Talk:George W. Bush

For older discussion, see: /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4

Moved previous discussion to /Archive 4

Explaining my revert

I'm not a statistics genius, but I'm pretty sure the basic deal with percentiles is that they change based on the data--last year's SAT rankings don't indicate the correct percentile of GWB's SAT scores from 40 years ago--plus they did they rejiggering of the SAT a few years back the changed the baseline for everybody's score or something. jengod 00:34, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Before recentering the scores remained fairly consistent, but comparing a recentered score to an unrecentered score is completely inappropriate. I support your revert. Anthony DiPierro 00:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jengod, statistical doubt is not cause to revert all my edits. Since you can't accept that a score 200 points above the median graded on a bell curve is reasonable, I removed the POV material relating to his score (and the argumentative "200 points below" and daddy info) which have no other purpose than to translate to "he's a moron but daddy got him in college." More to the point is that he graduated from Yale, got an MBA from Harvard and successfully managed several businesses.

As I said on the alcohol, two bites from the apple is at least one too many, since the purpose is to portray him as a drunk. And this business about "war crimes" is slimy unsupported speculation and hardly encylopedic.

Sorry, didn't mean to undo all your reverts, just the last one. My bad. jengod 01:58, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

I read the introduction to this and thought it wasn't written as well as it could. Being that this page is very controversial, I didn't want to just edit it myself, (I know this goes against be bold ), Can we change the start to be

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, succeeding Bill Clinton in 2001. His first term expires in 2005.

Previously it looked like Clintons term ended in 2005 Steven jones 02:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The old is awkward. I don't see why you shouldn't change it. Cecropia 02:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I cannot see why the inforamtion that he had less than the average points needed to join Yale and only entered through a program favoring alumni's children should not be given. Whether you translate it to "he's a moron but daddy got him in college." that is your problem. That he graduated from Yale, got an MBA from Harvard and successfully managed several businesses is not "more to the point", if you delet the other information you censor the claim that some think his academic career was not what it looks like on first site. Plus, the business success is questionable as well.

Balance between Bush and Kerry articles

We have a problem here which, IMO, threatens the integrity of the Wikipedia. Editors (especially anonymous editors) are letting no positive comment on Bush pass unchallenged; no explanation or modification is allowed to stand without deletion and/or complaint, sometimes even when links are provided, and the entire tone of the article reads more like an indictment than an encyclopedia article. Editors are even removing fully documented information refuting specific charges on the basis that it is too wordy.

On the other hand, the Kerry article reads like a campaign biography put out by the DNC, at least until you get well into his war service, and even any factual negative assertion ends with a stronger positive spin. We learn about how he liked to play "kick the can", how competitive he was riding his bicycle, how he cycled into Berlin to look at Hitler's Bunker, and how Scaramouche is his favorite movie. We hear about his rock band and how he sailed with President Kennedy. What an idyllic life! We move right along to his accomplishments (many) and his relationships (admiring). All in all, we get 13 paragraphs mostly of unabashed praise and admiration.

Bush gets four short paragraphs for his personal ife. At this writing, the first one is simply "who was born when". I'm surprised there is no assertion that his little sister was "supposed to have died of leukemia" and that Bush didn't murder her.

In the second paragraph we learn that he earned a BA from Harvard and an MBA from Yale, but it doesn't matter because Daddy got him in college and he's a moron. The information I placed to point out that his SAT score of 1206 put him at the 79th percentile was removed because the statistics for 2003 might not be the same as when he went in, but the combined SAT is scored on a 1200 point scale of 400 to 1600 which makes 1206 about the 67th percentile (still not moron quality) if SAT were a flat scale, but its not, it's a bell curve.

We had material removed that Bush was successful in business because it is alleged to be arguable, but later he's attacked as being successful in business but only because he's crooked.

OK, so now we move on to the third paragraph. where we find out that he has daughters (no charge of incest, how generous) but that he's a war criminal, though he can't be tried because he's making sure the US doesn't ratify the international criminal court.

Pargraph four is just the mini-fact that he and his father are only the second father-son presidential pair in U.S. history.

