Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 2

Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive1
Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive2

Summary of issues under discussion

Sources

This entry is impossible to present without coming from some perspective; what we can do is, when we make the editorial decision to include content, to mention the source of that content.

External links to news items should preferably be placed at the bottom of the page, with the title of the news item, source, and date, and a summary of relevant content if not apparent from the title.

Naming

The two reasonable titles for this entry are 2003 invasion of Iraq and U.S. invasion of Iraq (add alternatives if you strongly believe either is deficient). See Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan for a (possibly) comparable discussion.

The first avoids (potentially contentious) questions of the nature of the invasion and is permanently unambiguous (as long as the military campaign ends within 2003, and no-one else invades Iraq in 2003).

The second follows the standard set by U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, makes a (potentially contentious) definitive statement about the nature of the invasion, and is unambiguous (as long as the U.S. doesn't invade Iraq in the future).

The naming issues affects other entries as well, and is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war) - please use this as a central place for all your naming convention-related discussion.

Another possibility is Second Gulf War or maybe Third Gulf War. Or even "Fourth Gulf War" if you count the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 invasion of Kuwait/Iraq as separate military episodes. For this reason I (Cabalamat) consider all names of the form nth Gulf War to be horribly ambiguous and should not be used.

Nature of Coalition/Invasion

Is the phrase "U.S. invasion of Iraq" misleading or not? This question depends on the nature of the coalition and reasons for the invasion. The nature of the coalition is discussed at coalition of the willing.

Nature of Coalition/Invasion

content moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war)

Many of these countries are supplying medical personel, chem/bio response teams, ships, airbases, overflight rights and other support.

this sentence needs more precision. What is "other supports". Besides, placed where it was give the feeling only coalition forces brings humanitarian help. Could we keep separate notions of war support, from notions of humanitarian support please ? ant

Considering the fact that some of the nations request not to be named - it'd be difficult to compile a "complete" list or to list exactly what every country is doing.

If some nations that alledgedly were part of the Coalition don't want to be named, then that's going to make it difficult to establish who did what, and we oughtn't to report something as fact unless we can get confirmation -- Cabalamat 15:51, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

re: humanitarian help.. feel free to add that other countries and organizations are also providing humanitarian help. I don't see how the above sentence suggests that its only coalition forces.

Discussion about contributor actions

Cunctator, since you're editing other peoples comments on the talk page.. can I edit yours?--BugBoy

You can. Whether you may is another question. --The Cunctator

BugBoy must of missed the memo that stated you can do it and he can't. --mav

Huh? I just said BugBoy can. --The Cunctator

Various Topics

"Around midnight UTC (early morning local time), the Turkish military stated that 1,500 Turkish troops had moved into northern Iraq"

Has this been confirmed? I've heard conflicting info about this. Some have said the troops had always been where they are now and they haven't moved. Others have said they are moving troops in, others have said they're not. And unless I'm mistaken, didn't a Turkish offical just announce that they did not have plans to enter Iraq? Anyone know what is happening exactly?

I thought the "more than 30" were killed in the marketplace - this article says 14 dead and 30 wounded... Perhaps Wikipedians are reporting on breaking events too fast? Given the number of "major reports" that turned out not to be news, we should wait at least a day before adding anything new. --dan

Shouldn't the "Operation" title be at the start of the article, as it is with Desert storm and other wars? I don't mean the actual "article title" - I mean, shouldn't the Operation name be one of the first things listed and in bold as it is in other wars like Gulf War? It was the first thing and then someone moved it down a ways.

Removed from article:

The invasion is opposed by a majority of the population in most of the coalition nations.

In the US, at least, less than the majority of the population opposes the invasion, according to 2 TV network polls I remember reading. If my memory is wrong, please cite some polls or other proof, and put the correct info back into the article. --Uncle Ed 23:08 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

I think you'd better cite sources before saying whether a majority does or does not support the war. Youd also better cite the question and answers offered in the survey. Otherwise the information is useless. Dietary Fiber

I agree. That's why I removed the statement. Pending sources, etc., it's tantamount to propaganda. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a side one way or another here on the ethics of the war (ask me privately, if you want). I'm just trying to make the article accurate and timeless. --Uncle Ed

Ed: It was referenced. In the "coalition of the willing" entry: [1].

"Part of the US position..."....which part? exactly who? cite references. Kingturtle 03:41 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, just a question. We have a problem here with the numbers. How do we define the number of combat personnel? Assume (for the sake of example) that Australia has 2000 personnel in theatre (it's actually a bit more than that, but round figures will do for my example). Of those 2000, assume:

150 SAS troops. (Obviously combat personnel)
30 F/A-18 pilots (ditto)
20 Chinook crewmembers (not intended to be combat personnel, but if they have to perform an SAS extraction under fire ....)
Navy personnel seem like non-combat staff on first sight, but HMAS ANZAC was doing shore bombardment the other day - if you are firing shots, I guess that makes you a combatant.
And so on.

The exact same problem applies to the Polish force, of course. And indeed, to the US & UK. Tannin 07:14 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

The real point that should be gained from this is that the Polish support is, militarily, primarily symbolic. In terms of individual lives, it's significant, but the Polish commandoes are unlike to change the course of the war. The reality is that the U.S. and U.K. presence dwarfs the others, so that to a zero-order approximation this is a U.S. war, to a first-order approximation it is U.S. & U.K. The U.S. is using hundreds of thousands of people and spending billions of dollars and using billions of dollars of equipment. Noone comes close to that. It would be much more disingenuous to state "This is a US, UK, Australian, and Polish invasion" (without stating the disparity in numbers) than to state "This is a US invasion". --The Cunctator

Is there any source for the kurdish coalition forces? 50,000 militia people? I've never heard about this! till we *) 23:19 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know how you could count them, they aren't a regular army. I've seen estimates published from 20,000 to 100,000. Don't know what they are up to, they don't seem to have reporters embedded. -º¡º

More problematic: They don't fight yet, do they? -- till we *) 23:36 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

The Kurdish Militia claims that there is 50,000.. I've seen news reports that estimate the number much higher (70,00+). I figured 50,000 was a safe guess. Yes, they do fight. 6,000 of them attacked a terrorist camp in Northern Iraq over the last couple of days with US special forces. A hundred or so Iraqis were killed. See [2] for more info. It has been widely reported. There has also been talk of other attacks with Special forces and Kurdish troops. -- 216.229.90.232

Tannin, your insistance on using the term "token" is making the phrase POV. -- Zoe

I agree - that wording is not at all appropriate. We already report the number of troops and that is enough. --mav

Perhaps we should describe the "token Iraqi resistance" as well? I think anyone who doesn't see that the Iraqi resistance is merely token, is clearly helping the Iraqi propaganda effort. Er, nevermind... Dietary Fiber

What the hell is wrong with describing a token force as a token force? Or is someone seriously going to stand up and say that the miniscule Australian and Polish forces are genuine and serious attempts to influence the military conduct of the war? Fair go, you guys are so POV it's ludicrous. A token force is a token force is a token force. Why the censorship? What's the point? It's not as if there is anything wrong with sending a token force, is there? Tannin 06:32 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what Poland thinks, but Australia doesn't see it as a token force. I read several Australian articles recently complaining that their role in the war was being diminished by the media. In addition, no force is "token". A handful of US Navy SEALs captured an offshore oil station without firing a single bullet. They didn't overwhealm the Iraqi's with their large numbers, they were just "good" enough to get the job done even though they were a small force. Australian commandos have been conducting similar missions along the coast of Iraq (from what I've heard). They're firing weapons, getting fired upon, taking their lives in the hands, siezing explosives and other Iraqi weaponry.. its in no way just a "token force". "Token force" implies that they're useless or just there for show, which couldn't be further from the truth. They're getting the job done. -216.229.90.232

Tannin, I began to wonder a similar thing when the word "invasion" was censored from the main page. I suppose it's something we may just have to live with for a while.

"The first casualty when war comes is truth." – Hiram Johnson

Hephaestos 06:46 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

The rhetoric on both sides of this would be amusing if it weren't about something so deadly serious. Listen: there's no "censorship" here, nor is is true that "token force" "couldn't be further from the truth". There are just honest disagreements and (sometimes) harsh words.

If no force were token, then the phrase "token force" would not exist.

IMHO, as I wrote before, in terms of human lives, what the the Australian and Polish commandoes are doing significant. In military terms, they are not significant. There participation only affects the outcome of the invasion in human and political terms, not military.

I deliberately put the force numbers in to the entry because I knew that people would argue about whether or not it was appropriate to mention the Polish fighters in the first sentence ad infinitum otherwise. I personally think it's unnecessary to do so, but I can understand that others would reasonably disagree, so I determined what would be a reasonable compromise.

And that is how we should be editing this entry.

--The Cunctator

I agree with Cunctator here. The Polish and Australian (and to a lesser extent, the British) forces weree token in the ordinary meaning of the term.

