No matter how many ultra-ultraliberal commentators claim the contrary, there is no evidence that Bush went to war for such petty reasons. Placing such a line in the info box is a clear NPOV violation.Benzocane 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Crappy current page burries information

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2003_invasion_of_Iraq&oldid=28954327#Rationale has awesome layout, much more citeable than current.

Shortened Prelude

In an effort to try to shorten the article, i edited down the prelude. Some of the information (e.g., mentions of the Iraq Study Group) were not relevant to the prelude to the invasion. Also, much of the information that was in the prelude (e.g., issues related to WMD investigations) is covered in more detail elsewhere, so I tried to make this a more general summation. Any comments welcome. --Mackabean 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Coalition deaths

Those 3000+ are of the total Iraq war and not of the invasion, only about 200 died during the invasion, on the source there sais these numbers are from the beginning of the Iraq war till 2007 so thease are defenetly not only the invasion casulaties. The Honorable Kermanshahi

Yea, I noticed this as well. This article is specifically about the invasion, not the entire war. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on this. The article should better distinguish between casualties during the invasion and casualties during the occupation. I have tried to do so with a quick rewrite. FYI, I got the Iraq Body Count numbers by taking 30 percent of their total casualties number that was released in 2005, as their report says that 30 percent of the total casualties as of 2005 were from the invasion period. See here: [1]. I think that math makes sense, but if someone sees it differently, please holler. Also, in terms of whether the total number of casualties should be in there (3,000 / 60,000 / 600,000), I would vote for keeping them in. The division between the invasion and occupation is somewhat artificial, and I think a reader looking at a casualties paragraph in this article shouldn't have to poke around to other articles for the total numbers. I supported this invasion, and think it remains worth the price in terms of dollars and casualties (incredibly regrettable as both are). But I think we owe it to readers not to obscure that cost. Thoughts?--Mackabean 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I agree with showing the total casualties since the invasion started. Will you also include the source of the statistics? I'm not sure about the coalition/American casualties, but I know there's been some controversy over the number of Iraqis killed. How about the number of wounded, I don't recall seeing any information on that yet. Khono 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Media Coverage

In the section about media coverage there are 2 subsections about international media coverage. Considering the 2nd subsection is about Al-Jazeera I think that this should be changed to Arab Media Coverage. Also perhaps someone should take the time to expand this section. Tell me if I'm off base here.

Shortcord 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about changing to Arab Media Coverage, but I do think it would benefit from adding information about other news coverage e.g. the BBC, DFN etc. 81.132.51.234 09:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Elmo

Use of word coalition

I have been poking around this and other Iraq war articles, and have some concerns about the use of the term "coalition." By grouping the 40 some countries who provided logistical and other support as members of the coalition, I feel like it gives them credit for supporting the war when, in fact, they were never really willing to put large numbers of troops on the ground. The truth is that the U.S. and U.K. were the only countries who had the guts to put their own soldiers in serious harms way to get rid of one of the world's worst tyrants, and I am little sick of other countries getting credit for helping with the invasion when they really didn't. I think that this article (and) others, should do a better job of making clear who was really willing to help out in this invasion. I plan to try to make this clearer (such as in the intro paragraph, which refers a to the coalition without any explanation) but wanted to get others thoughts before moving ahead with the edit. --Mackabean 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, who coined the term? I don't really follow the news, but I got the impression that that is what Washington referred to them as. Perhaps you can link to a detailed article about all members of this coalition and their contributions.

I'm not sure if this is needed or not, but just in case it is, please try not to flavour what you write (doesn't matter in the discussion thread, IMO) with your own personal beliefs. I suspect that this statement: "U.S. and U.K. were the only countries who had the guts..." would inflame many readers ;) Khono 06:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mackabean. It is hardly equitable to credit the bit players, most of whom were heavily bribed, with apparently equal credit. The forces are very obviously mostly US, and only UK also contributed serious numbers into harm's way. I just coined a phrase, which I humbly suggest might be some sort of starting point? The US-led whatever. That gives immediate credit to the US, which obviously poured the vast lion's share of money, and the lion's share of foot soldiers (and all other types of soldiers). It is a prefix, so you can attach it to a phrase such as multinational, so you still get at least lip service to the others, because they should certainly get some mention! Now, it is still flawed in that UK, which really did contribute bodies, is lumped in with the bit players and the bribed players, but, maybe someone smarter can figure out a fix for that too?

Agreed, as well. It is certainly not the same kind of coalition that was in play in the first skirmish with Iraq. Perhaps someone can flesh it out but I'll make a general distinction if someone hasn't already.--71.243.79.56 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi refugees since the invasion started

I've read a few different numbers and was wondering if anyone would be willing write a section telling the number of refugees. I hear the UN has done at least one study on the matter. Khono 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there already is a seperate article on the Iraqi refugee crisis. Shortcord 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a link with a sentece, or half a sentence, would do the trick then. Khono 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a link to the article in the main Iraq War article. Not sure you need it in this article. Shortcord 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

mis -reporting

Tony Blair will go down in history as the First British Prime Minister to be hounded out of office by the mis-reporting of the media. The war in Iraq began in March 2003 and ended with the removal of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. A war which lasted only 30 days, with very few British casualties. In so doing he rid the Middle East of the biggest threat to its safety.

The Iraq Civil War between Moslem Shia and Moslem Sunni’s, which Tony Blair tried to prevent should not be regarded as a Blair failure, Yet the media have blamed him for it. The blame rests squarely on the Modern Moslem Jihad beliefs which are contrary to Tony Blair’s Judeo-Christian belief that: ”life is sacred - and peace is desirable”. The Modern Moslem beliefs, as portrayed in Iraq, cherish “death and destruction”. This is not true Islam as preached by Mohammed but the usurped Islam as preached by the extremists who have taken over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.126.181 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's terrific that you have an opinion on the matter, but if you think this should go into the article you might want to include some sources. Just to give you an example of why this would be needed is that I, personally, do not agree with what you're saying. However, I haven't researched the matter in the past and would enjoy checking any sources you linked.

Is it just me, or is there still a great deal of combat and death in Iraq? Aren't people still fleeing the country for their lives? Isn't it still occupied by foreign soldiers? You also assert that Saddam Hussein was "the Middle East's biggest threat to safety", yet if you were to ask me what that threat is, I'd say it's the US, as is mentioned throughout Noam Chomsky's Failed States. Furthermore, I find your second paragraph to be bordering, if not over the line, of racism, or perhaps bigotry. Khono 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Iraq is no longer "occupied". It is among more than 100 nations with US military bases. Are the UK and Germany occupied? More Americans are dying from asprin than in Iraq.

Btw, President George Washington was the first to deal with attacks by global Islamic terorists. Eventually it was resolved by President Jefferson, but not until the Islamists attacked as far north as Iceland. Europe just paid them off appeasement, and the US Congress first authorized the US Navy and Marine Corps. Congress demanded the release of American slaves held by the Barbary pirates and was told: "That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." Perhaps even back then the US was a racist Islam-hating nation? Once the American slaves were freed, anti-Islamia in the US faded, until 9-11.

If not for the US Army, you would be living with swastikas. When it comes to human rights, the US Army has done more than all other international human rights organization. Raggz 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Iraq doesn't simply have "US military bases" in it, it has a military force there actively suppressing civilian uprisings.

If not for the imperialism of nations, world war one would likely not have occured. This, of course, would mean Hitler would not have been supported to revive a defeated, economically devastated Germany. I've never found it appropriate to say things like: "If not for the US Army, you would be living with swastikas." This logic (the same I felt I used in my example), is ridiculously oversimplified, I believe, though I'm far from being any kind of expert there.

However, let's deal with the word "occupied". There's the wiktionary definition [[2]] which leads to occupy[[3]]. These are still pretty bare and don't seem to really give us anything definitive. If we use the dictionary.com definition [[4]] "to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion," we can clearly see that the US falls under this category since they took control, from the previous government, by military force and they're still there.

The post-invasion Iraq article would seem (I'm not sure about one part of the Legal status... section) to agree with your assertion that "Iraq is no longer occupied." However, reading through the discussion thread [[[Talk:Post-invasion_Iraq%2C_2003%E2%80%93present]] I found, under the "Occupation issues" section, an interesting post claiming to define a key point in international law. This would seem to vindicate my position on the matter.

What seems clear, here, is that the question of whether it's an occupation or not is not a simple matter to settle in this intellectual manner. I think it's also plausible Iraq is in a transitional phase. Read Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present. The legal definition is here.

Your second paragraph, to me, reads like a Washington propaganda note and unless you link some sources for your information, I won't try to refute your claims. Khono 05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Iraq is in a transition. Have no doubt that if the democratically elected government of Iraq were to request a US withdrawal, it would occur fairly quickly. Iraq was ocupied. It hasn't been for two years.^[3]. What is ocupied is not complex, initially the US took over and ran the country, just as with Germany, Japan, Grenada, and many others. It was occupied. Then as always, a democracy was installed by the US.