Come on, people. Are we so partisan that we have no shame as to allow such obvious bias toward the candidates? If someone posted information that Bush has always loved dogs, someone else would post a statistic on how many dogs were killed in the Iraq War.

I don't hate Kerry, and as a veteran who served at just about the same time, I honor his service. I suspect I respect it a lot more than many of his supporters, who have generally not characterized Vietnam-era veterans were well, until just now when it is useful to hail him as a "war hero." I can't remember the last time I heard a Vietnam Vet characterized by the left as a war hero. Take the case of another very liberal (now former) Senator named Kerry (or to be exact Kerrey). Bob Kerrey was (among other things) chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 104th Congress. Like our Kerry, he was in the Navy in 'Nam, and was an aggressive commander as a Navy Seal. He lost part of a leg in action. He was involved in similar operations as Kerry (but more of them, since he was in-country way longer) and came out with the Congressional Medal of Honor, I think the highest award possible. Did this save this liberal senator from anti-Vietnam Vet hatred? Not nearly. Check out this article from the liberal website FAIR. Note the date. As part of this storm, The Vietnamese Government accused Kerrey of war crimes. The liberal attack then targeted his being the President of the Progressive New School for Social Research in New York and demanded his removal. [1]. I live in New York and I remember that some of the leftist elements in the City and the University wanted to mount of a mock trial of him as a "war criminal" with the result being his removal. Inconveniently for them, this was still going on on September 11, 2001 and suddenly no one was nearly as interested.

What if Kerrey had been the candidate instead of Kerry? Both Democrats, both war heroes. Would Kerrey then be the war hero and Kerry the "baby-killer"? Or does one judge the quality of Vietnam service by whether or not he can beat Bush?

I shouldn't give up, but I'm almost inclined to let the Bush-haters have their way and let the article stand as an embarassment to Wikipedia. Cecropia 17:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

POWs

"Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war cannot be held after the war has ended."

I changed this to "Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war who are not guilty of crimes other than being an enemy soldier cannot be held after the war has ended." because obviously war criminals can be held after the war has ended. Anthony DiPierro 22:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now changed to "Under article 118 of the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war "shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities." However, under article 119, POWs "against whom criminal proceedings for an indictable offence are pending may be detained until the end of such proceedings, and, if necessary, until the completion of the punishment."

I reverted it. They're not being held as POWs, so article 119 is irrelevant. The only reason POWs are mentioned at all are to mention what many people claim they should have been held as. Rei

If they're not being held as POWs then the whole statement is irrelevant. Either mention the Geneva convention's rules for POWs fairly or don't mention it at all. Either one is acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 03:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. POWs have to be mentioned because critics claim that they should be held as POWs. They're not being held as POWs, however, so it is irrelevant as to whether they should have been released yet if they were kept as POWs. If you want to write an article about the details of POWs (which these men are NOT), write it in the Geneva conventions page, not here. This is a page about Bush, and criticisms/support should be kept minimal, with links used for any elaboration that you feel is needed. If you want to go into a ton of detail on this topic, create an article about the "Guantanamo Bay Detainees Controversy" or something. Rei

Once again you're mentioning the details of when POWs may be released though. If you're going to mention those details, just go straight to the source and quote them. No sense in mentioning "extenuating circumstances" without mentioning what those extenuating circumstances are. Anthony DiPierro 16:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look, I've moved it toward a compromise several times now, but once again, I have to stress: This Is Not An Article About The Geneva Conventions (and to everyone who keeps trying to add extensive pro and anti Iraq stuff: It's not an article about the Iraq war, either!). We need to keep the commentary minimal. I would accept, actually, your suggestion to remove the reference to how prisoners of war need to be released after the conflict, although a) it's only a few more words, and b) I think you'd like my compromise proposal (of adding "barring extenuating circumstances, such as war crimes") better. But extensive commentary on the rules related to POWs when they're not even POWs doesn't really belong here. Rei

I agree that we should not expand to much on the Iraq war, however, to keep it all out would not give a realistic view of things given that the war has largely affected Bush's reputation outside the US. It is worth to mention why this is so.