No force is "token" if its used correctly - as pointed out with my Navy SEALs comments above. Polish commandos doing what they're doing, allows other forces to do something else. Thats not militarily insignificant. If those forces were not there, British or US forces would have to spend time doing those missions themselves. Its not POV to list force numbers (although it may be difficult to be accurate and current), but it is POV to say that those forces are a "token" force. I know for a fact that Australia would not agree with that title. -216.229.90.232

216, I am Australian. Yeah, sure, our newspapers are full of stuff about what "our boys" are doing "over there" (and I have not the slightest doubt that they are very highly skilled and as brave as anyone - the guys working blind on the bottom of a muddy harbour defusing mines, for example ... that sort of skill and dedication and cold wake-up-sweating-in-the-middle-of-the-night courage just blows me away) but the cold hard reality is that they are a tiny token force. Count them. Do the numbers. They ain't there in anything like the numbers required to make a substantial contribution to the military situation, and any analysis that says otherwise is blowing hot air up its own fundamemt. Tell me, 216, as compared with the UK or the United States, and allowing for the different populations in the different countries, what size of contribution is Australia making in Iraq? Now let's do the same with Poland. Tannin

Replace the meaningless acronym POV with "point of view" and what you write doesn't make sense. "It is not point-of-view to list force numbers"? What you mean to say is "Listing force numbers presents a neutral depiction of the Australian and Polish combat contributions". And that's an arguable statement. No single sentence can be entirely neutral. In addition, I believe your definition of military significance means that there can be nothing defined as militarily insignificant. But this is not a "for want of a nail..." war. Tell me: do you believe that a "token force" can exist? Do you believe that there can be such a think as a militarily insignificant force? --The Cunctator 08:24 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

First, the use of the acronym POV is of course in reference to Wiki's NPOV policy. (Maybe you should read up on it.) To say something is POV, means that it is a point of view to say it. To say its NPOV, means that its not just a point of view. This is generally understood around here.

What I was saying is (if I have to spell it out for you), its not anyone's "Point of View" to list actual numbers. It IS someone's "point of view" to state that those numbers are insignificant, or in this case, only a "token force". The article should, if anything, list the numbers - but not draw conclusions about those numbers. As I and others have said, the term "token force" has negative connotations. It sounds as if the article is saying that these forces are insignificant, worthless or useless. That is a judgement that the article should not make. We have no idea what kind of a role these forces are going to play before the war is over. Let the reader decide if its a "token force" or not.

Second, no - I'm not saying that no force could ever be described as a "token force". If say, Switzerland sent troops to Kuwait and they all got dressed up in fancy battle gear and paraded around the streets of Kuwait chanting anti-Saddam slogans and did nothing else... That would clearly be a "token force". They wouldn't be there to help - not even with catering... they would just be there for moral support or simply to put on a show for the media.

Third, can there be a militarily insignificant force? Sure. Like the Iraqi soldiers that attack a tank with an AK-47. Australian and Polish forces are doing a lot more than that. They're actually helping the cause. -216.229.90.232

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/latest-polls.htm http://www.yougov.com/yougov_website/asp_besPollArchives/bes_arcMain.asp?sID=2&rID=3&wID=0&UID=

Two different polling organisations which are consistently showing majority approval in the UK for this war, so I think we can be satisfied that there is no majority opposing it in that country. I'd be somewhat shocked if the US population wasn't even more in favour. Australia or Poland may well still be against, but that doesn't constitute a majority of the coalition. -- Khendon 09:43 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Latest US polls show support up to 70% at least.. over 80% in some polls.

45 nations are claimed to be in the coalition: that's figures for 2

Firstly, that should be worded better then. Secondly, until you provide solid figures for at least twenty or thirty of the others, it's a wild assertion and has no place here. - Khendon

It's not my asssertion, Khendon, I simply restored it after you deleted it. It was referenced (in considerable detail as I recall) by someone else here (on this page or another one - the Lord only knows where everything is now, since Uncle Ed went crazy on the splitting and merging thing yesterday or the day before). Tannin

moved from article

The position of opponents generally reflects the viewpoint expressed by George Bush, Sr. and Brent Scowcroft in their comments regarding the previous Gulf War in the article "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" in the 2 March 1998 editon of Time magazine:

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well ... Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different—and perhaps barren—outcome."

If this article is meant to be a sort of entry for the whole story, please keep it simple and short and to the point. Do not add long quotes; these ones would maybe go very well on one of the many articles about opposition on war. Also, I disagree with The position of opponents generally reflects. That might reflect the general position of american opponents, certainly not the general position of opponents. ant

The invasion came after the expiration of a 48-hour deadline set by U.S. President George W. Bush, demanding that Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq.

Is that all there is to it? Um, I thought there was something about chemical weapons, crimes against humanity, and the aim of "liberating" an oppressed populace, too. Shouldn't we at least LINK to these ideas? --Uncle Ed 23:21 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Don't forget those alleged (read "forged") links with al-Qaeda... Martin

I agree with Bryan's reversion -- even though, ironically, I actually agree with "anonymous" 100%! You see, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. We cannot take sides in controversial matters, particularly in politics.

Please help to rewrite the article, mentioning some of the major points of view regarding the 2003 Iraq war:

that it was a "hostile invasion"
that it was unjustified, illegal, etc.
that it was a "war of liberation"
that it was entirely justified, that right-thinking people everywhere should rejoice over how it's turning out, etc.

Meanwhile, allow me to say that an "invasion" occurs whenever one country's military forces enter another sovereign territory without official permission. So, I think even Donny, Dick & Dubya would agree that the US invaded Iraq. --Uncle Ed 15:12 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

An anonymous contributor believes that U.S. forces have not been searching for WMDs, and that is why they have not been found. For his benefit:

After days of intense digging and searching at least seven suspicious sites near Nassiriya, U.S. experts have found chemical warfare protective suits, but no chemical weapons.

Chief Warrant Officer Alex Robinson, leading the U.S. search in the area, admitted on Thursday that his list of suspect sites in southern Iraq was "kind of drying up".

--U.S. digs, searches in vain for Iraqi chemical weapons, Reuters, April 17, 2003

--The Cunctator 20:02 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

This story is about them following a tip. They've been doing that all along and have found some interesting things - like a mobile chemical weapons lab. But the focus of the troops has never moved into a "search for weapons of mass destruction" mode. THey're still busy with other things primarily.

This is directed towards The Cunctator, and is in regards to:

Some of these terms, like the codename Operation Iraqi Freedom are propagandistic slogans or doublespeak; that is, terminology deliberately chosen to force dialogue to express a particular political viewpoint. This also includes the exclusive usage of "regime" to refer to the Saddam Hussein government (see also regime change), and "death squads" to refer to fedayeen paramilitary forces.

Hi cunc, you asked do you debate that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is deliberately chosen to force dialogue to express a particular political viewpoint? Clearly the selection of operational names is a lot more political then it was in the days of "mincemeat" and "overlord". But I think calling the new ones "propagandistic slogans" or "doublespeak" is strong, especially when we aren't quoting some notable critic. I mean, if Chomsky had said this, that would be great, but not just us writing it in the editorial tone of "wikipedia says". I'll take a pass at adding something in place of the deleted passage. Oh, and [3] and [4] are amusing reads on operational naming. -º¡º

ref Another difference of media coverage in this war was that the U.S. and British media losts its objectivity in many instances.

uh. They didnot lost objectivity during the previous war ? ant

sorry to put so many refs. It is specifically for º¡º. ant

Besides your cites, there is a big difference between saying "The US intervention took place without any international legal framework" (the old version) and "Some of the opponents claim the US intervention took place without any international legal framework" (the new version). -º¡º

which is precisely why I changed it. This said, my version is not very good (but at least acceptable). You are welcome to improve it. ant

Anthere, I would be happy to help you with it if I knew what you were trying to say. Note that the paragraph immediately after yours says:

"Several nations, including Austria, say the attack violates international law as a war of aggression since it lacks the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution that could authorize military force. The Egyptian former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has called the intervention a violation of the UN charter."

To me, this seems like the same point. I'm guessing that there is some important distinction that you wish to make in your statement, but I don't know what that distinction is. -º¡º

note that I was not the one who put the initial statement. I certainly would not have. Yes, the two sentences could be merged. I don't understand exactly why there is such an emphasis put on Austria. Why not noting other nations ? Besides, the following paragraph is only about nations (which I interpret as "government") and not about people. I think it would be right to make the difference. For example, this view has been clearly stated in an official text in Algeria. In other countries, the gov may not have stated it, but the idea is widespread among the public point of view, or maybe some well-known public thinkers claim that point of view. Last, a quite common point of view among opponents is not only the agression is contrary to the strict framework defined by international law, but also that is a very serious precedent of a democracy prefering to act in a military way rather than by more diplomatic means. Leading to the feeling USA request from other nations to respect international laws, but somehow "officially" and bluntly state that it is not itself concerned by these laws, rather over them.

I added the section about the Iraqi payoff now that there is confirmation from General Franks. Given how transient media links are, I don't know whether it is appropriate to include them in the article itself, but here are two:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=409090 http://slate.msn.com/id/2083271/

Hieronymous

"The accusation that US forces did not guard the museum because they were guarding the Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior is apparently true. The reality of the situation on the ground was that hospitals needed guarding, water plants needed guarding, and ministries with vital intelligence inside needed guarding. There were only enough US troops on the ground to guard a subset of everything that ideally needed guarding, and so some hard choices were made."

This section of the text seems really out of place. Where the rest of the paragraph where it appears has a fairly uniform tone, this stands out as very biased, speaking about an objective 'reality' that is only 'real' from one point of view, that of those in charge of the invasion. All of these statements of 'fact' are actually highly debatable and worthy of more argument than is given them here. Also, the grammar is terrible. Hospitals do not 'need' guarding, in that hospitals are inanimate structures without needs of their own. Need not really the appropriate word. Also, "hard choices were made" is a wonderful bit of Spartan understatement, but in an encyclopedia, we would ideally outline what those choices were, rather than leaving context to fill in the ambiguity of that sentence. I propose changing the above to the following:

"American commanders did not place a high value on guarding Iraq's cultural antiquities, despite international outcry to preserve cultural sites. American commanders instead focused their garrison forces almost exclusively toward holding securely the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior. There have been reports that civilian hospitals and water facilities were secured by American forces in Baghdad during the looting, but these have not been substantiated by sourced evidence, and are contested reports at this writing."

