Talk:Iraq disarmament crisis
From the page...
"The projected United States invasion of Iraq..."
Isn't there some other topic heading that we could put this under, as this event has not occurred yet, and it might be confused with war in 1990.
- I sure hope so, as the current topic heading makes it sound like an historical event, which to the best of my knowledge as of this writing (12 August 2002) it is not. Perhaps the main material regarding the upcoming/hypothetical invasion should be at Projected United States invasion. This topic could redirect to that one. If the invasion ever actually takes place, then this topic can be used to recount actual history, with a See also link to the "Projected" topic to point to what people thought of it before hand. Would that make sense to everyone? Wesley
- Or we could just wait until something actually happens before we write about it. See also Talk:Stock Market Crash of 2002 Rmhermen 11:51 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
- I redirected Stock Market Crash of 2002 to Stock Market Downturn of 2002, because the word "crash" in the article title depends on a POV; see the "attack vs. invasion" discussion I'm having with The C. --Ed Poor
I removed (which later accounts have suggested was probably a justified concern). because there was no proof given in the article. -- Zoe
I think we are actually being a little more gentle with Iraq than necessary. They did agree at the close of the Gulf War to destroy weapons of mass destruction. They did not do so and concealed them. One does not need access to top secret information to definitively establish those facts. User:Fredbauder
Fredbauder is right: There is ample evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, that they had and used chemical weapons, and that they lied to UNSCOM from beginning to end. Yet what is most particularly relevant to the current debate is not what capabilities they had, but what capabilities they now have. Does anyone have more information on this subject? More external links? TIA --Fritzlein
Re: the 1998 withdrawal of the inspectors: I'm pretty sure they were withdrawn by Butler, not by Iraq. See, for example, [1] Iraq was not allowing them to search all sites, but they did not expel them from the country. DanKeshet
Bush's threats of invasion are based on nothing more than a child-like insistence on finishing what daddy started in the early 90's. Iraq has proven itself to be a negligible threat. The political impact of an attack on Iraq far outweighs the pittance of armament they possess.
I think a better title for this page is US plan to invade Iraq. Until and unless the US actually invades, there is only a plan. Moreover, announcements of the plan might be posturing (sable-rattling?).
- I agree entirely. The current title is inaccurate and misleading. I don't think "Threatened United States invation of Iraq" would be too biased, but maybe "Proposed" or "Planned" or "Potential" would be better. Anything to be clear that the invasion hasn't happened yet. I'll move it eventually myself if no one else does.
Perhaps a ? after the title, that's how ABC News handles it, "Road to War?".