Talk:Iraq disarmament crisis

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2002/db020915.gif

From the page...

The Plan Makes All the Difference

I have to agree with the recent change to the word "plan". The United States is planning military strikes and strategies against Iraq, as reported on the daily news and CNN, so the word "plan" is a nice subtle revision. Now, The actual motivation(s) for aggressive action, as well as consequences the United States may reap from such, have been speculated for quite some time.

One piece of possible motivation lies in past endeavors unfinished. Rememeber George Bush senior had his qualm with Saddam and, by contrast to popular report that Schwartzkoff had Hussain in dead range, chose not to eradicate the Dictator from power. So, what act of vengence George Jr. has in mind could be a lengthy debate.

Also, if we recall some of the major wars that were initiated by, or fought relentlessly by, the United States of America, i.e. The Revolutionary War and The Civil War, we will undoubteldy see a stark economic trend. The oil of the Middle East is a precious commodity. Is, perhaps, the United States attempting to sieze and control such a fortune?

What about the consequences? Iraq had the scud missle in 1990. As technology has flourished in the past ten years, they are sure to possess more lethal and frightening masses of warfare. The U.S. may not be capable of thwarting every incoming rocket. Then, with Saddam's plea for retalliation coupled with the growing tension against Western policy, is there not a possibility that an all out collaborative assault may be waged against the United States, Israel, and other U.S. interests?? Could we survive such a catastrophic event??

Sometimes we just long to enjoy life for its beauty and tranquility. Yet we are constantly reminded of our impending mortality with every click of the clicker on the Sunday evening news. There is no need for such primitive behavior by pretentious power hungry politicians to put lives at stake over machoism, economics, and the duel for dominion. If every World Leader were isolated on an island and forced to fight their own battles, we would see the exact action we need to rememdy the situation; peace, cooperation, and understanding. Then, and only then, might the world be saved form human destruction. Give peace a chance.

"The projected United States invasion of Iraq..."

Isn't there some other topic heading that we could put this under, as this event has not occurred yet, and it might be confused with war in 1990.

I sure hope so, as the current topic heading makes it sound like an historical event, which to the best of my knowledge as of this writing (12 August 2002) it is not. Perhaps the main material regarding the upcoming/hypothetical invasion should be at Projected United States invasion. This topic could redirect to that one. If the invasion ever actually takes place, then this topic can be used to recount actual history, with a See also link to the "Projected" topic to point to what people thought of it before hand. Would that make sense to everyone? Wesley

Or we could just wait until something actually happens before we write about it. See also Talk:Stock Market Crash of 2002 Rmhermen 11:51 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

Paging Hari Seldon... --AW

I redirected Stock Market Crash of 2002 to Stock Market Downturn of 2002, because the word "crash" in the article title depends on a POV; see the "attack vs. invasion" discussion I'm having with The C. --Ed Poor

I removed (which later accounts have suggested was probably a justified concern). because there was no proof given in the article. -- Zoe

I think we are actually being a little more gentle with Iraq than necessary. They did agree at the close of the Gulf War to destroy weapons of mass destruction. They did not do so and concealed them. One does not need access to top secret information to definitively establish those facts. User:Fredbauder

Fredbauder is right: There is ample evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, that they had and used chemical weapons, and that they lied to UNSCOM from beginning to end. Yet what is most particularly relevant to the current debate is not what capabilities they had, but what capabilities they now have. Does anyone have more information on this subject? More external links? TIA --Fritzlein

Re: the 1998 withdrawal of the inspectors: I'm pretty sure they were withdrawn by Butler, not by Iraq. See, for example, [1] Iraq was not allowing them to search all sites, but they did not expel them from the country. DanKeshet

Bush's threats of invasion are based on nothing more than a child-like insistence on finishing what daddy started in the early 90's. Iraq has proven itself to be a negligible threat. The political impact of an attack on Iraq far outweighs the pittance of armament they possess.

I think a better title for this page is US plan to invade Iraq. Until and unless the US actually invades, there is only a plan. Moreover, announcements of the plan might be posturing (sable-rattling?).

I agree entirely. The current title is inaccurate and misleading. I don't think "Threatened United States invation of Iraq" would be too biased, but maybe "Proposed" or "Planned" or "Potential" would be better. Anything to be clear that the invasion hasn't happened yet. I'll move it eventually myself if no one else does.

Perhaps a ? after the title, that's how ABC News handles it, "Road to War?".