If this body of work is to be taken seriously, we really ought to edit for grammar and clear bias. I don't want to just whip in here and edit that without discussion, so I'll leave this comment up here for a while before I change the public page.

Infirmo

Anyone have good information about the burning of the Iraqi national library while American troops stood by?
Quite a loss, since some of the oldest writing in the world was there.
~ender 2003-10-13 19:48:MST

War of Resistence

MayBe is need talk about the iraq hostilities for the occupation troops and the war of resistence against the US and British troops

Area of the attacks

"Critics of this "confined" theory point out that the regions where violence is most common are merely the most populated regions."

How about changing this to:

"Critics point out that the regions where violence is most common are also the most populated regions."

Iraqi Resistance

"There is evidence that some of the resistance is organized, perhaps by the fedayeen and other Saddam or Baath loyalists, religious radicals, Iraqis simply angered over the occupation, and foreign fighters. [5]"

The article referenced does not mention "religious radicals". If you're going to mention it, you should document it.

Second, there is no implication that the "ordinary Iraqis" are organized. The organized resistance is the fedayeen/Saddam loyalists/Sunnis, and the foreigners.

Third, the "foreign fighters" are clearly identified in the article as "anti-American al-Qaida-type characters from Syria and Jordan, among other nations, as well as possible agents provocateurs from Iran, who may be fomenting trouble in Shiite Muslim-dominated southern Iraq." The sentence I had is far more informative than "foreign fighters".

Korean analogy

I did not bring up Korea, but if we're going to mention it we ought to explain it fully. Iraq was not strictly a "reanalysis" of past actions, but a response to ONGOING actions. The Korean DMZ reference should be restored, or all references to Korea removed (as well as the POV statement "if a war resolution can be reactivated ten years acter the fact, it would imply that almost any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a ceasefire (such as Korea) could have the war restarted if any other nation felt at any time that they were no longer meeting the conditions of the cease fire that ended that war."

Recent issues

1) I'll agree to that proposed rewording.

2) Good point about the referring article - I didn't post that article, BTW. However, there's as much evidence to suggest both religious radicals, and civilians who hate the occupation, as their is to resistance from former Baath party members and foreign fighters. Seing as their identity is still highly in question, I think it is best that we show all of the competing theories. Should I simply provide a better link?

3) "Iraq was not strictly a "reanalysis" of past actions, but a response to ONGOING actions."

Certainly that is a much more apt description of Korea than Iraq. What was Iraq doing that was "ongoing"? Denying the inspectors access? Nope, everything the inspectors asked for they got (albeit with lots of complaining). Building missiles out of range? With a warhead, it's doubtful that the al-Samoud missile could have broken the range - but they destroyed them anyway. SCUDs? Nope. Chemical weapons? Nope. Biological weapons? Nope. Nuclear weapons? Nope. Nothing.

On Korea, however, the PDRK and South Korea regularly are involved in hostilities. Tunnels have been dug across the border, there are firing incidents every few months, all sorts of things. It's been a lot more active of an area of "violation" than Iraq turned out to be.

Again, the argument is "Who is to judge?" And if one nation can judge a nation to be no longer in compliance, there are all sorts of resolutions that can just be resurrected because that nation feels like it.

Does there need to be a statement to this effect in there? Yes! Without it, the statement crediting international justification to the war is left unchallenged. However, if you'll recall, it was *highly* challenged at the time - this was a very controversial issue, and both sides had heated argument. If you don't want the other point of view, then you need to remove *both* parts. Do you not want Korea mentioned? Fine - then let's make it analogous to attacking Germany for a violation of the Treaty of Versailles (never repealed). Hey, they're controlling the Rhine, they're not paying reparations, etc... they're in violation, right? This is the type of argument that was posed by those opposed to the war against the argument that the 1991 treaty could be reactivate - and both sides need to be represented.

I've rectified the incorrect assertion that Al-Jazeera was recently formed. Also re-worded some of the stuff relating to hypocrisy and Israel, to improve the prose style -- Cabalamat 15:51, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"The words of lord Enki, firstborn son of Anu, who reigns on Nibiru. With heavy spirit I utter laments; laments that are bitter fill my heart. How smitten is the land, its people delivered to the Evil Wind, its stables abandoned, its sheepfolds emptied. How smitten are the cities, their people piled up as dead corpses, afflicted by the Evil Wind. How smitten are the fields, their vegetation withered, touched by the Evil Wind. How smitten are the rivers, nothing swims anymore, pure sparkling waters turned to poison. Of its black-headed people, Shumer is emptied, gone is all life; Of its cattle and sheep Shumer is emptied, silent is the hum of churning milk. In its glorious cities, only the wind howls; death is the only smell. The temples whose heads to heaven arose by their gods have been abandoned. Of lordship and kingship command there is none; sceptre and tiara are gone. On the banks of the two great rivers, once lush and life-giving, only weeds grow. No one treads the highways, no one seeks out the roads; flourishing Shumer is like an abandoned desert. How smitten is the land, home of gods and men!"

-The Lost Book of Enki, Tablet I

Just a quick comment-without-edit on the current version. I get the impression that most parts were written by people with an US view / pro-Bush opinion, who tried sincerely to write in an NPOV style - but IMHO the result is still skewed in favour of the invaders. (Same goes for some sub-articles, e.g. Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq) To pick out two points at (almost) random:

The section on looting is very apologetic for the US military (they were too busy protecting hospitals - oh really? independent sources for this? lots of hospitals were looted; looting 'far less bad than initially feared'; blaming it on Saddam without proof; 'only about 30 objects of any significance were missing' - many archeologists made different statements. And besides there was looting for weeks and months all over the country of thousands of shops, hospitals, offices, so why does such a long paragraph almost only mention looting at the National Museum?)

An important event in the run-up to the war, which influenced the war greatly and is ignored in the otherwise fairly detailed timeline, was Turkey's refusal to let U.S. troops use her territory for the invasion. This overthrew the Coalition's initial battle plan (which consisted of a two-pronged attack) and kept an entire U.S. division out of the theatre while most of the fighting took place. (It has also been blamed in part for the embarassing supply problems a few days after the start of the invasion, which have also been ignored here for the greater glory of the U.S. military it seems).

Turkey's refusal has also been ignored in the more than 1000 character entry on Turkey in Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq!

Other sections of the main article are more balanced, but I definitely think it could use rewriting in many places. Being a newbie and not having followed the previous discussion I first wanted to state my opinion here.

Have a nice day.

Nov 09, 2003

- I must say I agree wholeheartedly. The effort to be neutral is commendable, but if viewed objectively, one realises that little heed is paid (for instance) to the casualties of war on the Iraqi side. All the same, the opinions expressed do seem, if at times apologetic, yet, severely biased in favour of the 'Coalition' POV.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Although President Bush declared the war over May 1, 2003, the U.S. State Department is still calling the action "Operation Iraqi Freedom." With that said, should 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq really be separate?

When trying to keep track of casualties on United States casualties of war, I have 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq as separate entities. However, casuality announcements from the State Department do not separate the phases of this war. The numbers reported in [6] reflect total numbers of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Why does wikipedia make a distinction between the two phases when the State Department does not? Kingturtle 04:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Enduring Freedom?

I haven't read all the talk page information on the current Iraq war, but in the beginning of this article is this phrase:

"The U.S. name for the military campaign was Operation Enduring Freedom. The US military operations in this war were conducted under the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Operation Enduring Freedom redirects to the ongoing US war in Afghanistan. Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to this article (2003 invasion of Iraq). With this in mind, A) Are these redirects correct? and B) If so, shouldn't Operation Enduring Freedom be removed from this article? Either way, I think the quoted phrase above should be reworded as it is confusing, but I'm not sure how to reword it because I'm not sure of the answers to the 2 questions I posed here. --Flockmeal 04:29, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

The name is due to an edit by 68.105.250.163 dating from Sep 28, 2003 and is a mistake. Operation Enduring Freedom refers to the US campaign in Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom refers to the US campaign in Iraq. That is to say, the redirects are correct. --Gabbe 11:03, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the "Enduring Freedom" line. Gentgeen 16:22, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Okay, so the buck-propping theory is beyond WP's pale. Well, an expanded version is here. Can someone tell me what makes Shrub's explanation plausible but this not? - Kwantus 23:15, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Article's taxobox summary

Need help for this please. Check Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Sandbox for more information. --Maio 16:26, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

The invasion is over; Iraq has already been invaded. Now is the occupation... --Jia ng 03:00, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let's stop the edit war

Ok, Reddi, enough already. I posted a compromise where both of our points are raised. Either list your objections concerning the compromise, or keep having your work reverted. What is wrong with the compromise? I want to get something that we can both be happy with, and that's what I attempted to do with the compromise. You don't get to then take it, keep all of the material that you like, *and* do your original edit on top of it. Rei

Rei ... stop the POV ... What is wrong with the compromise? it's not a "compromise" ... I am trying to state the facts ... not qualify them and POV them ... you REPEATEDLY tried to removed the ISG info (becuase it did not meet your POV I believe) and, now, you are trying to "explain" them away ... that is not NPOV ... PLEASE stop. The links are there for the readers to read. Sincerely, JDR

First off, I'm defending the original text. You're arguing for a change, you need to defend that change before you make it. Your "Facts" include extensive use of ellipsis, omission, and it's entirely based on a source which the author has stated that he had it all wrong. And you think that's a defensible stance? And, nonetheless, in my compromise version, I *added* tons of references to your article - *not* selectively for my position, but covered pretty much every major point that Kay made in the speech, most of which were in your favor - *and* added article references to points for which it was easy to do so (feel free to add more article references). What is your problem with that? Rei

First off, your text is POV.