I don't want to argue ideology here, but from the arguments I've read, under the Geneva Convention they are POWs. In any case, my issue was that in the initial version a blanket statement was being made, that all POWs must be released at the cessation of fighting. That is clearly untrue so I added the qualification "who are not guilty of crimes other than being an enemy soldier". Considering that the US government is accusing these men of being unlawful combatants, that qualification is extremely important. The point is, even if these men are POWs, and the war is over, they still don't have to be released, merely charged with a crime (and this doesn't even have to be a charge made in US court, a military trial is sufficient). Personally I'd be fine with splitting this whole thing out into a separate article, but I'm not prepared right now to add enough information to justify that. Anthony DiPierro 17:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Update: Concerning your last set of changes, I accept. I think we've worked it out to a nice compromise and actually reduced the POV language and focused it better on topic in the process. Rei

It still seems somewhat out of place, to be honest, but the problem with selection is that it tends to be POV in itself. It's a complicated argument, and as I said above I think it would be best treated as a separate article in its entirety. But I'm saving that for another day. Anthony DiPierro 17:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This whole paragraph could use a whole lot more citation. Wikipedia is not original research. Anthony DiPierro 16:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem with the whole argument over POWs is that everyone is focusing on the Geneva Conventions alone. Geneva mainly deals with the treatment of POWs and others, while Hague and unwritten custom deal with who is and is not eligible for POW protections. This is the basis of the claims of "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants.

Parties (nations, individuals or militias) who are not signatories of Geneva and Hague are not bound by them. However, if they are in combat against powers that are bound, they can claim their protection only in they conform to their rules. IOW, if the rules call for (and they do) uniforms or easily-identifiable badges of loyalty, carrying arms openly, not using flags of truce as ploys for attack, etc. etc., and they don't adhere to those rules, neither are they eligible for POW status if they are captured. And they may considered be war criminals to boot. Moreover (particularly applying to Afghanistan), if you are a national of a neutral power in the present conflict (like fighters from Pakistan, Chechnya, etc.) you are also ineligible for POW status. So considering that only a relative handful of the fighter captured in Afghanistan ended up at Guantanamo, it is a good guess they are not legally POWs. It is a romantic idea to take up arms to support your perceived allies in another nation against your perceived enemy, but you can be in a world of shit if you do. Cecropia 19:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the compromise solution didn't take. I'm going back to the full version. Anthony DiPierro 12:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The criticism is exactly about the point that those people are held outside US territory in order to deny them a fair trial. Stating that article 119 allows to keep people in case they get a trial does not make much sense here.

You are assuming that they will be denied the right to a fair trial. All indications are that there will be a fair trial held. Anthony DiPierro 16:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC

Further on the point. First they are held outside US territory to forestall advocates who claim that they then attain the rights of US citizens, adding another layer of obfuscations to the issue. Second, since January a number have been released, including most or all of the younger teenagers, indicating that there is review. Cecropia 16:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

)

Radack nonsense

"Criticism of the Bush administration's treatment of human rights is supported by the fact that the view of former U.S. Department of Justice ethics adviser Jesselyn Radack was disregarded. ([2])"

There's no evidence that her views were disregarded. Presumably they were considered, and rejected. And that fact supports nothing. It's actually a meaningless fact that has no place in the article at all, but I'm trying to compromise here.

"Critics of the Bush administration's treatment of human rights also point to the fact that the Justice Department disagreed with some of the advice of former U.S. Department of Justice ethics adviser Jesselyn Radack. ([3])"

So if her views were considered, why were her emails not given to the judge in the Lindh trial? Why was she fired and got under criminal investigation?