Removed line about US law preventing Saddam's assasination. There is no such law. There is an executive order (possibly three different ones) issued by the President which can be repealed by him. And I thought that I heard it was but I cannot find a mention of the repeal on the Web. --rmhermen

MSNBC claims that the Washington Post claimed in the spring of 2002 that Bush had signed an order allowing the CIA to assasinate Saddam. Best I could find. --rmhermen

I changed the title of the article to US plan to invade Iraq, because the proposed invasion hasn't happened yet, and it might even not happen. When and if the US invades Iraq, we can change the title to US Invasion of Iraq with the click of a button. --Ed Poor 14:09 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)

The content of this page needs to be broken up into separate pages (the us plan, UN resolutions on Iraq, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, perhaps) ...I'd do it, but I'm not sure when I'd have the time. --The Cunctator

Almost the entire article is devoted to opposition to the US plan. Shouldn't there be a bit more about why Bush favors an invasion. I have mixed feelings about it, even though I see Iraq as a threat, and I'd like to be able to read a fair summary here.

There should be more stuff like the following:

"Defectors reported in December 2001 and March 2002 the existence of mobile germ laboratories disguised as milk delivery trucks, and a network of underground bunkers for chemical and biological weapons production. U.S. officials released evidence on March 8, 2002, allegedly showing that Iraq has been converting dump trucks bought through a UN humanitarian program into military vehicles, in violation of UN sanctions. An Iraqi defector stated that he had converted Renault trucks into mobile laboratories with incubators for bacteria, microscopes and air conditioning." [2]

--Ed Poor

I added a summary of his allegations made in the recent UN speech as an effort to at least partially address this. I think I heard that Iraq offered to allow weapons inspectors back in under certain conditions; wouldn't hurt to include their counteroffer including details and conditions, if someone can find it. Wesley 16:12 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

This material was excised from War on Terrorism, because of it's War on Iraq-specific nature. We should integrate it if possible with this article:

Common arguments against a war against Iraq include:

The death and casualties it will cause among Iraqi civilians who are not complicit in the Saddam regime.
Unilateral aggressive warfare is a hazard to international law and to peace among nations in the large.
Militarization can be harmful to domestic society, particularly in a time of economic downturn.
The importation of more warfare into the Middle East region may lead to its further destabilization, as well as to the continuation of present causes of violence and terrorism.
The increasing willingness of the American government to use violence abroad threatens the establishment of a state of perpetual warfare.

DanKeshet 15:33 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

The checkbox marked "This is a minor edit" is for spelling errors, wikifying, and so on. Changes tothe meaning of the article, especially on controversial matters, should not be marked "minor". --Ed Poor

to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction (see regime change).

Why do you keep putting in "alleged", soulpatch? --Ed Poor

Because without that word, the sentence seems to assert as a fact that they have such weapons, but then the very next paragraph points out that this is a point of debate. soulpatch

Can someone provide some documentation for the claim that Powell is grumbling behind the scenes? Else that ought to be removed, since it's so tenuous as it stands... Personally I'm sick to death of "Powell-as-Dove", when he's one of the most hawkish people on the planet. As Normon Solomon says, "Some hawks have polished talons." So, documentation to demonstrate he's dovish on Iraq, or else we should axe it as misleading. Graft 18:25 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

You have a point. Saying that someone is a "dove" within the Bush administration isn't really saying much. In comparison to Bush's extreme warmongering posture, almost anyone would be a "dove" in comparison. soulpatch

"..to overthrow Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and replace it with a government which respects the standard of human rights which the US requires"" Is that a publically stated aim? Mintguy 14:40 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Ed Poor - The opening paragraph seems alright, but it should be mentioned that other reasons for an invasion could exist, that the Bush administration isn't admitting to... i.e. oil or regional military hegemony. Greg Godwin

I agree with your point, so I tweaked the opening paragraph to make clear that the reasons cited are the official, public reasons being given. It would be appropriate to discuss possible any of the other possible reasons you cited that might lie behind Bush's push for war. soulpatch

I moved some stuff that had been hiding in Opposition up into the introductory section, because it has nothing to do with opposition and in fact discusses the meat of the invasion plan. However, there's some problems with it:

In the section discussing the Senate Foreign Relations committee, there is a lot of wishy-washy stuff that doesn't get cleanly spelled out (like projected costs) that would be nice.
There is a lot of unattributed analysis, which does not belong in Wikipedia.

Graft

Hi VC, I don't think it's apt to call it "threatening", since the U.S. has never explicitly said it will use nuclear weapons against Iraq. It has made vague pronouncements in policy documents about using "all of our available options" (or some such), it has talked a lot about bunker-busters, which is not-so-subtle. Can we consense on "made veiled threats"? Graft

It announced about a month ago that if Iraq uses chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons then there will be an immediate US nuclear retaliation. Ive never heard about the bunker-busters... Vera Cruz

The bunker-busters been known among the military press for some time. However, they may be thermobaric bombs instead of nukes.