I'm arguing for a change? no ... I'm adding facts .. that's it ...

You need to defend your POV changes ... IF you just stated the facts objectively AND added the link for the reader to decide the information that wouldn't be necessary ....

use of ellipsis? when necessary ... yes

omission? no ... the links are there ...

Source which the author has stated that he had it all wrong? no ... that is incorrect and a mischaracterization of the facts ... the only "wrong part" is the stockpiles ... the rest are TRUE (and verifiable) ...

that's a defensible stance? yes ...

compromise version? your "compromise" isn't ... it an attempt @ POV ...

added references? yes ... they are still there too [for the reader to read]

Your "cover of the points" is explaining away the facts (which does not add accuracy nor NPOV) ...

What is your problem with that? several [see preceding line if necessary] ... you have REPEATEDLY tried to removed info that did not fit you POV ... now that you cannot remove it and there is explicit link to the info (someone posted the link in the ISG article; but the information was correct before), you are trying to explaining away the facts to fit your POV.

Sincerely, JDR

"First off, your text is POV. I'm arguing for a change? no ... I'm adding facts .. that's it ... You need to defend your POV changes"

If you're not arguing for a change, then let's happilly agree to use the original version. Oh wait, that's NOT what you want, now is it? Then you're arguing for a change.

"If you just stated the facts objectively AND added the link for the reader to decide the invormation that wouldn't be necessary."

Give a reference of what you're referring to (assumedly in the attempted compromise version) that you find to be non-objective. I tried to summarize the article as best as possible, and NOT omit major points or cut out only the sections that I liked (like you did in your heavily ellipsis-laden version).

"your 'compromise'" isn't ... it an attempt @ POV"

Then *give me examples* of what you're referring to, and why you think it's POV. You might as well be issuing complaints about my text about purple unicorns and undead squirrels if you're going to be claiming that I'm using POV but not stating where.

"you have 'REPEATEDLY' tried to 'removed' info that did not fit you POV"

First off, are you just typing too fast, or do you not see the grammar errors in that? Secondly, name *one* fact that I removed. The things that you listed, in *ADDITION* to Kay's other points, are in the compromise version. Rei

I think there is an importante error when you state the goals of the invasion. It should say vandalism, more businnes paid with Irak petroleum as said by president George Bush. and we should add eliminate the posibility of Irak selling petroleum in Euros. best regards

Nevermind the number of Iraqis and others Saddam Hussein may have killed during his long tenure as dictator of Iraq, which may have numbered as high as 1,131,000+.

I added this line in order to reflect a balanced position on the harm caused to Iraqis by including the previous regime's possible human rights violations. --Systemshocked

"advocated war with Iraq regardless of wheter or not Saddam Hussein remained in power"

I see this "fact" sprinkled all over Wikipeida. Yet the document cited makes no such claim. All it says is that the authors' believe having US military bases in Saudi Arabia will remain valuable even after Saddam Hussein is gone. I don't understand the logical leap. Please quote where this is advocated. user:J.J.

Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses by PNAC. I'll quote from page 14: "Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Rei

Yes, that is what I was refering to. There is quite a difference between saying America needs a "substantial force presence in the Gulf" and saying "we must ivade Iraq regardless of who the president is." All the document is saying is that there are American security interests in the Middle East which do not involve Saddam, and thus justify an American military presence in the reigon (ie: Saudi Arabia). user:J.J.

Removed edit about the French press - copyright

I removed the section about the French press due to the fact that much of it was lifted straight from other websites. For example, from what the poster posted:

" Hertoghe, a 44-year-old Belgian, said reporters reflected the emotional high in France more than realities on the battlefield, becoming caught up in France's central role in leading the opposition to the war at the United Nations."

From a mirror of an old Yahoo article:

"Hertoghe, a 44-year-old Belgian, said reporters reflected the emotional high in France more than realities on the battlefield, becoming caught up in France's central role in leading the opposition to the war at the United Nations."

It's actually a lot worse than that - the majority of the edit was ripped. Rei

Yes, and that is why I changed it. As a new wiki, I have not yet familiarized myslf with all the rules. TDC TDC 20:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

International initiative

Is anyone familiar with this "internation initiative" that was just posted to this page or is this just a user's home page? - Texture 16:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

International initiatives such as http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h0444e1w/massmail.htm protested against the U.S. media for downplaying and misinterpreting protests as antiamericanism and accused them of foul language such as calling Chirac "A balding Joan of Arc in drag", the French "frogeating weasels" (New York Post) or stating that "Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations".

I'm not familiar with that in particular, but there was a lot of European criticism of the US media for using derogatory language, especially toward the French. I remember doing a news.google.com search back then, and being really disturbed by the number of references I got for "cheese eating surrender monkeys" - and not all from obscure sources. Lots of papers contained rather nasty editorials. Also there was a lot of criticism in some circles about the media's demeaning attitude toward the protesters - FAIR issued several advisories on this one, and it was widely discussed with disdain on blogs and in some foreign press. But, as to this particular initiative, I'm not familiar with it. Rei

"Overt Sympathies For Saddam Hussein"

.... can someone *actually* document such a thing? I mean, I saw a fair bit of anti-americanism (although it was anything but the majority of the protesters), but I never ran into a single war protester who proclaimed *any* sympathies to Saddam Hussein. If noone can support this, I'll take it out, but I figured I'd give people a chance to defend it with evidence. Rei

I could provide pictures if that will do. TDC 21:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a link. User:Rei

Egypt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38768000/jpg/_38768161_protest_ap_150.jpg

West Bank

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_765072.html?menu=

Pakistan

http://community.webshots.com/s/image5/2/0/65/68520065BQsumd_ph.jpg

I remember seeing several at the DC and San Fransisco raliies last March, but I cannot remember where the pictures are at. I could dig those up if you need/want them and give me some time.

Ah, I see the issue we're encountering. Indeed, there have been protesters in the arab world supporting Saddam Hussein. My context was, however, America, and that's how I read the article, and how I imagine a lot of other people read it. Perhaps I could add something like "predominantly in Arab nations" to the sentence?

I never saw any such signs in the DC and San Francisco protests coverage, and I know people who went to both and didn't see any such signs. Perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of people there might have been one or two (if there were, I'm sure some right-wingers got a picture), but if there were any, they were *exceedingly* rare. Here in the midwest, I went to protests all around Iowa and in Chicago, and didn't see a single one. |Rei

From San Fransico http://216.93.175.73/images/uploads/saddam_elected.jpg, and the sympathies lie more with the organizers.

Really? Is that the best you can do, with literally hundreds of thousands of signs? A sign that more pokes fun at Bush's last election than anything else? I'd say you completely failed on this front. Care to back up your new claim, that the organizers had sympathies for Saddam?Rei

well, the IAC most certainly did, and they organized/ran most every large rally. Or is this just some delusion.TDC 19:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Certainly if they did, you can present *something* to support that stance, can you not? Rei

Are you really so daft as to not see the sympathetic and openly supportive relationship that the IAC and its spin-off ANSWER has with Saddam's former regime. TDC 03:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt, but put up or shut up. If you don't have any evidence to back it up, I'll continue with the aforementioned edit. Your "evidence" so far has been a sign that is poking fun about Bush's last election. There was a lot of slander about antiwar groups in the US, so again, I'll reiterate: Put up or shut up. Rei

I should add that opposing a war is *NOT* the same thing as supporting what the country was waging the war to change. For example, Canada didn't support the Vietnam war, but that hardly meant that they supported the spread of Communism. If war was some magical pill which had no side effects, the two concepts might be equivalent, but war involves huge amounts of killing even if civilians can be left completely out of the picture and the ensuing lethal and destructive anarchy after a government overthrow. Consequently, war requires extreme justification, not just an "it'd be better if that government was gone" notion. And I'll add: Human Rights Watch has publicly stated that the necessary level of justification did not exist in this case (but would have existed in the 80s under the Anfal campaign). Rei

The evidence that the IAC and ANSWER, as well as its members, were pro-Saddam should be prima-fascia, but here you go.

Ramsey Clark’s law firm, Clark & Schilling, has been representing Iraqi interests in the United States for over 10 years. Clark’s law firm was the media spokesman for Saddam and his regime since the end of the first gulf war in 1992 doing everything from lobbying to get sanctions lifted to ending no-fly zone patrols.

Clark & Schilling have been paid for their work, as to why they did not have to register as agents of foreign governments it is because they were representing Saddam as lawyers.

Clark used to visit Saddam several times a year and was even able to arrange an interview between Hussein and Dan Rather just prior to last years was. Every time he visited Baghdad it was at the invitation of Hussein.

Clark, as I am sure you know, founded and runs the IAC and ANSWER. These two organizations organized most of the large anti war rallies last year. In almost every press release relating to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the IAC and ANSWER goes to very great efforts to admonish Iraq of any sins and place the blame for any transgressions on the doorstep of the US. Including the gassing of the Kurds.