Bush a lifelong Republican

In what sense is Bush "a lifelong member of the Republican Party," apart from being a registered Republican voter? As far as I know the Democratic and Republican parties do not have formal memberships. Adam 05:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection. All politicians in the US are described by party, and some change parties. I think most anyone in the US takes it means "He is a Republican and always was." Cecropia 05:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's not an objection. You're an Australian. Does the reply above answer your question? Cecropia 05:10, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the parties do have formal memberships. In many (most I think) states, it determines who is allowed to vote in primaries. Isomorphic 05:19, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. I have never heard of anyone being a "member" of the Democratic or Republican parties, in the same sense that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party. I pay membershop dues, I have a membership card, I vote to elect party office-bearers. Does Bush or any other Republican, or Democrat, do these things? Adam 05:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In most states, you have to register. You don't pay dues, but only those who are registered members of the party are allowed to vote in most states' party primaries. RickK | Talk 05:23, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know that - that is called being a registered Republican voter, not being a member of the Republican party. It's not at all the same thing. Adam 05:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also I agree with the comments above that this article is grossly biased against Bush. Almost every paragraph is about what Bush's critics say about him and his actions. Writing an NPOV article about Bush is indeed the acid test for Wikipedia, and so far we have failed. Adam 05:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as being a member of the party goes, the parties do actually have "official" memberships, where people pay dues etc., but nobody uses them. They used to be more prominent. Meelar 05:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Google search tells me that it is possible to join the Republican Party at a county level, at least in some places, but it certainly isn't common. The next question is, is Bush actually a card-carrying, dues-paying member of a county Republican Party? I rather doubt it. Unless someone can show that he is, the sentence should be changed to say he is a "lifelong Republican" - not that this is a particularly exciting piece of information given that he is the son and grandson of Republican politicians. Adam 05:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the NPOV notice to talk, in accordance with the policy on the similar {{msg:controversial}}.—Eloquence 05:41, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

In the U.S., it's common usage to say that someone is a member of the party, even if they don't pay dues etc. So it's OK to leave it in, I'd say. Meelar 05:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've been reading about American politics for a very long time, and this is the first time I've ever seen a reference to someone being a "member" of a party, when all that is meant is that they are a registered voter for that party. It may make sense to Americans but it won't to anyone else. Adam 05:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I understand your confusion, Adam, but I don't see any other to say it. Just calling him a "republican" has generic meaning in most of the world. I don't assume people in other countries know that a Republican means a candidate of the Republican party. Nor does it allow for the fact that voters and candidates can and do change their party affiliations. Cecropia 06:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think anyone reading this encyclopedia will understand the sentence: "Bush is a lifelong supporter of the Republican Party." This is a true statement, unlike the existing one which I am fairly sure is not technically true, and certainly misleading. Adam 06:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

Cecropia and Adam--I uderstand your concerns, but how would you change the article? Meelar 06:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would delete large numbers of "critics say" statements, which are just an excuse for anti-Bush editorialising. Adam 06:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, "excuses for anti-Bush editorialising" should be banned, this should become a Bush propaganda site.

Removed POV notice

User Eloquence removed the POV notice here and one of the Kerry articles (but missed the main one). I don't see why. The articles are almost as POV as they were before and the rationale for the posting of the original notice hasn't changed, and probably won't for another eight months. Perhaps his being in Germany insulates him from the extent of nastiness of the US campaign? Comments? Cecropia 06:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I moved the notices I found to the talk pages. I agree that political campaigns are nasty. However, as far as I know nobody has been killed in the course of the current political campaign yet. On the other hand, people are killed almost daily in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet we do not afford a similar notice to that article. The most we give such articles is the "NPOV dispute" notice, which has clear conditions for removal (i.e. there are no longer any involved parties who dispute the neutrality of the article).

As I explained above, MediaWiki:controversial has undergone a similar discussion to MediaWiki:Potuspov and it was decided that the best way to deal with such semi-permanent warnings is to put them on the discussion page, not on the main article.—Eloquence 06:19, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Meelar's NPOV changes