Read the Barbary pirates. The Jihhadis attacked as far north as iceland, carried of an entire village from Ireland. Only the Americans took action, (well almost only ...)

If not for the American Army, Europe would be enjoying the Third Reich now. Do you disagree? We cannot know, but insurgents under the Third Reich would have met the same fate they met in Iraq or the USSR? The difference between what Europe is and what it tried to make itself into is due to the American Army, true? The American Army created modern Europe, which then was at liberty to recreate itself as it wished? Raggz 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that rather dismisses the much larger sacrifices made by the Soviet Army. It might seem somewhat fairer to say, if not for the Soviet Army, and its willingness to make incredible sacrifices, Europe would be enjoying the Third Reich. But of course, many contributed to lesser degrees.

You have not dealt with the points I made. Does international humanitarian law not matter? Is the US exempt from these laws? In a democracy, the people are supposed to rule, yes? What is public opinion in Iraq right now? From what I read in Noam Chomsky's Failed States, the majority of Iraqis see the American army as an invading force. According to a recent survey [[5]], the majority of Iraqis want the US led forces out within a year, as opposed to when the security situation improves. I could not find a question specifically asking if they consider the US led forces to be occupiers, however.

The article you linked to [[6]] did not include sources (as far as I could tell, if you can find some please point them out). It has been said that the first casualty in war is the truth. An affirmation from the state in question that it is not 'doing bad things' is not particularly valuable.

Though I would like to go on and further address points you've brought up as well as bring up many of my own opinions, I don't think we should do this here. If you'd like to continue the wider debate, I suggest we do it in user talk [[[User_talk:Khono]]. Khono 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

US casualties

We absolutely did not suffer 3574 casualties during the invasion period as demarcated by the dates posted, March 18, 2003 – May 1, 2003. Not even close. This type of misinformation is responsible for most of the hysteria and unreason regarding this conflict.Gonzeaux 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[Scroll up to previous section comment on #Coalition deaths.]

I think that you have misread the sentence (in the section called 2003 invasion of Iraq#Casualties or somewhere else in the article? See the cross-linked "main" article Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003). [Please clarify: Does your "we" and that figure of "3574" [May 14 post] refer to United States or U.S.-led Coalition forces?] The total figure of over 3000 U.S. casualties (as I read that sentence) would seem to refer to the over 3000 U.S. and U.S.-led Coalition casualties for the entire period of the war (through the point of the last edit in May 2007), not just the "invasion period"; though it's confusing since this article is supposed to be focusing on the period from the beg. of the invasion to May 2003 (but discusses the entire war period there). Please see the top-cross-linked article: Post-invasion Iraq,_2003–present#Casualties.

There are many reliable sites listing or estimating war casualties given as sources throughout these Iraq-war related articles in Wikipedia (which are generally cross-linked) and which provide their own links to resources. See the source cited, e.g., Iraq Body Count project (which links also to CENTCOM's home page, w/ its cumulative casualty press releases (not totals)--included in list at [7]--and to Coalition Casualty Count, and Global Security.org's U.S. Iraq Casualties; the CNN linked page is updated as well: CNN War in Iraq: US and Coalition War Casualties. [Some thus link to CENTCOM's press release raw government site figures via their "links" pages [8].] [See in the latter site, globalsecurity.org, e.g., the years in the column after months as one runs one's eye down the page: total: 3,467 as of its last date (which has risen since then).]

One simply needs to correct one's reading of the passage in this Wikipedia article section (or to make the text clearer) rather than immediately to assume bad faith here: WP:AGF. (At least, that's how it seems to me so far; haven't read this entire article carefully; just looked at the part that seemed to occasion the above comment.) --NYScholar 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

From the CNN page on the war casualties (US and Coalition), [giving a date of May 21, 2007] accessed on May 22, 2007 (not uptodate, however]:

There have been 3,697 coalition deaths -- 3,422 Americans, two Australians, 148 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, three Latvian, 19 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of May 21, 2007, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department. At least 25,378 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View casualties in the war in Afghanistan and examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War.

(Nothing to sneeze at, in my view, of the human destruction of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness resulting from the war. [And, of course, those figures don't include Iraqi and other civilians killed and injured, or their loved ones and significant others whose lives have been affected by their losses.]) --NYScholar 03:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given various changes by other editors to the info. box in this article, it appears now that the figure that the user posting this section was objecting to is the listing of the total Iraq War "Casualties" item in the info box, which is misleading because it doesn't indicate that the period of these casualties is 2003 to 2007, not the invasion period given at the top of the box. The user has a point. I think that inclusive dates need to be indicated for the total casualties in the period of those inclusive dates in the box if the period differs from the heading in the box. Whatever the casualties number is for the period at top of box (the 2003 invasion) needs to be listed and if one wants to make reference to the total casualties figures for the period from March 2003 to May 2007, then one can do so in the citation (clearly). That should correct the problem that the user is perceiving. --NYScholar 06:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the "accessdate" in the citation template; that highlights the discrepancy, as the corresponding figures in the parallel column for the Iraqi side is years earlier (October 20, 2003). [Setting those figures side by side is like comparing apples and oranges; it's a misleading and unfair comparison.] The discrepancies need clarification and the likely misleading nature of the info box figures still needs further correction, in my view. There are ways to be accurate in that infobox and still to link to current total casualty figures in the other articles, such as Iraq War. --NYScholar 06:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also documented the information in the infobox; such full citations are necesssary and, after provision, they should not be deleted. See Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and Wikipedia:Citing sources. --NYScholar 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some corrections to the figures in the infobox, as sourced and clarified in the note citations, originally provided by earlier users. --NYScholar 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Legality section

I have removed a recent addition to the legality section which was unsourced and not incorporated into the existing text. The only citation that was listed was to a letter about possible war crimes in Iraq. It seemed not to be directly relevant, but no URL or other information was given for the letter so it was hard to determine. Regardless, if the person who posted it wants to include the information in the existing section, i would ask them to do so with verifiable sources. Thanks.--Mackabean 06:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit again and saw that some of it was relevant (though inaccurate). I integrated the relevant piece into the existing legality section. --Mackabean 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Connection with 1941 coup

the axis led coup obviously weakened the stability of the region which led to the Ba'athists taking power so i believe that the link to the Coup is essential to theis article in order for the reader to have a broad understanding of what events helped bring the invasion about. Also that the leader of this invasion and a leader in the 1941 coup have EXTREAMLY similar qoutes about their rationale for commiting to the region should also be shown (71.50.220.43 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)) P.S. remember that when saddam was found he had a picture of Hitler his "hero" with him, maybe in another 60 years some deposed leader will be found with a picture of Bush (71.50.220.43 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Who's asserting the link? If there's independent, scholarly research making the link, then we can consider adding their research. If we're showing the quotes and making the conclusion from that that there's a link, then that's original research, which is to be avoided. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm (71.50.220.43 16:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

I see a timeline of events without a cause-effect conclusion being made. Also, the source needs reconciled against the reliable sources guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

==== multinational forces

I like the "multinational task force" euphemism; it is very polite and diplomatic. But, I think a "US-led" prefix would be a reasonable bow to reality, so I "made bold" and stuck a couple in. Also, the invasion is not really ongoing -- it has pretty much continuously evolved into the current occupation. I don't think it is really accurate to call this still the invasion. The US-led forces control the strong points, and now it is hardly differentiable from any other occupation, yes?

revisions reverted with no discussion or comment?

I tried the recommended "be bold" approach, and did my revisions, and put explanations, and posted explanations here too. Someone reverted them with apparently no discussion or comments. I guess the message is that this article is protected by certain propagandists or administrators and regular users are not allowed? That is ok, I'm surely giving up immediately, but, I thought that wikipedia at least gave lip service to cooperation on major topics... :(

Exact number of dead

Over half a million Iraqi's dead, in May 2007 after "us surge" monthly death not decreasing Some group says 650 000, it seems to be true!

The Exact number of Iraqis dead is not in the article [http://www.thestar.com/News/article/220830. The number of Iraqis Killed since the start of the war is less than 200,000. Where did you get the idea over half a million Iraqis have been killed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.213.83 (talk)

I need author name for "2003 invasion of iraq"

Dear Wikipedia, I am hassan(user:busta5000/email:<redacted>) & I used your page as a resource for my essay & I have many references about my topic "The Invasion of Iraq",but your the best resource & I have paraphrased your research but the teacher at my AbuDhabi University said that he needs the authors name to right it as a quotation at the end. so pleasre can you give me the author name? I trealy need it.

your user, hassan(busta5000)

On the left side of each page in a section titled "toolbox" is a link called "Cite this page". That should give you all the information you need. For most articles on Wikipedia there is no single author; it's a collaborative effort.-gadfium 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also incase you did not no. Wikipedia isnt the best research tool to use for a college essay as sadly the colabiration effort makes it not the best articals in the world. The best would be probayl be exeprts in a particular subject(ForeverDEAD 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

POV: Where WMD's are noted, the allegations should also be noted as false.