In this passage written by Clark, the IAC lays the blame for the 1991 invasion of Kuwait at Kuwait’s feet in a polemic titled “fire and ice”

Just when Iraq was struggling to recover from eight years of war, feeling the effect of unilateral U.S. sanctions and fearing default on its foreign debts, Kuwait began violating quotas on oil production set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This forced oil prices down at the same time that Kuwait was demanding repayment of $30 billion it had provided Iraq during the war. Kuwait also began excessive pumping from the Rumaila oil field, which it shared with Iraq. Kuwait accelerated its provocative and hostile actions toward Iraq through months of crisis up to the day it was invaded.

http://www.iacenter.org/fireice.htm

Its not like these criticisms are coming out just from the right. Todd Gitlin, Nat Hentoff, Michelle Goldberg and many other pundits on the left are saying the exact same thing I am.TDC 18:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark is not ANSWER, and ANSWER is not Ramsey Clark. In fact, he's not even a member of their steering committee. He helped cofound IAC, along with a number of other people - he doesn't "run" it.

He is the chairperson of the IAC and the first named endorser of ANSWER. He speaks at their conferences [at least the ones I have seen on C-Span], and writes articles for their web site. TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Clark's antics, but who cares? Your challenge was to demonstrate "a supportive relationship" between the IAC and ANSWER with Saddam Hussein. You hardly even touched that - you just posted a diatribe about Clark, and the closest that I can gather to how you take this to be the stance of peace activists in general in the US is that Ramsey Clark is one member of IAC and they list a few of his letters and editorials on their site (among thousands of others); Ramsey Clark supported Saddam Hussein personally; IAC is a peace group in the US that happened to be the organizer of some of the larger protests (despite having little other relation to almost all peace activists in the United States), and consequently, there is a relevant number of US peaceniks supported Saddam Hussein. Please tell me that you see the logic holes large enough to swallow an elephant in that line of argument.

Ok, let’s see here. An organization specifically set up to oppose US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq is set up almost exclusively by members of the WWP and the IAC, as well as Saddam’s legal representative in the West, and I get the impression that they are just a “peace group” with no ulterior motives. I see how

How could I have come to that conclusion? After all, a leap like that would be crazy to make.TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Um, the only thing you've really brought against the WWP and the IAC concerning Saddam thusfar are the association with Clark; consequently, you haven't changed your initial argument one iota. Rei

Like I told you earlier, I am not the only one making this accusation. Far left organizations like Infoshop, http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html, are just as critical of the totalitarian leanings of the WWP and the IAC as any conservative is. Every honest individual realizes that ANSWER and the WWP are schills for any government that claims to be anti-american. TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, your line "the IAC and ANSWER goes to very great efforts to admonish Iraq of any sins and place the blame for any transgressions on the doorstep of the US.

Of course it is. Nowhere is there even one word of condemnation for Hussein.TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

False, yet again (you don't do any original research, do you?). Here's one: "As the Bush administration races to unleash limitless violence on the people of Iraq, a country of 23 million, the administration and its corporate media cheerleaders are shamelessly painting its critics as either "anti-American" or pro-Saddam Hussein or both. But the truth is that the world is opposed to war and it is the tiny few in the Bush Administration and the Pentagon who are rushing to plunge the Middle East into bloodshed." [7]. That took all of, what, 45 seconds to get?

Ohhh, what a scathing rebuke of Saddam. Why they made him out to be a monster in that paragraph, or the article for that matter, didn't they? Sorry, not once do they condemn Hussein for any of his crimes against humanity. Try again. TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Including the gassing of the Kurds." is not an excuse for Saddam - it is additional blame on the US which definitely belongs there (we accelerated weapons sales as chemical weapons usage increased, and even sold some of the aircraft used for the Halabja attack; we sold the chemical precursors, biological stocks, and all sorts of other things; the Reagan administration even blocked an congressional effort to censure Iraq for their use of chemical weapons).

Funny, I did not see any “righteous indignation” against France China or the USSR who provided Saddam with well over 95% of all his military hardware and military industrial infrastructure during the 1980’s. TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Utterly false. You pro-war people have the quality of research of a sea slug - that's why you fell for the WMD line, and why you personally were unaware that the documents against Galloway were discovered to be forgeries, among many other things :P. The US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency estimates Iraq's purchases in the Iran-Iraq war at 24B$. 45 Bell helicopters that we sold by Sarkis Soghanglian; 220m$ of trucks; sidewinder components; Radars, tanks, and missiles from American Steel; direct cooperation with the Salah al-Din factory (which helped build the radars that were used against our planes in the gulf war); anti-personell and anti-tank land mines; huge quantities of small arms; etc. Reagan enlisted the assistance of the Italians, who (with US help) did a whopping 2.65 billion dollar deal to build Iraq's navy, in addition to 165m$ more for helicopters and 225m$ more for land mines. We also gave them 625m$ worth of food as a loan so that they could spend their money on more arms imports. France, Germany, Russia, and China all sold to Iraq as well, but Iraq also made very large purchases from Egypt, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Libya, Brazil (which was helped in their sales by the US aid as compensation), Jordan (same), Saudi Arabia (same), and many other countries. I'll give you any references that you need. We weren't one of the top suppliers, but we and the countries that we helped sell to Iraq were still a major portion of the sales during the Iran-Iraq war. France and the Soviet Union, while still important suppliers during the war, played their most major roles before and after the war. As for WMDs, there were 24 US firms that helped provide components and 17 British companies, compared to only 8 French, 3 Chinese, and 6 Russian. User:Rei

Iraq's army was comprised almost entirely of Soviet block, Chinese and French made equipment. Do I need to list off Iraq's inventory circa 1990 from Jane’s to make this point? Out of the $24Bil that Iraq bought in arms during the 80's, almost all of it was Soviet French and Chinese. There was a bit of dual use technology being sold to Iraq, but I stand by the fact that Iraq was armed almost entirely by 3 or 4 nations. http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would you accuse any person that blamed countries that traded with and aided the Nazis during WWII, of being a Nazi sympathizers? That sort of logic is preposterous. The very fact that there is the condemnation of the US trading implies that the condemner views the action as an atrocity.

First of all, The article implied that the main aggressor in the first Gulf War was Kuwait. Secondly the article in question condemns the unilateral sanctions put in place by the US Senate just after the gassing of the Kurds, not the multilateral sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. Perhaps you should read the reply before making yourself look like a tool. TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, it didn't. How did you read that in, if you read the entire article? They talk about Kuwait's insistance on loan repayment and its increasing of pumping, and then talk about how Iraq began to mass troops on the Kuwaiti border. That's hardly saying that it's Kuwait's fault. The main point of that article, actually, was US complicity. Rei

Exactly, Kuwait provoked, the US was complicit and Iraq was, well we don’t know according to the article. They never mention Iraq's culpability in the 1991 invasion of Kuwait do they? The article gives the impression that Iraq was somehow entrapped into attacking Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and does not put any blame at Iraq's doorstep. TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Trust me: I *was* a peace protester. I met and talked with, at length, *thousands* of others. Your concept of the peace protesters, any measurable amount of them in the US supporting Saddam, is complete and utter nonsense. Hell, new coalitions were formed just so that the taint of Ramsey Clark wouldn't be applied to the peace community through his associations via ANSWER and IAC (UFPJ and Win Without War). At Iowans For Peace (a local coalition that I was involved with), fear of being associated with Clark by the right wing often came up when deciding whether to go to ANSWER-organized events, as it did almost everywhere across the US. And the funny thing is, Clark actually has relatively little to do with the groups apart from editorializing and the like. Rei.

Peace advocates sympathetic to Saddam and desiring an Iraqi victory, how preposterous. I mean how could I have even thought of something so bizzare? Seriously now, even the though of the “peace movement” desiring an Iraqi victory is crazy and completely groundless.

How many times do I have to say that I didn't run into a single peace advocate who was sympathetic to Saddam? And having one member of one group be sympathetic to Saddam is absolutely no reason at all to smear the millions of people who were out protesting in the streets with an ideology that they didn't believe in. Rei

Unless we consider the following............

"I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/04/11/liberation/index1.html

Gary Kamiya, Salon.com's executive editor. TDC 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And where did Gary say, "I wished for Saddam to remain in power forever, and I support his government?" There's a mountain of difference between opposing American action (and yes, *some* peace protesters, and I did meet a number of them, wanted to see America fall flat on its face so that it would never try anything like this again), and supporting Saddam Hussein. Reread that paragraph I wrote talking about the difference between opposing a war and supporting what the war was launched to change - you apparently didn't grasp it. User:Rei

A mountain of difference between opposing the actions of the US and supporting its foes, I whole heatedly agree. But is there a "mountain" of difference between wishing a "million Mogadishus" on US troops and supporting its foes, I don’t think so.

like this chap: http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/i-love-newyork.jpg TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chart

We should have a chart like this one:

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.gif

NPOV, of course. We can use [8] as a source.—Eloquence 04:30, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'll definitely second that, if you're willing to take the effort to put it in. :) Rei

Polish presidents remarks

[9][10][11] and in polish [12] He used the polish word zwodzeni which means mislead but does not imply malice afore-though, in the translation it came out as take for a ride which apperantly sounds bad in english. After the faux pas the polish government declared our troops will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes, and a day (that's longer then american troops will). Kwasniewski has somehow managed to avoid major f*ckups while in office (except for being obviously drunk when attending the opening of a cementry for polish officers murderd by soviets in a neighbouring allied country) so it's fair to assume there aren't any strings attached.