I fully support Meelar's finally bringing this article into something less laughably POV. It's still POV in not having the Admiring Campaign Committee Biography feel to it that most of the Kerry article has, but at least it looks a bit more like an encyclopedia article. Cecropia 06:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I never thought I'd hear so many conservatives praise my work, though. ;) Yours, Meelar 06:30, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the level of detail reduction re: the baseball team, at the very least that information should be integrated into Texas Rangers and the article should contain a note to the effect "see Texas Rangers for a detailed discussion".—Eloquence 06:33, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that section contained numerous criticisms of Bush, but nothing from supporters; it read a little partisan, which is why I chopped it down. If you'd like to incorporate it into Texas Rangers, go ahead, but it should be presented in a more balanced manner. Meelar 06:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Generally, it's a bad idea to remove POVs to make an article more NPOV. It's a sure recipe for edit wars as you can't really expect a Bush critic to be knowledgeable about the other side of the story. That side should be written by people familiar with it. In a perfect world everyone would look at an issue from all sides, but in reality the different POVs are usually contributed by the people who hold them.—Eloquence 06:38, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree, but as it was written it was a partisan screed, and adding another side is:

beyond my knowledge
a sure way to reduce the quality of the article.

Even adding another side at that point would turn the section into an overlong, confusing "he-said/they-said" sort of thing, and harm the quality. There has to be a better way to include that. Meelar 06:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

who conveyed it to a reporter five days before the 2000 presidential vote - I'd like to see a reference for that. Did he really convey it five days before the vote, or did the journalist decide to run it then? Big difference.—Eloquence

I agree. Meelar 06:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To Eloquence: Yes, I had the reference when I first posted the information a couple of dozen edits back, but it was chopped out by Bush critics, along with the information that the Democratic ex-governor got it from unnamed Democratic party official. I will dig out the link and repost it. (Either way, it was what is called in the U.S. "dirty politics" or "Nixonian.")

Also, the details on things like the Texas Rangers business is probably getting cut (I can't speak for others) because Bush critics have been slicing out any and all detail giving argument to the negative material. Cecropia 06:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To Meelar: I'm not a Conservative exactly, though I'm more of a social conservative since I've had kids. I was a registered Democrat from 1968 to 1998, when I dropped my party registration when my party of Peaceniks suddenly decided it liked to be a party of Warnicks. I would characterize myself as a libertarian except I'm too libertarian to join the party. I'm now officially an independent in my voter registration. Cecropia 06:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Baseball venture

If anyone wants to work on a more detailed NPOV discussion of Bush's baseball venture, here is the paragraph before it was chopped down:

After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled a group of partners from his father's close friends and purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. Critics point out that Bush paid for it using money from a criticized stock trade; he received twice as many shares in the venture as he put money in for; the stadium was built largely at taxpayer expense (135 million dollars vs 65 million provided by the owners); the venture used threat of forclosure by an organization that they formed (the Arlington Sports Facility Development Authority) to acquire property at 1/6th its appraised value for the building of a new stadium and the team (with its new stadium) was then sold to a family friend (Tom Hicks), who later went on to be a major Bush campaign contributor. The venture made a total of 170 million dollars in profit.

What is needed here are

references for each factual claim
responses by Bush's defenders, if any
more neutral language (no need for "critics point out" if statements are undisputed)
possibly a summary in this article, with the more detailed discussion residing in Texas Rangers.—Eloquence 06:50, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence, also be aware that US sports stadia are usually mostly to ocmpletely publicly funded (which I don't support, FWIW). Cecropia 06:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Iraq materila misplaced

I feel that the paragraphs related to "Protest and criticism of Iraq policy" rightly belong in this article. This issue is central to how the Bush administration is perceived abroad. Any particular reason for deleting them? Mintguy (T) 16:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Iraq material was moved because material contesting the assumptions of critics has been consitently deleted by any number of anti-Bush users. The article is hardly pro-Bush. Bush critics want this to be an anti-Bush polemic. Kerry's article is a virtual campaign committee biography. Cecropia 16:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless. The Iraq war and the issues surrounding it are central to understanding criticism the Bush recieves from foreign leaders. As the incumbant there is bound to be more room for criticism especially from abroad. BTW has the election campaign already started then? Mintguy (T) 17:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gee, that's fair :P. It's been deleted because there are already way too many articles about it, and the exact same points will need to be replicated over and over again for each article. If the goal was to make it an "anti-Bush polemic", opponents of Bush could just as easily put the counters for those arguments on this page. It's not where these things belong, though. A summary is fine, but extensive details, pro and con, do not belong here. Rei

I understand. The Iraq material is covered in excruciating detail in the posted links. And, yes, the campaign has started--the earliest ever due to the Democrats having effectively picked their candidate 8 months before the election. I don't how the US public will take the level of vituperation already evident for 200 or so days. This is new territory we're exploring... Cecropia 17:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, feel free to edit the Kerry entry. As Mintguy points out, the Iraq issue has a major influence on how Bush is perceived outside the US. Furthermore, the investigations about the CIA are an important interior issue.