It looks like we have a 'the victor writes history' scenario pending with this article, the opening paragraph should immediately outline the issues as well as identify the fact that the grounds for the invasion were falsified. References to allegations of WMD's, including down the right hand panel, should also address the fact they were false allegations. There's plenty of references to support the fact, not to mention the governments combined awareness of the erroneous nature of these reports they based the invasion on. But suddenly if read by a ten year old who wasn't watching the news during that time from a prima facie evaluation they would be led to believe there WERE WMD's and they did actively support Al Qaeda and had involvement in the WTC attacks, which is all speculative fiction. 211.30.73.30 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

UK Cost of War

Does anyone out there know what the invasion part of the war cost Britain? I remember in Gulf war 1 the "coalition" paid for the majority of the war, mainly Japan and Arab states. Along with the US, Britain even got some of it's war costs covered by them too. Seeing as though there weren't any rich "coalition of the willing members", I'd like to know if Britain basically borrowed money for this war as the US did. Anon 003 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well i know that the iraq war cost the Us about $450 billion. I dont think the money was borrowed. Bush includes it in his budget, so its not borrowed.

263,000 vs 375,000

are you sure about that? sounds weird. isn't the iraqi army overestimated by some chance? which year are these numbers about, with reinforcements and coalition troops withdrawal it's probably hard to estimate. thanks. Paris By Night 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That does souind weird(ForeverDEAD 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Just wondering about the relations with Iraq duirng the Iran-Iraq Gulf War.

Did the united states or did not the united states supply "weapons of mass destruction" to Iraq during this war. I understand that during this conflict the United States did not have good relations with Iran.

Now this question leads to the statement made by Colin Powell saying that "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction" does this make his statement true.

This now leads the the statement made by Colin Powell as well stating "Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression...given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?". Does this mean that the United States is refusing to deny that they supported Saddam Hussein to oppose Iran?

Duke Nukem

I think we should add a section to the article calling attention to the fact that Japan was "nuked" once with atomic bombs, then in the game, Duke Nukem, there are Japanese prostitutes and other Japaneses people in the game. I find it very interesting that Japan was nuked, we have this game called 'Duke Nukem', there are Chinese prostitutes in the game, and the U.S. invades Iraq!

I believe I'm on the verge of discovering a huge cover up! I think Japan was the country that wanted to invade Iraq, and that the United States simply did as they wished though the cries of brainwashed children and younger adults who played Duke Nukem.

Will someone help me find sourcing on this? I've looked in a couple of places, but you'd be surprised how hard it is to source information like this that people try really hard to hide.

You need help. --LiamE 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No joke. Wow, this guy's a loser. I wonder how many times he failed in high school by the way he thinks.

I lol'd Sneakernets 19:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed Peace Initiatives

Seems that nothing in this section has any sort of references or sources... the whole article seems to have a spin on it, but eh.. that's my opinion. Someone shoulda either clean this up or remove it.

Iraqi Civil War? POV

Is There a civil war in Iraq. This sounds like an opinion and not a proven fact. The violence could be caused by foreign fighters and weapons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.249.99 (talk) 04:46:20, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

No its not really POV by definition this is a civil war-a conflict between members of 1 nation. thats exactly what this is, yes there are foregn fighters but there was forgeine people during the american cival war and also theres alot or iraq's fighting.(ForeverDEAD 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Whether or not Iraq is engaged in a "civil war" is pure spin and semantics, and has no place in this article. Is Iraq engaged in a civil war comparable to the American Civil War (2 parties, 2 distinct territories)? Absolutely not! Is Iraq engaged in a civil war comparable to the Lebanese Civil War (multiple parties, no distinct territorial control)? Absolutely! Keep in mind, though, that accepting Iraq as being involved in a civil war means that a lot of other historical conflicts need to be renamed. The Vichy occupation of France, 1940-45? The "French Civil War". The "Korean War?" The Korean Civil War. Etc. 71.215.183.90 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no prior knowledge of the other conflicts but the Korean war would not be classified as a civil war as they are and still currently two differnt nations.(ForeverDEAD 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

The division of Korea into "North" and "South" was an arbitrary agreement made by third parties (USA and USSR) at Yalta in February, 1945. Previous to this agreement, Korea had always been one country. The territories correspond directly to their proximity to the interested parties, with the US in the south, closest to occupied Japan; and the USSR (later China) in the north. What I'm actually referring to, though, are the various political groups vying for control in the north and south prior to Kim's invasion of the south (communists, socialists, democrats, anti-communists etc.) Nevertheless, the conflict, (which in the absence of a peace treaty, still technically continues to the present day) is "technically" a civil war, no matter which way you choose to define "civil war". Still, the term doesn't accurately characterize what happened in Korea (a proxy battle of the Cold War), any more than it describes what is happening in Iraq today, (a proxy battle of the 9-11 War) 71.215.183.90 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In Iraq, two distinct groups, the shiites and the sunnis, both domestic to Iraq, are fighting against each other for political control over the territory. It is a full-fledged war between two groups of people with different beliefs, both living in the same geopolitical region. It is a war between opposing groups in the same country. Let's see how the Merrian-Webster dictionary defines "Civil war"...

civil war
One entry found for civil war.
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

ref: [9]

Wow. That looks familiar. Okay, let me rephrase that: In Iraq, there is a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. Sorry about that -- I left out the "of citizens" part. If we can't say "Civil War" in the article, can we say "In Iraq, there is a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." instead? Or does that not "accurately characterize" the situation? Kevin Baas^talk 00:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

civil war
–noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
Compare American Civil War, English Civil War, Spanish Civil War.
[Origin: 1540–50]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

civil war  
n.  
  1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
  2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: "The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul" (Bill Powell).
  3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
  4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

civil war
noun
a war between factions in the same country 
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

civil war
(a) war between citizens of the same state
Example: the American Civil War
See also: civil, civil liberties/rights, civil servant, civil service, civilian, civility, civilly, civil defence, civil disobedience
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.

ref: [10] Kevin Baas^talk 00:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I almost forgot:

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power.
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war,  modified 09:00:10, 2007-09-06. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

ref: [11]

I biblio-ed that one myself. :) Kevin Baas^talk 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

These dictionary definitions are fascinating, really (no, I really mean it). They say a lot about the denotation of the phrase. But the term is highly "charged" with varying CONNOTATIONS, and usages. The Phillipine Insurgency was also a civil war, but is never referred to as such. Lincoln himself used the term "now we are engaged in a great CIVIL WAR..." but almost no one in the 19th century was willing to use the term. It gave the Confederacy too much legitimacy, and implied impartiality (this was deliberate, on Lincoln's part). The term "War of the Rebellion" was used, hence "rebs" vs. "yanks". The term "civil war" in the case of Iraq would imply impartiality, which just isn't possible at this time. The Multi-National Force has definitely taken sides in this conflict. Anybody on another "side" would not be calling it a civil war either (maybe a holy war, jihad or war of liberation?) From a French perspective, though, this is a civil war. Ergo, people referring to Iraq as a "civil war" must all be French!71.215.183.90 07:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We must all be French, then. Even our News channels are apparently French now (with the exception of Fox News). Either we're French, or Iraq is, by definition, in a civil war, and insofar as the term "civil" war refers to what people in a country are doing, and does not refer to the nationality of the person saying or writing "civil war", Iraq being or not being in a civil war depends on what people in Iraq are doing, and not on what part of the world I, you, or anyone else for that matter, is from. And I know, for one, that I am an American. And me being an America or not being an American does not determine whether Iraq is in a civil war or not, anymore than a person in Germany being a German or not does, or a person in Switzerland being a Swede or not does. Kevin Baas^talk 23:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This my main point of contention, and I'm glad we've been able to narrow it down. Whether or not the conflict is called a "civil war" has EVERYTHING to do with where you stand, and very little to do with the dictionary definition. I think I've made my point adequately above. Good luck. 71.215.190.223 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and it is it's policy to avoid geographic bias. Therefore, so long as the article is on wikipedia, whether or not the conflict is called a "civil war" CANNOT have ANYTHING to do with where you stand, and must be bound by the established, scholarly definition of the term. Kevin Baas^talk 01:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Theory

Hey, I think you're on to something there. I was playing Duke on my computer after I read the previous edit, to look for clues. I found a pseudo-porn shop, and in one of the magazines in plain view I noticed a Japanese prostitute and a guy with a turbine standing in the same image. I don't know how much evidence this is, but it gives me the gut feeling that Japan was the reason the United States invaded Iraq. I'm going to watch the last Samurai to look for clues there. I think I remember seeing Iraq's flag in the background of a scene, along with a guy with a beard (looking like Saddam)with his hair on fire. I'll post a screen shot. Tell me, why would something like that be in a Japanese-related movie and then the weird magazine in Duke Nukem???? Can you say COVERUP!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.234.4 (talk) 22:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop doing stupid shit like this as you can and most likely will be blocked indefintly from editing wikipeda.(ForeverDEAD 15:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Prelude to the invasion, minor edit?