Dispute notices

It would be nice if our March 21 selected anniversaries page could have a line about the start of the Iraq War. But that isn't going to happen so long as there are dispute notices on this page. Unless there is a strong objection, I'm going to remove them in 24 hours. We really do need a policy on when to put these things on pages - there should be a consensus to do so (or at least two concurring people). But since they are added unilaterally, they can be removed unilaterally. --mav 23:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Given the amount of confirmed forged documents coming out of Iraq, given the investigation that cleared Galloway of all bribery allegations, and given the fact that some of the allegations are patently ridiculous, I think it would be silly for us at this time to portray them as having any sort of credence, let alone the "absolute truth" portrayal that you're trying to give them. As if the leaders of Arab ruling familes, for example, could be bribed so cheaply - a couple million barrels of oil is chump change to them. As if Egypt, who gets over 2 billion dollars per year in US foreign aid, would trade it for a few million barrels of oil. As if the *Russian Orthodox Church* as well as a close friend of the Pope are involved in the oil trade. These allegations are laughable. Note how the Bush administration has refused to even comment on them. They better get a whole lot more backed up before we portray them as even having as much credence as the uranium documents. Rei

I agree, absolutely groundless! That must be why Kofi Annan is calling for an investigation. http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=880

Sorry, its gotta stay. TDC 18:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve *near* this much text in its current unrepudated form, both since it's making preposterous allegations and since so many documents from Iraq of this same type have been forgeries (that's why it's being investigated - you don't show something to be a forgery without an investigation). I'll trim it down to what it deserves. Rei

It is so unbelievable that people would take, dare I even say it, bribes from a dictator desperately trying to stay in power. So preposterous is the idea that oil for food money would be used to bribe and aid sympathetic voices, that Kofi Annan decided an investigation is warranted. What next, cats sleeping with dogs?

I trimmed it up to what it deserves, unless that is, future events prove this to be a hoax.TDC 20:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It *IS* so unbelievable that people who already went through a bribery investigation that covered their personal finances in depth, major world churches, and people for whom the money would be a drop in the bucket, would have taken money - *especially* since the place where the document is from has been rife in similar forgeries. What gets me is why pro war people continually, relentlessly, smear every major figure who opposed the war as if there was some sort of ulterior motive. It is cruel, to say the least - and to do it with a document for which all signs say "forgery" is all the worse.

From the Gaurdian UK

Mr Galloway said he was unaware that his financial sponsors were getting oil cash from the UN programme. But he accepts that he knew his supporters had links with Saddam's regime, and regarded that as an inevitable price to pay.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1149796,00.html

The price was working with a dictator.TDC 21:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And Rev. Sun Myung Moon gets money from the North Korean government, and makes donations to the Republican Party. However, "indirect association" isn't the allegation you're pushing on the main web page: your allegation is that Galloway was getting paid by Saddam Hussein, not that there are as-of-yet unconfirmed allegations that some people were getting paid by Saddam, and that those people made donations to a lobbying group headed by Galloway. They're radically different things. And yes, the price of visiting Iraq is working with people involved with dictator. Guess what? That's the same price for visiting Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait.... Rei

Galloway knew that the people he was getting money from were connected to Saddam. Galloway is supposed to be this shining example of a dedicated warrior for human rights, but here he is cozening up with Saddam. Every day Galloway helped keep Saddam in power led to more deaths than his shipments of medical aid could ever save.

And to say that a left wing goody goody would never cozy up with a tyrant is to forget the history of people like Walter Duranty and Paul Robeson.

So take your Sun Myung Moon straw man and light it on fire.TDC 22:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

P.S. - You still haven't supplied the details of your supposed permission to use that image that you posted a few days ago. Who was over in Iraq to take it? How did they get you the image? Where is their permission granted? Rei

A friend in the region emailed it to me. BTW I get 5.

"A friend in the region emailed it to me" isn't good enough.

"Image guidelines: Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explictly placed in the public domain. Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow a photograph to be used."

Get a written statement from your "friend" stating that they took the picture and that they grant wikipedia the right to use it (or that they've made it public domain), or take it down. Copyright is not to be played around with here. Rei

He is active duty Army, and although I doubt you are this diligent with compliance issues with all photo's I will write him, but I refuse to share his name or even his unit. TDC 22:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I go after any picture that looks like an AP photo that doesn't have credit on it. Rei

I have made my case with a satisfactory amount of documentation. If you want to edit the paragraphs I have put forth, fine, but don’t try and bury it because you don’t like what it has to say.

On a side note, If you think I am going to allow you to come in here and turn this into some one sided anti-war pissing screed, you are sadly mistaken.

So a big "Yoink" to you. TDC 22:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excuse Me??? "Come in here"? I've been on this page since August 28th, 2003. You didn't arrive until Feb 23, 2004 (you know, ONE MONTH ago?), so what right do *you* have to take that sort of attitude? "Turn it into some one sided anti-war pissing screed"? *YOU* are the one trying to change the article here.

Yeah, I am attempting to bring some balance into this screed.

I* am defending the current article,

Which is garbage, many parts of it at any rate...TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

trying to stop you from dedicating an entire new 5-paragraph section to a libelous document which doesn't even deserve the 1 paragraph compromise-version that I gave it.

And just who the hell are you to say what is and is not deserving? And remember, its only libel if its not true. Galloway may not have taken a personal check from Hussein, but he sure as hell knew where the money was coming from.TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sick of people like you trying to defame antiwar people by launching into tirades on the latest piece of unconfirmed garbage, and then slipping out of the apology when it's proven false - every last time. I'm not trying to stop you from mentioning the document - it should be mentioned. However, you're putting *way* too many details, and with *way* too much credence, for a patently ridiculous and unbacked document which accuses people like friends of the Pope of engaging in illegal oil trading.

First of all, this "unconfirmed garbage" is not just some rumor brought up by knuckle dragging, Jew loving, neo-cons. This story has quite a bit of steam behind it, despite the efforts of people to bury it.TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed this line. Why on earth are the words "Jew loving" in between "knuckle dragging" and "neo-cons"? I'm kind of curious as to how Judaism entered the conversation.

Becasue the anti war left has turned it into an issue.

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/articles/adbusters_responds.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040321/480/cadd10603210130

I am sure you will like the picture, the "actress" is holding up literature from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. And trust me, she aint worried about suicide bombers. TDC 21:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In case you don't know any better, a neo-conservative in all but the most bizarre usage is a person who is a conservative not so much because they oppose gay rights, oppose abortion, want to ban evolution in schools, etc, but because they believe that the US needs to be more unilateral and more militant. Neocons include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Libbe, and a couple dozen others; PNAC is a neocon think tank. Rei

Well, thats not entirely true, but you are entitled to your opinions. TDC 21:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For God's sake, can't even the *church* be anti-war without it being some sort of evil monetary conspiracy to you people, and without you all grabbing for whatever straw you can find as if it's the God-spoken truth to base a self righteous tirade on? Rei

Of course it can, but you cannot even bring yourself to admit that mabey, just mabey a rather sizeable portion of the anti-war movement is not in it with the purest of intentions of ending all war and advocating non-violence.TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You'll never accept the truth. Why is it so hard for you to understand that I've *MET* thousands of antiwar people, and discussed things at length with many of them, and NONE of them think the way you think "a rather sizeable portion" does. Your view of antiwar protesters in general is borderline delusional. Rei

Well, speaking of left wing fifth column types and journalism, I though you would appreciate this:

"The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have close alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long struggle against the empires of the west, their rapacious crusades and domination. The motivation of those who plant bombs in railway carriages derives directly from this truth."

Guess who said it: Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, nope, it was none other than award winning journalist and anti-war stalwart John Pilger.

Peddle your garbage to someone who does not know better chief. TDC 21:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

January bribery stories

Summary: Neither version is perfect, and wouldn't most of this content be happier elsewhere?

Both versions, as I read them, make their agendas and intended conclusions crystal-clear. TDC's says to me, "There were allegations of massive corruption in the oil-for-food program, which are probably true, and several people who opposed the war benefitted (however indirectly) from this corruption, so. . .". The last paragraph also seems off-topic, since it's talking about Al-Jazeera (which AFAICT had little to do with the story) and Saddam's personal fortune -- what purpose do these facts serve in this context?

Rei's version says to me, "There were accusations of corruption in the oil-for-food, but they were probably forged, as in a similar case in the past; besides, look at who they're accusing. . .". On the other hand, it mentions the U.N. investigation, which helps the balance a bit.

But then again, since this deals with corruption in the oil-for-food program, wouldn't most it be more at home in the relevant article (with summaries and pointers where needed, of course)? Just a thought.

The summary might be something like this: "In January 2004, the Iraqi newspaper al Mada reported allegations of bribery within the oil-for-food program, sparking an inquiry by the United Nations; see Oil for food#Power, Corruption, and Lies for details." -- or something like that, something agreeable to all parties. (I strongly suggest hashing out an acceptable version of the main text before doing this, though.) --anon

That might be acceptable. One of the reasons I included this on this page as opposed to an oil for food scandal page is that media coverage of the war and Saddam's regime in general was most definately tainted and skewed by the large and generous contributions that were bieng doled out to Middle Eastern journalists. This is why the Al-Jazeera referenc was thrown in there. Perhaos that should go into the media secion of this enty. I do not know, but I am open to suggestions. TDC 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break! "tainted and skewed by the large and generous contributions that were bieng doled out to Middle Eastern journalists" - do your payoff fantasies ever end?