Harvard controversy

How Bush managed to enter Harvard inspite of scoring a meagre 97 on the IQ test taken just before he joined Harvard was a major controversy during the 2000 Presidential election.

Moved to talk because I don't recall its ever being mentioned - nor do I think Harvard requests IQ tests. Pakaran . 18:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Correct, see http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

er, Niteowlneils 18:17, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vote!

I seek your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject POTUS Campaigns. Please come weigh in. jengod 23:08, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

20 March round of edits

There are a number of regular editors working on this topic from both sides. Why is it that so many series of anti-Bush edits are being made anonymously from IP addresses that have worked on few or no other topics and posted here for the first time in order to make negative edits? If you "anons" feel so strongly, how about opening an account (or using your own if you have one) and showing the thread of your positions? Cecropia 15:29, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Strange that you divide editors into "sides". Sadly enough with people like you it is not difficult to figure out which side you are on. Get-back-world-respect 20 Mar 2004

Ah, a little comic relief from one whose username telegraphs his position. Cecropia 17:30, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that is fair, to clearly show what one stands for but to try to edit in a fair way. You, on the contrary, try to censor criticism and call your actions "NPOV". Get-back-world-respect 20 Mar 2004

Ah, your own concept of a neutral editor is one who takes a nobel prize nomination and jams it up with a war crime allegation though there is no citation whatever connecting the two. Cecropia 17:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You can hardly say that a Nobel Prize nomination for someone who has no chance of ever getting the Prize belongs in the opening section of an encyclopedia entry. Later someone even tried to open a special subtitle "honors and awards" with it. Just make the logical connection that no one will ever get the peace prize while there are dozens of lawyers accusing him of war crimes and dozens of gvernments accusing him of breaking international law. Before it just said "Their chances are believed to be quite small." I added the explanation, that is it. Get-back-world-respect 20 Mar 2004

UN sanctioned wars

In my eyes mentioning that the UN only sanctioned two wars in 58 years gives a distorted picture of the orgainzation given that they helped to solve numerous conflicts sending "blue helmets", negotiated peace agreements or used weapon or economic sanctions rather than military force. Get-back-world-respect 20 March 2004

The point is that the wording clearly implies that the war is illegal in international law because the UN didn't sanction it. Not true at all. There have been numerous wars large and small since WWII. only two were approved by the UN Security Council (those mentioned) and Korea only had UN approval because the Soviet Union was absent from the Security Council to veto it. "Blue Helmet" are not sanction for war, they're a clean-up crew. Cecropia 16:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just an example for peacekeeping activity: "The UN played an important role during the struggles that erupted when the Belgian colony of the Congo achieved independence in 1960. As anarchy and chaos reigned in the area, a UN force numbering almost 20,000 was set up to help the Congolese government maintain peace and order. It ended up being, above all, engaged in bringing a raging civil war to an end and preventing the province of Katanga from seceding." http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1988/un-history.html The UN helped to solve numerous conflicts PREVENTING wars. Just naming the two occasions when no other solution was found just presents them as if they were an organization that has not achieved much in 58 years. Get-back-world-respect 20 March 2004

Are there any serious critics making the claim that the UN must approve all instances of war (a claim which is clearly untrue)? Or is this just a reference to a few zealots on the internet who know nothing about international law (in which case it is original research and should be removed). Anthony DiPierro 16:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The point is not that there must always be a resolution. In case of a direct threat international law allows an attack. The claim is that the majority of the Security Council did not see a direct threat but rather thought that the ongoing weapons instructions made progress and were a fruitful way to solve the conflict. That is why no resolution was agreed on and why many think international law was broken. Get-back-world-respect 20 March 2004