"Powell presented evidence alleging that Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons and had ties to Iraq and al-Qaeda [...]"

Iraq had ties to Iraq? Shouldn't this read, "that Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons and had ties to al-Qaeda"?

Maox 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Something to think about

Here in Australia, a number of reasons were given by our Federal Government for justifying the invasion of Iraq - (i) possession of WMD (ii) violation of UN resolutions (iii) belligerent and aggressive behaviour towards neighbouring countries (iv) undemocratic regime.

Curiously, even though all of these reasons apply equally well to Israel, nobody suggested an invasion of Israel. Clearly, NONE of these reasons is the real one, and it becomes increasingly obvious that control of the Iraqi oil industry was the real objective. Logicman1966 01:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That would make perfect sense if it wasn't stupid. Israel is democratic, no violations of UN resolutions, are allowed to have WMD's due to UN approval, and they have a extremely active oil industry. 70.244.234.4 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong on all counts: (1) A country cannot be a democracy unless it provides equal rights to all its citizens. I suggest you talk to some non-jewish Israelis, ask them about their daily life, and you will learn what it is like to be the victim of state-sponsored discrimination. (2) In the period 1967-2000 Israel had 138 UN resolutions passed against it, many of them condemning Israel for violating earlier resolutions. These are all on the public record, look them up for yourself on the UN web site, eg. 672, 681, and 726. (3) The UN has NEVER approved or allowed Israel's nuclear weapons program, and I challenge you to present any evidence to the contrary. We know for a fact that such a program exists, thanks to Mordechai Vanunu. Also, please sign in next time you post on this page. Logicman1966 10:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, was the United States not a democracy until the 1970s? Ask Southern blacks what their life was like in the 1950's, they certainly didn't have equal rights. Czolgolz 14:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this guy is kind of a moron. Who cares about Israel, last time I checked they were our biggest ally in the middle east. By the way, the UN is worthless. 70.244.234.4 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's a moron at all, and I don't think the UN is worthless. Check out www.unicef.org if you disagree. This is hardly the page to debate this.Czolgolz 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my point - what is the REAL reason that we invaded Iraq in 2003? I am still waiting for a believable answer. It is a crucial aspect of the whole issue, and this is an entirely appropriate place to discuss it. To anonymous poster, don't be rude or resort to name-calling, it is a violation of wiki rules. If you disagree with any of my comments, please present some facts to prove me wrong. Logicman1966 02:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The REAL reason Iraq was invaded was almost 100 percent due to cause and effect of 9/11 in the United States. People from the Middle East were responsible for the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history. and Al-Qaeda leaders claimed the attack as theirs and this is all public knowledge. Al-Qaeda operated out of Iraq, this is also a well known fact. The opinion of United States citizens not only gave the Bush administration approval to invade, but practically insisted he did. It was also close to presidential elections, and what better way gain popular opinion than an aggressive war-time plan that everyone in the country wants? It was never about the oil. Think about it, fuel prices have more than tripled since Iraq was invaded, so I don't see how that would matter. Also, the "total cost" of oil has increased due to capital expenses incurred by the United States government in securing and managing oil fields. Why would we want to raise prices on ourselves? The whole "oil" thing is just a weak attempt to try and pin the age old green monster of 'greed' on a decision that is much more complicated than the conspiracy theorist want to try and comprehend. 68.143.88.2 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss your personal views on why Iraq was invaded. There are plenty of forums on the internet for that. I don't mean to be rude, but unless you all can find a widespread poll that proves MANY people share your opinions, all this stuff is moot. If you answers are any indication, there are a wide variety of views on why Iraq was invaded and we can't possibly include every conspiracy theory unless its widely accepted as fact by a signifigant number of people. And no, this is not a special exception to the talk page guidelines. Ageofe 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to push my personal views, I simply seek the truth. It appears we all agree that the reason(s) for the invasion are hotly disputed, and I suggest that this point be made clear in the article. I have found a couple of extra reputable sources which discuss the allegation of oil as a motive, when I have some time I will add them to the article. Logicman1966 09:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt they're reputable if they say oil was the main reason for going to Iraq. You could say that the United States has a higher interest in the Middle East because of oil, but it would never be the main reason. The real reason was that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy with a bad history and a grudge against the free world. This might have been acceptable before 9/11, but it wasn't afterward. If you really want the truth and not some fringe nonsense, you don't really need to dig very deep. Isaac Pankonin 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Isaac nailed it. If you boil down this article, that is exactly what you'll find. 9/11 changed the world, and people like Saddam and other terrorists are no longer tolerated. I've heard the "oil" story many times, and it just plain doesn't make sense as the anon IP pointed out. Donny417 01:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Isaac "nailed" one POV, a POV that should be reported. There are other POV's, though, and the other notable ones should also be reported, even if some editors think they don't make sense. There's ample evidence that the neocons were planning the invasion of Iraq in 2000. On this POV, 9/11 didn't change the world, at least as far as the U.S.-Iraq relationship was concerned; it merely provided a convenient pretext for what Bush wanted to do anyway, a pretext the Administration exploited by falsely implying that Saddam was involved in 9/11. One notable version of this POV (though not the only one) is that the real reason was oil. JamesMLane t c 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for instance, I don't find "9/11 changed the world, and people like Saddam and other terrorists are no longer tolerated." a very persuasive argument. Clinton had a pretty good plan for fighting terrorism, and the best man for the job: Richard Clarke. And he was focused on counter-terrorism and vigourously persued counter-terrorism intelligence. Hence, the daily intelligence briefing bush received more than a month before 9/11, titled "bin laden to strike inside the u.s.", and the plans laid out for what to do if terrorists hijacked planes. Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke actively persued terrorists; they clearly did not tolerate them. To say "are no longer tolerated." implies that they were tolerated before 9/11. Clearly, they were not tolerated.

When Bush took over, however, he promptly demoted Richard Clarke, refused to even read the plan, and ignored intelligence - even when they were read to him out-loud and said in clear and simple terms that terrorists are about to strike inside the u.s. So I'll give you that terrorists and terrorism were tolerated -- if you're talking about the period from when Bush was elected to when 9/11 occured. But before he was elected, they were they were not.

As regards Saddam Hussien, Bush intended to go after him long before 9/11, even before he was president. So 9/11 certainly didn't change that.

As regards terrorism, well I haven't heard anything about Afghanistan from this government in quite some time. I think the last thing I've heard about bin laden was "I'm not really concerned about him." -- and I shouldn't have to remind anyone whose mouth that came out of. 80% of the terrorists that struck on 9/11 are from saudi arabia - and I haven't heard a peep about saudi arabia from any member of this administration, or seen any news whatsoever in the past -- how many years has it been since 9/11? -- about action in saudi arabia. All in all, it sure sounds like toleration to me.

In conclusion,

before 9/11, bush wanted to depose hussien. after 9/11, bush wanted to depose hussien: no change
before 9/11, bush did not pursue terrorism. after 9/11, bush did not pursue terrorism: no change

So yeah, call me thoroughly unconvinced. The argument is specious, at best, and has been thoroughly refuted by the 9/11 commission report. Yet the article still gives it space. Why? Because it's notable.

The administration very forcefully and repeatedly implied that saddam was involved in 9/11. A lot of people knew then, and many more know now, that this is simply false -- which is much worse than unpersuasive. Nonetheless, it was said, and the fact that it was said is clearly notable, so it gets mention in the article. If you think that arguments and/or POVs that don't persuade you shouldn't be in the article, then certainly arguments that are just plain false shouldn't be in the article either. Otherwise, you're clearly holding one side up to a higher standard (however subjective) than you hold the other. But I digress, it is NPOV policy to include notable POVs in an article, per WP:NPOV. That's why both POVs, the one that does not persuade you, and the one that is demonstrably false, are presented in the article. Kevin Baas^talk 23:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the notable changes, oddly enough, did not occur on 9/11, but on election day:

before bush was elected, terrorism was actively pursued - percieved as the primary threat, in fact. After bush was elected, saddam hussein's fictituous WMD, were seen as the primary threat, and vetted intelligence that terrorists were going to strike inside the u.s. wasn't important enough to make the president leave his ranch. -- cutting branches off of trees was deemed more important than pursuing terrorist threats.
before bush was elected, america had been kept safe from terrorists for hundreds of years. after bush was elected, terrorists successfully struck inside the u.s. (9/11)

(I'm guesssing the second change had something to do with the first.) These are facts, plainly stated. They are notable changes. And they did occur. There is record of it. And the change occurred on November 4th, when you voted (assuming you did). Kevin Baas^talk 00:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there is much speculation about why bush decided to invade iraq. The most convincing one I've heard is that Bush jr. heard that saddam tried to execute bush sr., and that made bush jr. mad, so he tried to execute saddam. in a word: vengeance. I'm not very satisfied with that answer - but i recognize that my dissatisfaction is not on account of the relative plausibility of it. I hope that helps. A lot of people have been asking that same question for years, and the administration, after changing from one untenable story to the next, ad naseum, (had WMD, had WMD capability, was developing WMD capability, had the capability to develop WMD capability, was developing the capability to develop WMD capabiltiy, etc.) seems to have finally exhausted its creativity, and ended with the rather confusing: "the operation was a success, because we did not find any WMD". While I can think of much easier ways to not find WMD, this is, apparently, the (most recent) official position of why we invaded iraq: to not find WMD.