Well when Nimat wrote about them, he wound up in jail. And I cannot wait to see you eat your word. like so much organicly grown tofu, when this gains more momentum.

You don't grow tofu. Tofu is soybean milk treated with coagulants. The soybeans are grown, but tofu is fermented from the soybeans. And you're using the fact that Nimat is a Jordanian convict as a character reference? That's rich. Chalabi's couple dozen felony counts must make him a saint, then. Rei

All you got to see on the news over here was an incessant background of a literal American flag waving, for every major news station, talking about our "heroes" in the middle east with a bunch of retired generals.

Well the news coverage in the states was much more accurate, were they not? I mean, how many people outside the US were suprised when the Iraqi army crumbled. And judging by your contempt for the armed forces of the US, you must not know many of them.

We found a WMD! They used SCUD missiles! We've captured Umm Qasr, and it's quited down! Mission accomplished!

P.S. - one of my best friends from college is in the military. Oh, and the most common sign I've seen ever since about 4 months before the war is "Support Our Troops - Bring Them Home!". Rei

I mean, how dare Al-Jazeera do the exact same thing for the Iraqi side! Clearly they must all be under the pay of Saddam!

When they give their viewers an impression that turns out ot be 100% WRONG, then yes, how dare they mis-inform the viewers.

Misinform viewers? Yeah, because all of those WMD finds that we kept reporting were SOOOOOOO accurate. So was all of that Chalabi propaganda, the fake documents and the obscene distortions that they played for months before the war to get people to support it. Rei

People who support the war are altruistic, but those who opposed it, or arab journalists supporting an arab nation are clearly under the pay of Saddam - right? Rei

Not all the people who support the war did it out of altruism, but at least no one is going to accuse me of bieng the mouthpiece for Saddam and his fascist regime.

BTW, did you like the picture? I am guessing he is a friend of yours. http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/i-love-newyork.jpg TDC 00:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah - because *you* are the people who continually lob the accusations, and we're the ones who have to sit here and take it. And I've seen a hundred more like that one: here, here, here, .... we also had a couple pro-war people at the Chicago protest carrying signs designed to incense people like that to try and make us look bad. Yes, there are the occasional nutcases (I've far more at pro-war rallies), but can you see why I'm sick of you people treating us like this? Rei

Yeah, but the photo I linked to is real. TDC 21:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I may interrupt the flaming again, here's a proposed reworking of the text:

On January 25, 2004, al Mada, a daily newspaper in Iraq, published a list of individuals and organizations who it says received oil from the now-deposed regime. Among those listed is Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American from Detroit, who ran "Expatriate Conferences" for the regime in Baghdad. Al Khafaji also contributed $400,000 to the production of Scott Ritter's film "In Shifting Sands". Al Khafaji also arranged travel and financing for the Baghdad trips of US Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson and David Bonior last fall. Following the trip, al Khafaji contributed $5,000 to McDermott's Legal Defense Fund.

This text is remarkably similar to something that appeared in a Weekly Standard article:

On January 25, 2004, a daily newspaper in Iraq called al Mada published a list of individuals and organizations who it says received oil from the now-deposed regime. Among those listed is Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American from Detroit, who ran "Expatriate Conferences" for the regime in Baghdad. Al Khafaji also contributed $400,000 to the production of Scott Ritter's film "In Shifting Sands." Finally, al Khafaji arranged travel and financing for the "Baghdad Democrats"--Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson and David Bonior--last fall. Following the trip, al Khafaji contributed $5,000 to McDermott's Legal Defense Fund

Copyright laws and basic intellectual honesty seem to forbid use of this section as it currently stands.

Next para:

The list included the names of businessmen, diplomats, politicians, and journalists whom the Iraqi government. Amongst these was a charity run by a pro-Saddam member of the British Parliament, George Galloway, whose charity, Mariam Appeal, received an estimated three million barrels of oil every six months, via the Oil For Food Program. The share was between 10 and 15 cents per barrel. Also on the list were President Sukarnoputri of Indonesia and Benon V. Sevan, the head of the U.N. Oil for Food program, adding further credibility to charges of massive fraud in the UN Oil for Food program.

The text about Galloway mixes up two of the allegations against him: the earlier charges against Mariam Appeal and the later charge, from the al Mada list, that he took bribes himself. These need to be disentangled.

Some of the transactions were straightforward cash payments, often in U.S. dollars, handed out from Iraqi embassies in Arab capitals--luxury cars delivered to top editors, Toyotas for less influential journalists. "This was not secret," says Salama Nimat, a Jordanian journalist who was jailed briefly in 1995 in that nation for highlighting the corruption.

Again, this is ripped from the Weekly Standard.

Estimates of Saddam Hussein's personal fortune range from $2 billion to $40 billion. Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, coalition soldiers found nearly $800 million in U.S. cash stashed in a high-rent Baghdad neighborhood. In an April 2, 2003, speech in New York City, British Home Secretary David Blunkett complained about Arab journalism. "It's hard to get the true facts if the reporters of Al Jazeera are actually linked into, and are only there because they are provided with facilities and support from the regime." The accusation caused a minor stir in Britain, with several editorials in left-wing newspapers calling for Blunkett's resignation.

All copied, with minor modification, from the aforementioned Weekly Standard article. The stuff about Saddam's wealth could go in Saddam Hussein's article (in an un-plagiarized version); the stuff about media bias could go into 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage, with a more accurate characterization of Blunkett's speech (he complained about the general impossibility of getting unbiased coverage from inside Iraq). Most of the facts still belong in oil for food.

Rei, TDC, your thoughts please. --same anon, different IP

I reworked the Standard article, this is, I assume because I have done it before, not against Wiki's rules. Categorizing it into more appropriate sections seems reasonable. [by TDC

Good, glad you agree with this solution. As for "reworking", your text was a nearly-verbatim copy (with minor reorderings and rearrangings) of the Weekly Standard's, without citation. This is plagiarism, which is against Wikipedia rules. If you've done this elsewhere, I encourage you to go back and fix it: add citations and rewrite in your own words. --anon

I'll support where they go, although I'll debate wording and content with TDC on those respective articles. It's not surprising that he ripped from the Weekly Standard. Not surprising at all. Rei

Debate over relative reliability of sources moved to Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage.

Without wantng to read all the above, can someone please tell me the best place to report on the criticism by former president Jimmy Carter of the Bush and Blair action over Iraq? There now seems no place other than Current Events.... Agendum

I think Current Events is a proper location. --Rei

So, here is the solution, I guess. I will re write my latest contributions, and file them under the appropriate sub-sections. If they are not appropriate for this page I will find a home for them somewhere else. Rei can go voer them and modify them to her satisfaction. I am sure that the final additions will go through several iterations. TDC 14:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is an encyclopedia entry and language like "fatten his personal wealth" or "sweeping allegations" are entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, characterizing someone as "a friend of the pope" without even saying who you are writing about shows that you are not at all interested in providing valuable information but just in spreading propaganda. Get-back-world-respect 11:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is no "Father Benjamin" at wikipedia, nor could I find any reliable source for him with google, not even using "frere Benjamin". I think it is entirely useless to include allegations against a civilian hardly known in an entry about the 2003 Iraq war. The only reason I can see would be that some war supporters are still angry about the harsh Vatican criticism. Would it not be wiser to wait with the inclusion of dubious documents after the war was justified at the Security Council with a forged document about alleged Iraqi uranium deals? Get-back-world-respect 23:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to suggest that to TDC, but he is insistant on pushing unconfirmed allegations like this on the page, despite how many similar ones have been disproven. I, too, would much rather wait on the document. Rei

Unprotect?

I think the dispute with TDC has been adequately resolved, since (s)He seems to agree as to where the content needs to go, if anywhere. Can we unprotect the page? The army just completed a study of troop morale, and I'd like to link it. --Rei

A few comments.

1. I don’t know why you continually refer to Galloway as “acquitted”. Galloway was never charged in any way by the British gov’t in connection with Iraqi bribery.

The charges faced by Galloway were:

inciting Arabs to fight British troops inciting British troops to defy orders inciting Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs, threatening to stand against Labour backing an anti-war candidate in Preston.

This is what he was charged with, this is what he was expelled from the Labour Party for. It had nothing to do with bribery allegations, which were a civil matter he took up with the Daily Telegraph UK. There were no criminal charges brought against Galloway in connection to the bribery allegations. The Labour party, btw, found him guilty of the first four.

Also, the documents to not name Galloway, but his charity Mariam Appea. Galloway has also admitted that he knew the charity’s supporters were linked to Hussein’s regime.

2. If the documents and allegations behind them are so suspicious, then why is Kofi Annan calling for a formal investigation?

3. I am at a loss to understand why you continually rove the names President Sukarnoputri of Indonesia and Benon V. Sevan head of the U.N.'s Oil for Food program. It would seem to me that these people are much more integral to the Oil for food scam than “a friend of the pope”.