Well, that's not what that contribution says. Your new claim seems even less based in fact than your original one. What is the violation of international law? Futhermore, where is your evidence as to what the majority of the security council believed? There was no vote, and it was believed that the resolution which was never introduced would have received a majority, though it would have received a veto. Anthony DiPierro 16:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The majority of the Security Council opposed the resolution: France, Russia, Germany, Syria, China, and Pakistan against Bulgaria, Britain, US, and Spain. Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Chile, and Mexiko did not announce how they would vote. The African Union, Mexico, and Chile condemned the war, only Angola entered the "Coalition of the Willing". International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html Blix: Iraq War was Illegal http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0305blixillegalwar.htm The UN Charter justifies only two possibilities for military action: individual or collective self-defense, or if the Security Council decides that force is necessary to "to maintain or restore international peace and security. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0317sorryblair.htm Some Bush administration officials have argued that because Iraq has not complied with the cease-fire terms of Resolution 687 (a subsequent relevant resolution), which required it to disarm and cooperate with weapons inspectors, among other things, member states still have sufficient legal authority to use force ("all necessary means") against Iraq. But critics have found flaws in this theory as well. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. This was made clear in a Security Council meeting on Dec. 16, 1998. That day, U.S. and British warplanes launched air strikes against Iraq after learning that Iraq was continuing to impede the work of UNSCOM, the weapons inspectors sent to Iraq at the close of the Gulf War, and thus was not in compliance with Resolution 687. When the Security Council met that night to discuss whether individual member states could resort to force without renewed Security Council consent, it was clear that the Security Council members did not all agree on the legality of the U.S. and British resort to force. The argument that the council alone is authorized to decide how to deal with a violation of Resolution 687 is bolstered by the text of the resolution itself. Paragraph 34 says: "The Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required." This language indicates that the decision to use "all necessary means" is left to the Security Council—not to individual states. http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ Get-back-world-respect 20 March 2004

That's all interesting and useful information, but it begs two important questions: (1) that the UN is a valid instrument of war-making power; and (2) the fact that (to repeat the point) the UN has authorized only two wars (not the sending on of peacekeepers) in its entire history; and Korea only passed because the Soviet Union was asleep at the switch; and the first Iraq war was only approved because the first president Bush submitted the issue to the UN in response to domestic criticism. There is an entire body of still valid Laws of war which have nothing whatever to do with the UN. Cecropia 18:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No one forced the US to be a member of the UN. There are rules, if you subscribe you have to obey them. The UN were relied on in numerous cases, blaming 9/11 on Afghanistan and allowing "Desert Storm" based on a lie about Iraqi troops taking babies out of incubators are just two examples. A veto on the condemnation of Israel's murder of journalists is ok but when Russia and France veto an avoidable war suddenly a ten year old resolution becomes a valid justification, the UN is put into question altogether and once the war has started and the opponents hide away from their responsibilty to condemn it Perle can even admit that the war was illegal, nothing happens. If you can only think of wars and do not see what the UN have achieved in preventing violence it just shows your black and white vision of the world. Get-back-world-respect 20 March 2004

9 countries (a majority) are listed as either supporting the withdrawn resolution or being undecided. Also, Russia and France did not veto anything. The resolution was withdrawn. Anthony DiPierro 19:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do not make a fool of yourself. As is explained above, only 4 countries supported the resolution, while France, Russia, Germany, Syria, China, and Pakistan opposed it. Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Chile, and Mexiko did not announce how they would vote. But the African Union, Chile and Mexico condemned the war when it started. At any case, when there is a veto, and in this case there would have been at least two, the only thing that can be done is to find and agreement at the United Nations General Assembly. Speeches at the General Assembly clearly showed that a majority was opposed to this war. The Arab League, the African Union, the Latin American countries and those in Europe opposing the already have a majority. I am still waiting for your explanation how a war could not break international law when the United Nations do not authorize it and there is no imminent threat. Get-back-world-respect 20 March 2004