Anycase, yeah, this really isn't the place to discuss this, per WP:NOT. Kevin Baas^talk 00:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you write the essay? >.> Anyway, i'm glad I have another editor to back me up on this one. Ageofe 21:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No one should mention 9-11 anywhere in this article period. There is more than enough credible evidence to support further investigation into the events that took place on 9-11. I wont go there for this article. But since this is the something to think about section. It should be mentioned that as early as 1999 Cheney met with energy lobbyists with detailed maps showing the separation of Iraq's oil and gas reserves. The sole purpose of illegally invading and occupying Iraq is oil. This should be counted as the sole reason as all other purported reasons have since been disproven or discredited. stormkrow 12:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.37.26 (talk)

Suggestion to merge topics

The First Gulf War, "interim period," (including UN Sanctions, Resolutions, "Oil-For-Food" Program, etc.) and "2003 Invasion of Iraq" will eventually be merged into one massive heading "Iraq War 1990-?". This is all one long conflict, albeit punctuated by quiet periods. The only thing which separates these periods in the minds of current commentators are highly partisan considerations, e.g. Hawks vs. Doves vs. non-interventionists, Democrats vs. Republicans, Europeanists vs. Internationalists vs. Anti-Globalists, etc. 71.215.183.90 23:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Globalize tag

Is it my cynical imagination or does the sentence "This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject" seem less like a serious concern and more like a bad joke? I haven't read the article yet but that was the first thing that came to mind. Romperomperompe 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Casus Belli

The casus belli is in deperate need for change. The infobox is an infobox, not a wall of text. Daimanta 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I added that info and, I agree, it is long. However, the point does need to be made because its an area of confusion. Although several justifications, before and since, were used to support the case for the invasion (mostly since) it is a matter of record that there was only ever one official casus belli: failure to disarm. It's explicit in Bush's and Blair's (and others') remarks.

I think the best thing would be for the casus belli section in the infobox to be brief and for the rationale section to be rewritten. I'll try to do that myself in a couple of days or so. Dwtray2007 06:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not objectively "true". The cassus belli was failure to comply with several different UN Resolutions. These resolutions included: not allowing UN inspectors unfettered access to conduct inspections, constant flouting of these UN resolutions, weapons of mass destruction, sponsoring terrorism and a whole litany of other charges leveled against Hussein's government. Blair, Bush and others made the point time and again that Security Council threats without any enforcement would be meaningless. To say that "WMDs were the only REAL reason given" is highly slanted. That's why you need so many selective quotes to back it up. 71.215.183.90 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, I don't think you're distinguishing between the strict definition of casus belli as the trigger for conflict and the various justifications for the attack (given before and after the invasion). Or, to put it another way, between necessary and sufficient conditions. I did not say that WMD were ‘the only real reason’ given. I said that failure to disarm was the only condition that would trigger the attack.

Let me explain my reasoning: All the items you list were used in the run up to the attack to build a case for war but only one of them was the trigger -the sufficient condition- for the attack to take place. The quotations I provide demonstrate that, explicitly and clearly, Bush and Blair officially stated that there was only one condition that would cause them to attack -that was iraq’s failure to disarm. The allegations of involvement in terrorism, the flouting of resolutions and the various other charges (for example Saddam’s domestic tyranny) clearly were insufficient to cause (rather than justify) the invasion. We know this because they were all known or alleged long before the attack, when Bush and Blair were both telling Iraq that the situation could still be resolved peacefully.

The quotations I’ve supplied demonstrate the accuracy of my argument -from the horse’s mouth. To say that they are ‘selective’ is accurate but meaningless -all quotation is ‘selective’, that is the point. If you want to demonstrate that they are misrepresentative then you need to find reliable quotations from Bush or Blair, from the period before the invasion, which state that the invasion would occur, even if Iraq disarmed. Otherwise, my position and what I have written stands as accurate. Dwtray2007 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I was there, too, and remember hearing all of the arguments I mentioned. Furthermore, there isn't any way Saddam Hussein could have stacked all of his weapons up at the border, and said "there, see, I've disarmed completely," and thus delayed the invasion "trigger" as you call it. It doesn't even make sense. On the other hand, if Hussein had at some point agreed to immediately abide by all outstanding UN resolutions binding, and immediately allow UN and MNF inspectors into the country, it would have muted Bush and Blair's excuse for attacking (cassus belli) considerably, and possibly delayed the conflict. If you want it to stand, though, just get all your "internal deliberations" out of the infobox, and let it stand, for cripes sake! Twenty years from now, this entire argument will seem ridiculous, one way or another. 71.215.183.90 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 71.215.183.90 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,

I think we may be talking slightly at cross-purposes here.

Firstly, let me be clear that I do not think the real reason for the invasion was because of the fictional threat from fictional Iraqi WMD. WMD was simply a pretext.

Secondly, I am not disputing that other reasons were given in support of the invasion -not least the largely bogus links with terrorism, and the flouting of UN Resolutions. My point is that, while they were justifications, they were not the cause of the invasion. The invasion began (officially) on March 20th 2003. It was established as of, say, February 20th 2003, that Iraq had flouted various resolutions -yet (again officially) the decision to invade had not yet been made and, theoretically, Saddam could still have averted it. That is because Iraq’s flouting of UN Resolutions was not the cause of the invasion, merely a justification. This is clear logic, I hope.

There was, officially, only one cause for the invasion -one event that would trigger it: Iraq’s ‘failure’ to disarm. Bush and Blair stated this clearly and explicitly. Moreover, their statements were a matter of public record, not ‘internal deliberations’.

I think that the official reason for the invasion was a deception but it is vital that it is made clear because of the attempts since then to downplay the embarassment of the absent WMD in favour of the ‘liberation’ fraud. If the article is to be accurate, it must state what the official cause of the conflict was -and then go into detail in the main body. Pursuant to that, I agree about putting most of the material in the main body. In a couple of days, when I have time, I shall do this. Dwtray2007 18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An important point to be made: if you are writing from Europe, your memory that WMDs were the "cassus belli" would be absolutely correct. In the United States, in the run-up to the House and Senate's "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq", passed in October 2002, the key argument was whether or not to enforce UN Section 7 (?) resolutions with military consequences. Colin Powell visited the UN in early February 2003 to sell the case for war to potential European allies. This is when WMDs took front and center stage for the first time, (though they had been mentioned plenty in previous debates.) I would propose, for the sake of objectivity, that you write "cassus belli" United States - enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions; European participants - disarmament. There is plenty more to be said about all this, but this is not the place to make a case for it.

However, I believe that your assertion that the case to go to war was based on "deception" shows a pretty clear political bent. It's arguable that this is unavoidable in interpretations of history. This is unfortunate, though, because contributors to Wikipedia are usually pretty objective about older historical subjects. 71.215.190.223 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how an assertion that the case to go to war was based on "deception" shows a political bent. The case to go to war could very well be based on deception, quite irrespective of anyone's political orientation. It being or not being based on deception does not in any way determine anyone's political orientation. Though able or not being able to call a spade a spade clearly reflects a person's objectivity.