I believe that the paragraph should stand as is.TDC 18:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Galloway was aquitted of the bribery allegations (aquitted not in the legal sense, will change wording to make it clear), not of the charges related to labour. The bribery allegations were the only ones that are relevant here, that's why they were being discussed (although the others are ridiculous, as Labour's rules state that no member can be disciplined for 'mere holding or expression of opinions'). Galloway admitted that the supporters were linked to Hussein's regime, but not that they gave regime money to his charity, which is what you're accusing (he's stated that it's a possibility). I'll put in the Sukarnoputri and Sevan if you'll stop trying to shove so much detail in this article where it doesn't belong. Rei

Update: Ok, ok, I've changed it to a version that is rather similar to yours. Is this satisfactory? Rei

I dont know......... There were two paragraphs in there which one was supposed to be the right one? Go to history to sort out what you were doing. TDC 01:49, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That was a mistake. It was supposed to be the second one. --Rei

I could really care less what ammount of space you feel this deserves. It is more than a "set" of documents, but thousands and thousands of pages of information that KPMG is going through as we speak. And if these allegations have no weight, then what has Annan authorized KPMG to conduct a full audit of the program? TDC 00:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know you could care less what other people think. That's why you never shut up. The OFF investigation is largely unrelated to the al-Mada allegations - got that? Probably not - I'll probably have to mention it 10 more times. If you had taken the time to read about the investigation, you'd be familiar with this. The OFF investigation is focusing on the following: 1) Oil smuggling. 2) Imposing surcharges on oil sales. 3) Demanding kickbacks by suppliers of goods for choosing their products. The al-Mada documents are in their own investigation by the UN's Office of Oversight Services, and is a relatively minor probe.

Annan did not authorize KPMG to do the investigation. KPMG was hired by the US-appointed governing council. Familiarize yourself with the details of the investigation before you start blustering about it.

Oops, my bad. How silly of me to think that the UN would have an independent outisede 3rd party go over its books.TDC 20:10, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

KPMG, by the way, was George W. Bush's 14th largest campaign contributor in 2000 (Enron was only #12), and was involved in accounting scandals similar to Arthur Andersen.

And once again, I'll ask you: Will you apologize once you're proven completely wrong? Because I'm sick and tired of conservatives slandering the UN and slandering innocent people. Heck, if you'll promise never to post on any Iraq-related pages again once you're proven wrong in addition to an apology, I won't contest a word that you put up on the page from now until the UN investigation is finished. Rei

Sounds good to me. What am I getting out of this deal, except for you magnanimous offer of not deleting my contributions? Also, if you are serious about this, write extremely specific conditions for such a deal.TDC 20:10, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1) If both the UN and IGC investigations don't agree about the bribery allegations, no action is taken.

2) If both the UN and IGC investigations are ambiguous or give mixed results about the bribery allegations, no action is taken.

3) If both the UN and IGC investigations agree that the bribery allegations were vastly overblown or that the documents were forged, you will apologize and cease to post on Iraq-related topics.

4) If both the UN and IGC investigations agree that the bribery allegations were largely true, I will apologize and will never again contest anything that you write on Iraq.

Deal? --Rei

Bribery and corruption are not really the same exact charge, its mych the same argument as campain dontations. If, for example, people like Benon Sevan were offered and took oil contracts, we could argue if it was a bribe, but it was most definately an act of coruption. The accusations are not limited to bribery but deal with irregular commissions, weighted tenders, circular deals, and smuggling.

I am also suspicious that the UN will not alow an independent outside body to investigate these claims, but rather is using an internal pannel. I will agree to the four points mentioned above, with the understanding it is not just bribery but also other allegations involved with the corruption charges. TDC 18:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not discussing the "corruption" charges (I'm not sure what you're lumping under that term) - I'm discussing the nonsensical bribery allegations.

Are you still trying to defend Galloway?

He's already been defended once against this sort of libel. --Rei

There are two sets of charges that you're merging into one: that individuals across the world took bribes to support Saddam Hussein; and that there the allegations of oil smuggling, imposing surcharges, and demanding kickbacks to get contracts. They're two separate issues. --Rei

That is part of my point. Is it considered a bribe for the head of the UN oil for food program to accept contracts for oil sales if he were to turn a blind eye to Saddam skimming of the top of the fund? Would it be considered a bribe if a journalsit or politician recived oil contracts with the understanding that they would defend the regime and attack its critics?TDC 21:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Those are the al-Mada allegations. The al-Mada allegations have nothing to do with smuggling. They have nothing to do with surcharges. They have nothing to do with kickbacks of the style being investigated (the "If you want my contract to purchase food, I'll pay more than you're asking for it but you'll have to give me, personally, the extra of the money that I paid, under the table" type of kickbacks). The al-Mada allegations have to do with granting individuals oil contracts in exchange for support. You know, claiming that journalists and churches do oil trading - those are the al-Mada allegations. The bribery allegations. They're libelous smear, and they'll be shown to be so like all of the other fraudulant allegations to come out thusfar. As for the general corruption allegations - smuggling, surcharges, and kickbacks - those probably have truth to them, although it still would be irresponsible to report them as being more than allegations at this point. --Rei

So, let me get this strait. If it is true that Galloway, or anyone else on the list is found to have recieved oil contracts and these individuals provided political support to the regime, you would not consider that bribery ?!?!?

What category would that fall under then? TDC 19:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How many times do I have to point out that those are the allegations from the al-Mada list? The al-Mada list is about bribery. YES that would be bribery. I'm contesting the al-Mada list, not the general OFF investigation, which, for hopefully the last time, is about things unrelated to the al-Mada list: smuggling, surcharges, and kickbacks. Rei

The first one is nonsense; the second one may well have truth to it. Lastly, the UN has not refused to have an outside body investigate it - it hasn't been asked to, at least in any public forum that I can find. If you can find any major governmental body who asked the UN to use an outside investigation instead of an internal one, please list it here. Rei

Negroponte has asked the UN to have an outside agency conduct the audit. TDC 21:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said yesterday that the United States completely supported the U.N.-led investigation." press conference , article. Besides, the Office of Oversight Services often appoints outside investigators anyway, so I wouldn't be shocked if they did that this time, too. --Rei

Ambassador Negroponte said he had been assured that the investigation would be led by an independent and professionally competent individual from outside the United Nations.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=ABDA9129-E16F-477F-B50BB5E19360D203

In a letter to Annan, Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Committee, also said the committee plans to request U.N. documents as part of its own inquiry into the allegations of corruption. The committee plans a hearing on the program this month, and Hyde said he would ask that a U.N. representative testify.

Hyde, R-Ill., said that the independent investigation's ``structure and scope is a matter of great concern to many in Congress. A copy of the letter, dated Thursday, was provided to The Associated Press.

TDC 19:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Factual accuracy?

I'm curious about the message at the top of the article. The factual accuracy of what, persay, is being disputed in this article? If there is an accuracy issue, shouldn't we be working to resolve it? I have no problem with the NPOV notice, since it's going to be hard to get something that we're all going to agree is NPOV... but we can deal with any accuracy issues, can we not? --Rei

Mass Graves

I removed the comparative reference to mass graves because I didn't think it belonged here, after thinking about it. However, you apparently missed the fact that Blair was found to have sexed up the mass graves body count just like he sexed up everything else. First off, Blair claimed that the figure came from the UN. It did not. It came from Human Rights Watch.

So, Human Rights Watch claimed that it's counted some 300,000 bodies, right? Nope. HRW only has two staff in Iraq, period. HRW stated that there were 290,000 people who are missing and may be killed. They don't even have a list of names. Using these sort of counts, HRW overestimated the deaths in Kosovo 8fold.

Well, these are their own sources, right? Nope! The biggest contributor of numbers (not names!) is... the Kurds! Probably one of the most politically-interested sources in the conflict, second only to Saddam's govt. itself, is the Kurdish political parties. Not only that, but the Kurds seem to have included many of the deaths that were the result of their fight with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

The largest mass grave found in Iraq contained under 2,000 bodies, and was from the 1991 crushing of the shiite uprising. Last I checked, there were almost 30 mass grave sites discovered in the country, most of which had only a few dozen bodies. Most of them were from 1991, although not all, and some of the 1991 bodies appeared to be summary executiuons. --Rei

"Rei: [...]under 2,000 bodies[...]" "[...]only a few dozen bodies[...]" Cecropia 16:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What did you mean by that last response? --Rei

I didn't think it needed explanation. People are disagreeing over the number of bodies found or not found. But the general deprecating nature of your discussion, even shrugging off HRW, which is hardly pro-U.S., seems to make light of what happened in Saddam's Iraq. Especially a phrase like "only a few dozen bodies" begs the response: "oh, so it that all." I suppose the further response is "look what the U.S. is doing." That's a separate discussion. Some things stand on their own; the world is not just a huge tally sheet. Do you agree? Cecropia 16:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was pointing out that Blair was flat-out incorrect. There were not 300,000 bodies as he claimed. There weren't even UN reports of 290,000 missing. There were rough HRW reports on how many "may" be missing which includes counts from the Kurds losses in the Iran-Iraq war. That's the facts; contest them if you like.

For a "mass grave", a few dozen bodies *is* a small amount. A single grave from the Convoy of Death after the Afghanistan war, for example, contained between 1k and 2k bodies (and those were all slaughtered prisoners, baked alive in metal shipping containers). In cases of genocide, mass graves often contain tens of thousands of bodies. It's all tragic - all unnecessary death - but the fact remains, the number of bodies found is relatively quite small, and most were from the 1991 uprising. --Rei

Mercenaries

I'm not arguing with use of the word, and left it in my edit. Like terrorism, mercenary can be descriptive. I do not necessarily consider the word perjorative. But like terrorism, it is a value-laden word which requires a descrption of its application. Cecropia 16:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)