I am writting from American, and I paid and continue to pay close attention to what goes on in my government. And my memory is pretty good, and not easily swayed by suggestion. I clearly remember, here in America, President Bush pressing the case for war, saying that Saddam Hussien had "Weapons of Mass Destruction". I clearly remember how the oddity of this phrase struck me. It seemed to me to be quite redundant to say "weapons of destruction". I don't know of any other kind of weapon. Weapons destroy. Duh. Anybody who knows what a weapon is knows that. Why repeat it like that? Why state the obvious? Why not just say "weapon"? It's like saying "gun of shooting bullets". It's laughable. The only reason I can think of to add the "of destruction" part is to paint a more vivid image in people's mind; to scare them. As if that wasn't enough, he added "Mass". Not just "some" destruction, not just "lots of" destruction, but massive destruction! Okay. Fine. Whatever. What kind of weapons are they? You use a lot of words, but it doesn't really tell us anything besides "big and scary". (And what's the use of that (except to scare)?) Are they nuclear weapons? Chemical weapons? What? I could only guess they where nuclear weapons. And I wondered "Why couldn't he just say "nuclear weapons"" like everybody else does? It's much easier to say, and it gets a lot more information across. Maybe he doesn't know what kind of weapons they are. And if that's the case, well, I don't very much believe him. In any case, with all these considerations, these four words alone where enough to make me very skeptical. I can remember where I was and what time of day it was. And the fact that there wasn't even an attempt at diplomacy really made the whole thing quite incredible. Usually, you read about something like that in the paper, then you read in the paper something about the secretary of state or something arranging a meeting, or maybe there are conditions, something of the sort. Or they go and try to find out if they really do have weapons. Here, there was none of that. The president just makes a bold statement out of the blue, and the news publishes his bold statement, and then the government does nothing. No diplomacy, no checking to see if they do have evidence, nothing. Just more bold statements. Out of the blue. It was all very backwards. I can remember it all very clearly. I can remember the order and intensity of events just as clearly. And I'll tell you now, as I would have told you then, the causi belli was WMD. From day number one. Anyone who denies it is only lying to themselves and fooling absolutely nobody. A year from now, I will tell you that the caussi belli for the Iraq war was WMD. Ten years from now I will tell you the same thing. No matter what anybody says. Because I rely on what was said THEN. And I remember that quite clearly. I can remember when the administration said that the threat was imminent; that they could strike the U.S. at any time. I remember pointing out that they're on the other side of the frickin' planet. They'd need an intercontinental ballistic missile to deliver a "WMD" across half of the globe. The notion was pretty frickin' ridiculous. Yet half of the country seemed to believe it. Man oh man, after all that - after all that insanity and extremism, people now have the gaul to say that it never happened. Well you know what? It's on the frickin' record. Every single one of the president's speeches is video taped and can be played back, in order, for everyone to see, from now until kingdom come. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm so @#$^%$@ sick of that phrase. Why? Oh, I don't know. You'd have me believe it wasn't repeated over and over and over again. You'd have me believe it was just a speck of dust. Why should I be sick of it? Why, it was barely even mentioned. Dude, I've seen hour-long montages synced to music of Bush saying "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in about every intonation imaginable. Yet people like you, who swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, and could not be dissuaded no matter how hard we tried, continue to try to trivialize it merely because in the end, it turned out to be wrong. You know what, I'm sick of that too.

This is pretty cathartic, I admit. But you are liable to get the same kind of reaction from other people. For the same reasons. It's best you understand what those are. (And anybody else who happens to read this.) 65.26.249.208 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You said "I do not see how an assertion that the case to go to war was based on "deception" shows a political bent." It is pretty obvious that it does show a political bent, but that is really not an important issue. What is important is if you can prove it by citing a reliable source. Can you? You said "And I'll tell you now, as I would have told you then, the causi belli was WMD", fine - now can you prove this? If you actually can do this, it is important that you do it. You may have any political bent that you wish, we all do. I doubt that you can prove it by a relaible source. Raggz 06:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're serious? Okay, firstly, let me restate what I said earlier about political bent: Whether or not the case to go to war was based on deception, does not make me a democrat, republican, anti-bush, pro-bush, pro-gun-control, anti-slavery, whatever. It really has no effect on me. Nor do I affect it. It is outside of me. Completely. I am not George Bush. Nor am I the war. Whether or not the case to go to war was based on deception has no effect on mine, nor anybody else's "political bent". Kevin Baas^talk 03:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As to reliable sources, you're really serious? You're not just kidding me that you don't remember? You're not just playing coy? There are friggin books on the subject by people who worked directly with him. There were articles in the news about it. There were public speeches broadcast on national television. There were CIA agents and high level officials tipping off newspapers that the whole thing was bogus, and they wrote articles about it. There were secret documents leaked from the u.k. of bush-blair meetings were they plain-spokenly orchestrated the deception. There were statements by the U.N. There were thousands of pages of report of activities and inventory from Iraq. It was a really big thing. Really, really, big. It was all over the news and everywhere else. You couldn't miss it. I've just listed off tons of reliable sources without even trying. And I really have a hard time believing that you really, seriously, doubt any of this. I mean, seriously, if you were breathing back then, you were bambarded by it. I don't believe that your memory is that bad. That's just ridiculous. Kevin Baas^talk 03:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept that there were different stresses in the US and UK but they are not relevant to the point I am making. The casus belli was precisely the same in both countries -as the statements provided demonstrate.

To be clear, I am not discussing the justifications offered. I am discussing the casus belli -the trigger for the conflict. That was, indisputably, officially only one thing: the ‘single question’ as Bush himself put it. The statements from Bush and Blair that I have provided demonstrate this categorically. They did not state ‘if Iraq does not cease funding terrorism, we will invade’. They did not state ‘we are invading because Saddam’s regime is brutal’. Nor did they say, ‘we will invade because Iraq has violated UN Resolutions’. Both Bush and Blair stated explicitly that they would invade ONLY if Iraq failed to disarm. That was the only condition under which they would invade, therefore that was the trigger, the casus belli. The rest were merely attendant justifications. Surely this is not difficult to understand:

‘Saddam Hussein will disarm. If not, for the sake of peace, for the sake of securing the homeland, the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein.’ George Bush, quoted during interview with Steve Croft, Infinity CBS Radio Connect, transcript available at http://www.pentagon.gov/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html;

‘The president believes it's important that the Iraqi regime be disarmed. He has indicated that his first choice would be that it would be done peacefully with the Iraqi regime acquiescing in the unanimous Security Council vote for the new resolution, and that they disarm themselves. The president has said that if not, he intends to lead a coalition of the willing to see that that happens.’ Donald Rumsfeld, interview with Steve Croft, Infinity CBS Radio Connect November 14, 2002, transcript available at http://www.pentagon.gov/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html;

‘Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.’ George Bush, press conference January 31, 2003, available at http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/sprj.irq.bush.blair.topics/;

As for my point about WMD being a deception, that's my view, but it has no bearing on my contributions to the article.

It would be quite simple for you to disprove my point, incidentally. Find a statement, which supercedes the ones I have provided, in which Bush or Blair stated that they would invade even if Iraq disarmed. If you can do that, then my argument will be invalidated.

The detail should go into the main body, I accept that. If someone else wants to do it, that’s fine with me. Otherwise, I will do it in a couple of days, as I’ve previously stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwtray2007 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

After Reading Dwartys statement im gonna have to agree with him.(ForeverDEAD 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

I pay a lot of attention to politics but all that I have heard about an intentional manipulation to get the US into Iraq have been from marginal and non-reliable sources. Take the Downing Street Memo, I heard of it, but how was it authenticated? If it was ever authenticated - then THIS would be very important. Was it? The internet is filled with bogus documents and scams, is the Downing Street memo one of them? If you just want to dust off the old stack of unsupported allegations, this will not interest me. It is possible that I have missed a reliable source that shows that the administration deliberately lied about Iraq. It is well established in my opinion that many mistake have occured (as is always the case with wars). Actual reliable evidence that the administration DELIBERATELY manipulated the war should have a prominent place IF such exists. Unverified claims just waste space and time. Raggz 03:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not about whether or not the deception was deliberate. It is yet another discussion about what the causi belli for the war was, which, as all such discussions do, ended conclusively with "the causi belli was WMD". The question as to whether was Bush knew that Iraq did not have WMD, or, in fact, cared, was a tangent. And I think it should be a separate discussion altogether, lest we confuse a settled topic w/an unsettled one. So w/out further ado, I'll make a new section for it, and hopefully address some of your concerns. Kevin Baas^talk 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Intentional manipulation? (Reliable sources?)

The question was brought up as to whether there is information from reliable sources showing that the administration "deliberately manipulated the war". It was stated, furthermore, that if such exists, it should be given a prominent place in the article. Kevin Baas^talk 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Downing Street Memo: The downing street memo is not from the internet. It is the official minutes of a secret meeting on 10 downing street, between top U.S. and U.K. officials. Copies of the minutes were made and distributed to a select few. Days before the U.K. election, one of those copies was clandenstinely handed to a reporter of the U.K. Sunday Times, copied, and handed back. (This was done to protect the identity of the source. If it wasn't returned, the U.K. government would know who leaked it: the person who doesn't have their copy.) The minutes were then published in The Sunday Times, with an accompaning story. The Sunday Times is a major U.K. newspaper, one of the biggest and considered very reliable.

The minutes contained information that was startling to many, such as the statement: "the facts and intelligence were being fixed around the policy", and revelations that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action" before going to the U.N., contrary to statements that Bush had made publicly. And that, even though "The NSC had no patience with the UN route", Blair tried to convince Bush to go to the U.N. to try to get their support first, though he held doubts that this was tenable, as "the case was thin", because, among other things, "[Saddam's] WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

(Furthermore, the memo revealed that bush had communicated to the U.K. government that he was willing to "go it alone", even without U.N. support. The latter part of this is confirmed by the fact that bush did eventually invade Iraq, without U.N. support.)

The story quickly became major news, and impacted the elections significantly. The U.S. media, however, was silent about it. But since The Sunday Times, being a major newspaper, also has a presence online, which many Americans subscribe to (The old "I'm not dumb: I read the foreign news to find out about my nation."), while American news deluged the American public with stories about Micheal Jackson and other pop stars, people who could care less were still able to keep up on, well, the actual news.

So many heard about it, in fact, and such was the chasm between the actual news and what was being reported on american t.v., that people on the internet organized and collectively swamped news stations with requests to report the news. Eventually, MSNBC, having been swamped with calls (along with every other major news station), decided to do a short news piece, on "inside the blogs" (i think it was called), in which they mentioned that they had been swamped with calls by people asking them to report on this news that they were not reporting, and proceeded to report on the blogs reporting on the news not reporting this news. So in the end it turned out to be a big circle of reporting, kind of like the hall of mirrors effect that you get when you point a video camera at the t.v.. An interesting effect, no doubt, but not very representative of the outside world.

Anyways, as to the accuracy of the minutes, bear in mind the way classified information is dealt with, vs. the way propaganda is dealt with (irrespective of whether or not it's true):

classified information is neither confirmed nor denied.
propaganda is flatly denied.

Now look at the responses:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw did not confirm or deny the accuracy of the memo when questioned about it
- McClellan added in a later press conference: "..In terms of the intelligence, the – if anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and that's all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence."

This challenge was swiftly taken up by ThinkProgress.org: [12]. (And it showed that, indeed, everybody can see how the administration used intelligence.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Baas (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush has not responded to questions from Congress regarding the memo's accuracy.

These questions included "Do you dispute the accuracy of any of the information in the document?" A simple "Yes." to this question alone would have let him off the hook.

When asked about the contents of the memo by Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price in the House of Commons on 2005-06-29, Blair again refrained from disputing the document's authenticity, saying only "[…]that memo and other documents of the time were covered by the Butler review. In addition, that was before we went to the United Nations and secured the second resolution, 1441, which had unanimous support."[51]

Interestingly enough, Mr. Blair purports to know when the memo was written. This is perhaps the most revealing statement ever made by a government official about the memo's accuracy. If it was not authentic, and was in fact a "forgery" or fabricated, it was in any case written, according to Blair, a long time before it was made public. And if it was written, as tony blair claims, "before we went to the united nations", by someone, no doubt, with quite a bit of foresight, who was somehow able to anticipate them going to the U.N. before it actually happened! This person must also have been able to anticipate other future events, such as the U.K. joining forces with the U.S., and the ultimatum to Saddam regarding inspectors, etc., etc., all things that the public -- at the time that Blair claims the document was written -- was vastly unaware of.

It boggles the mind why such a talented and clairvoyant fabricator would wait so long before publishing this masterpiece of prophesy, and furthermore, how tony blair would have such a close relationship with this psychic as to be able to confirm such a detail as when he wrote it.

The only way to know when something was written, besides carbon dating (which has a level of precision far below anything practical for this timescale), is to be there while it is being written; to actually observe the writing of it. I suppose, alternatively, when could have a fair idea of when something was written if the witnessed the events that were written about, and then sometime soon afterwards were furnished a copy of the manuscript. One could reasonably conclude that the document was written sometime in between when the events occurred and when they read the narrative of them. In any case, (assuming he wasn't b@llsh*tt&ng the public on this, which is a punishable offense for a public official) one of these things had to have occurred for mr. blair to know when it was written: either he witnessed the writing of the document, or he witnessed the events that were written about. In the former case, what was he doing starring over some guy's shoulder while that guy was writing incriminating stuff about him, why didn't he try to stop him, and why the guy continued to write with the person he was writing incriminating stuff about staring over his shoulder? In the latter case, well, Blair just acknowledged, not only that the events described in the document happend, but that he actually witnessed them! (which would make sense, given that the document states that he was there and summaries things that he said.)

Furthermore, saying that the document was "covered by the Butler review", even thou it is not mentioned by name in the butler review, or, (to my knowledge) excerpted, confirms not only that it was written prior to the butler review, but also that it somehow got mixed in with the papers that the butler review was reviewing, which, as is public knowledge, was limited to U.K. intelligence reports and other government papers. It follows that the DSM must therefore be a "government paper". Again, tony blair tacitly confirms that the DSM are, in fact, an authentic government paper, and not some outside fabrication written by a studious psychic with a strange penchant for publishing their predictions after the events occurred, in a creative second-person narrative to be published in a major U.K. newspaper as fact, after first having tony blair review it months before making it public.

And finally,

According to CNN, currently classified documents which were dated at the same month as the Downing Street memo, March of 2002, were uncovered in Iraq, and contained evidence that Russian intelligence notified Iraq about the "determination of the United States and Britain to launch military action."

Which, in itself, confirms that, prior to the invasion (and prior to going to the U.N.), classified documents contained evidence that russia notified iraq that the U.S. and the U.K. were determined to launch military action. Another reputable source corroborating the theory that the U.S. was determined to invade Iraq before making the case for invasion, or going to the U.N., or otherwise "exhausting all other options", contrary to public statements made by Bush.

Besides the DSM, and the documents mentioned by CNN, there were other leaked documents which also corroborate one another, and tell the same story, including: 1. Iraq: Options Paper, prepared by the Overseas & Defence Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, dated 8 March 2002, describing options available for pursuing regime change in Iraq; 2. Iraq: Legal Background, prepared by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Legal Department, dated 8 March 2002; 3. a report from David Manning to Tony Blair on his meeting with Condoleezza Rice, dated 14 March 2002; 4. a report from Christopher Meyer to David Manning on his meeting with Paul Wolfowitz, dated 18 March 2002; 5. a memo from Peter Ricketts, Political Director, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, to the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, dated 22 March 2002, with background and opinion for Straw's advice to Tony Blair ahead of his meeting with George Bush in April; and 6. a memo from Jack Straw to Tony Blair, 25 March 2002 containing advice ahead of Blair's meeting with George Bush in April.

The authenticity of all of these documents have been verified by british government sources, according to both NBC, and The Raw Story.

These documents, among other things, tell a tale of government agencies, in the U.S. and U.K. governments, that were set up expressly to collabaritively 'mine intelligence for evidence, whether vetted or not, to justify a pre-established policy: the invasion of iraq. The existence of these agencies have been verified and are known as the "Office of Special Plans (OSP)", and "Operation Rockingham", respectively. Witnesses have come forward and spoken out about the nature of these operations, not the least of whom is Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (now retired)^[13]. Kevin Baas^talk 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"now proven unfounded" in lead

I'm about to remove the "now proven unfounded" phrase from where it talks about WMD. The language is far too strong. I've compiled some quotes about missing chemical weapons in the Duelfer Report, and there's also this source. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right to remove the term "now proven unfounded". It is, of course, impossible for anyone to prove that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. How about something like "now entirely discredited"? As in:

The official reason for the invasion was the claim — now entirely discredited — that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, which constituted a threat to world peace.

It shouldn't be a problem to find a reliable, published source to support this. (As of October 2007, almost everyone in the world agrees with it.)

I'm not really sure what to make of your quotes and citations. Are you actually trying to suggest that there was some truth to the Bush administration's claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction which constituted a threat to world peace? Good luck finding a reliable source to support that position! (That Fox News article is a joke, by the way.) Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was some truth to the claims. Obviously, it wasn't to the extent that everybody (yes, everybody - even France and Germany) thought. However, since the Duelfer Report found that Iraq was only trying to get inspections lifted so they could resume WMD production uninhibited, I think it's reasonable to say that it's better that we invaded in 2003 instead of waiting until 2007 when he actually posed a threat. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that line originally and I stand by it -they have been proven unfounded to the extent that it is ever possible to prove a negative. It will always be possible to argue that there were weapons, that they are still hidden, that they were dismantled, that they were shipped to Syria, that the faeries came and took them away. The point is, there is no evidence for any of those assertions and we have the brute fact that NO weapons have ever been found. The most that has been found are some pre-1991 munitions (not weapons) that even the ISG conceded weren't what they were looking for.

Secondly, 'everybody' did not think there were WMD in Iraq:

1. Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

President Chirac: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that… It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of. As for weapons of mass destruction, bacteriological, biological, chemical, we don’t know. And that is precisely what the inspectors’ mandate is all about. But rushing into war, rushing into battle today is clearly a disproportionate response. Interview with CBS 16th March 2003

2. A British intelligence source said the best intelligence on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq. 'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.' Published on Sunday, June 1, 2003 by The Sunday Herald

3. French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…" French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat." Institute for Science and International Security

4. Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing." Institute for Science and International Security.

So far as I'm concerned that should be the end of the matter. The claim that Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons has now been utterly discredited (if it was discredited enough before the invasion). Until and unless some amazing new evidence comes to light, the line should stand. Ipankonin's argument about Iraq's future intentions simply does not hold water -at no point before the invasion were we told we were invading because of Iraq's hypothetical future intentions. We were told that the invasion was the only response to an immediate threat. I'm reverting the line. Dwtray2007 08:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree with the word "discredited" instead of "unfounded"? I utterly reject your statement that munitions are not weapons. I would like you to provide a source that says that. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a source to demonstrate that a munition is not a weapon -you just need a dictionary. A bullet is a munition, a pistol is a weapon -simple. In any case, my point stands, the decayed shells found predate the 1991 Gulf War, were unusable, most likely abandoned in place or partially destroyed and, by the ISG's own words, not what they were looking for. Dwtray2007 08:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Duelfer Report never said it's not what they were looking for, and that's all the ISG, as an entity, has ever "said". ISG "remains concerned" about the lost weapons. Charles Duelfer has said some things, but you haven't provided a source to anything Duelfer has said. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no 'lost weapons' -there was material 'unaccounted for' but this based on extrapolations of maximum potential manufacture. These extrapolations were themselves based on unreliable Iraqi estimates.

The fact remains, no weapons were found, and decayed munitions dating back to before the first gulf war (which were always expected) do not count.

From the Duelfer report:

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

"With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad’s ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes."

That's from the Duelfer Report (key Findings), October 2004. There were no weapons and that really is an end to it. Dwtray2007 09:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comcatants

THe Iraqi army should be with the mahdi army because they are killing americans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.138.179 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

US-troops and Turkey

Is anyone here aware of the fact that US-troops actually *did* cross through Turkey- despite the vote of the Turkish parliament ? I recall TV-footage of US-vehicles moving through a Turkish port; being asked about it, a US-spokesman back then stated that these vehicles had a purely humanitarian role, belonging primarily to paramedical units. However- the TV-footage showed 155mm selfpropelled howitzers; I doubt if these would be of much use to a field hospital. The Turkish parliamentarians where said by Radio Deutsche Welle at the time to have asked the Prime minister as to why those troops were moving through Turkish territory, given their vote earlier on. 86.41.214.124 02:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Casualty figures during invasion, not after

This article is, according to the summary box, limited to the invasion of Iraq between March 18th and May 1st 2003; the casualty figures in the box should therefore reflect casualties during this period, not following the invasion. Clearly there is something wrong with a military force of "375,000" having "Reported and observed Iraqi combatant fatalities: 1.2 million (ORB survey) 650,000 (Lancet, 2006)..." Chris Bainbridge 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Replace "9/11" for "September 11, 2001 attacks"

refer to this discussion, thanks. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

American Imperialism in Iraq

What should be the fate of this article? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is a disaster for long list of reasons. I went ahead and just redirected it here. If anyone disagrees and wants to discuss it here, then by all means, revert me. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that its a totalt POV article. Its like making an article called "American Liberation of opressed citizens in iraq"" Esskater11 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the article on the 14 "enduring bases"?

I am looking for the article on the 14 "enduring bases" being constructed in Iraq by the Coalition Forces, but can find no such article. Does it exist under another title? The Iraqi National Security Advisor just stated publicly that he doesn't want to allow these bases to remain permanently in Iraq. This should be added to Wikipedia, but there doesn't seem to be an article about these bases. Badagnani (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text about WP edits from House account

Evidence has since come to light of intent to mislead the public, including edits to this Wikipedia article from an IP address in the U.S. House of Representatives that sought to draw a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda despite the absence of evidence.^[4]

Moved here by PRRfan (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oil euro

Just curious, is there any rationale behind not including in the article anywhere the fact that Hussein was going to price Iraq's oil by the Euro before the invasion and that in the wake of the invasion it has remained priced by the US Dollar? It seems that it is not encyclopaedic to exclude such pertinent information, in the very least in discussion of the effects of the invasion. -Kez (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the Invasion

Lord Goldsmith

"Similarly, Tony Blair's Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, while concluding that a reasonable case could be made that U.N. Resolution 1441 authorized military action, acknowledged that the invasion could be challenged on legal grounds" was deleted and reverted because Lord Goldsmith's prominenmt name was deleted.

This text was deleted because 1441 was considered and not used as a legal justification for the 2003 invasion. Because it was not used, it's consideration and ultimate rejection are presently irrelevant. (There is another article about the legalities, and this text might find a better home in the full article on legalities?). If Lord Goldsmith had rendered an opinion about 660/678 which were the basis for the invasion, this would be highly relevant, but apparently, he did not. I will accordingly revert the reversion, and if reverted again discuss this issue here. Raggz (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Role of Decline of Oil Production Per World Capita

1. The Iraq invasion was planned before Sept 11, 2001. 2. The world top oil-reserves nation is Saudi Arabia, whose production had lately been suspected of peaking. 3. The world's 2nd largest oil reserves are Iraq's. 4. Oil production per world capita is in permanent decline. 5. The West's preeminence is based on continued intense oil consumption.

Given these facts it seemed reasonable to ask what future historians will conclude regarding the ultimate cause of the invasion. This was done here on Dec 30, 2007. Instead of posting his contrary opinion (which deserves consideration as much as anyone's), a military censor instantly removed the question, regarding the very asking of it as POV. Evidently censorship is not POV. And a military viewpoint is not POV.

This is an ongoing problem on Wikipedia: most of those who strike material they find offensive allegedly on POV grounds are themselves more POV-ridden than the object of their censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.143 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Plan to move all pre-invasion, post-2003 and overlapping generalities to Iraq War

There is a huge overlap between this article and Iraq War. I would like to take everything out of this one that has anything to do with:

events before the invasion that were not directly related to the military operation,
2004 or later, and
the general sections like "Failed peace initiatives," "Casus belli and rationale," "Legality of invasion," and "Criticisms"

from this article and into Iraq War which already discusses all of those topics. I will leave WP:SUMMARY paragraphs and main article links.

I want to get some feedback before I dive in. What do people think of this plan? Boowah59 (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

War start date?

The article states that the War started March 18, but any article I have read states that bombing started on the early hours (Iraqi time -> which is what counts) of March 20. If the War didn't start with the bombing, when did it start? (PNAC's letter to Mr. Clinton perhaps?) This is even more important with the 5 year anniversary just around the corner; but on which date? 2003_Iraq_war_timeline agrees with March 20, so one of the two articles is wrong. --ElPax (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"invasion" OR "Invasion"?

Shouldn't the 'I' of "2003 invasion" be capitalized, given it is a proper noun referring to a specific invasion? I would have changed the heading already, but if there is agreement, every occurrence of the word in the article really needs to be capitalized, where it refers to the 2003 Invasion? --ElPax (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think capital Invasion is appropriate; that's not the official name (Operation Iraqi Freedom is). More importantly, anons need to stop replacing every instance of invasion with liberation (e.g. [14]). Even the White House has called it an invasion ([15]). Whether it is also a liberation is for the reader to decide. Superm401 - Talk 01:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the page

Personally i would rather see this page focuses alot more on the military aspects of the invasion. I feel that this page is focusing more on the legaity and background more then the actual military aspects. I mean generaly reading the military operations phase it didnt go into to much detail. I also personally think that the background and legality section's could be shortened a bit or just completely removed to the Iraq war page. I really think that this page should focuse more on the military spects of the invasion rather then just the politics of it. Any thoughts on my rant? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 06:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably a joke

"Initially, the U.S. 1st Marine Division and 3rd Marine Division and three Polish infantry, two mechanized, and one armoured divisions fought through the Rumaila oil fields..."

Polish divisions ? Am I drunk ? (in fact I am, but it doesn't help) or somebody is joking ? As far as I know the only polish unit involved in fight was GROM (special forces), which took part in battles of Umm Qasr and for Mukayarin dam. Am I wrong ?

Second question: why there are only four countries on the list of the war participants (USA, UK, Australia, Poland) when text is saying about Danish (battle of tanks near Basra), Spanish and Italian (navy supporting attack on al-Faw) troops ?

Thanks for reading.

Ok, I've read the whole section about invasion and I have to say that this is a big joke. Or - as you name this - vandalism. The whole thing about Danish, Spanish, Italian particapation (plus about Polish, despite Umm Qassr) is a lie. Please, repair. Sorry for my English.

Run-on sentence

This is in the third paragraph of the lead section:

Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, U.S. government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the U.S. went to war.

The sources cited are from June 2006, so at minimum it looks like the sentence should be changed to say, rather than "are assessed", something like "were assessed in June 2006". More importantly, this is a run-on sentence whose meaning I can only guess at. Would someone more familiar with the topic be so good as to fix it?

Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

^ "Nuclear Overview". The Nuclear Threat Initiative. February 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
^ "UN continues Libya nuclear probe". BBC News. 2004-05-28. Retrieved 2006-08-26.
^ http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraqelect/
^ Farrell, Nick (December 11, 2007), US Government censors Wikipedia, The Enquirer, retrieved 2007-12-12 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

[1] "Nuclear Overview". The Nuclear Threat Initiative. February 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-06.

[2] "UN continues Libya nuclear probe". BBC News. 2004-05-28. Retrieved 2006-08-26.

[3] ttp://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraqelect/

[4] Farrell, Nick (December 11, 2007), US Government censors Wikipedia, The Enquirer, retrieved 2007-12-12 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]