The war plans have also been discussed in the press, such as the London Daily Telegraph, the Times of London, the New York Times, and in military journals such as Air Chronicles. --GABaker

Why is it necessary to say, critics, especially the iraqis, which makes it sound as if the iraqis are the only critics. I don't think Ive heard a criticism yet where somebody hasn't brought up oil. Vera Cruz

I didn't add the "especially the iraqi's" thing, but - just my 2 cents... I've heard very few people (other than the Iraqi government and maybe far, far left wing democrats) suggest that oil really has anything to do with it. Most crtics I've heard dismiss the oil argument as just a political argument. One reason being that no one said anything about oil when Pres. Clinton was talking about removing Saddam from power in '98. -Jazz77

Well, we most move in different circles because where Im at, left-wing democrats are considered to be right wing fascists... All I hear is oil, and I believe it too. Bush=Oil Exec Cheney=Oil Exec Saddam=Oil Exec Karzai=Oil Exec Rice=Oil Exec doesnt take much to figure it outVera Cruz

Yeah, just look how daddy Bush took over the oil fields after the Gulf war... (I heard the same thing said back then.. and a lot more often. The whole argument proved to be nonsense) ... I'd suggest finding new circles to move in. -Jazz77

The U.S.'s saying it's considering military action against Iraq is a "threat" not a "plan". As a matter of NPOV, we can't know if the U.S. even has a plan, much less whether it has any intention to implement it. So could we please change the title of this article to something more accurate, more neutral, and more specific (so we can tell this one from all the others there have been and will be in the future)? -- isis 04:37 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

If you have something to criticize, then bring it up specifically. I hardly think this article is full of nonsense speculation, nor do I feel it fails to touch upon the US plan of invading and occupying Iraq. Vera Cruz

Specifically, there is a total absence of any factual information about any "plan" the U.S. supposedly has for invading Iraq. This is an editorial, not an encyclopedia article. -- isis 08:05 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

If it helps, we also have articles on World War III--GABaker

The US has more than a threat, they do have a plan. They have published it and it involves attacking Iraq and killing a lot of people. As to whether they intend to execute said plan...well who knows but apparently they seem hellbent on it. We should link to WWIII from this... Vera Cruz

But this article doesn't describe any such plan. If it did, it would say something like, "The plan is to . . . " All we have so far is a lot of speculation by unidentified persons as to what could happen or what they "expect" to see happen. That doesn't tell a reader what the U.S.'s plan is, so the title of this article is false advertising and undercuts the Wikipedia's credibility. -- isis 05:58 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

The only elements of the plan that we know are

Iraq
- Attack
- Defeat
- Occupy

Everything else is speculation...Vera Cruz

That's not a plan -- a plan is an algorithm or a flow-chart. A grocery list is not a plan, but this is: 1) Get in car and go to store. 2) Buy items on list. 3) Bring them home. An encyclopedia article titled "U.S. plan to invade Iraq" should describe a U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Ours doesn't. -- isis 06:42 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

You missed my flowchart

Iraq
- Attack
- Defeat
- Occupy

Speculation is encyclopedic. Just check out the section on religion, it's got a lot of speculation. Vera Cruz

Religion is speculation. The article doesn't say, "The U.S. has a plan now. It is to attack, defeat, and occupy Iraq. We know that is its plan because . . . " If it doesn't assert there's a plan and doesn't describe the plan and doesn't document those facts, it isn't an encyclopedia article about a plan. -- isis 07:05 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree with isis, and I just want to register before I start editing that the reason I'm editing and not moving the page to U.S. threat to invade Iraq is because I'm too chickenshit, not because I disagree. DanKeshet 15:37 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'd prefer a title akin to "Iraq crisis 2002-2003", since it is an issue bigger than just the threatened invasion by the US. - Khendon 15:31 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

At some point in the article it says that France Germany and Russia are opposed to the US plan at all levels. Is this correct? I thought Russia and China were allying themselves with the US. I just saw this on Yahoo recently. dgrant. Oops, I just checked, I was wrong: "China and Russia, as well as Canada, joined France and Germany Thursday in opposing any rush to war.". I realized why I got confused. There was another section of the text where it called China and Russia allies of the U.S. Hmm, it doesn't sound like they are allies.

However, the U.S. government has claimed that some of these countries have showed support in private, asserting that they are affraid to do so in a public way. Some of the countries that are the strongest critics of a planned invasion in 2002, like France, also opposed to the Gulf War up until the start of the war.

Isn't this like a discussion among loyal friends? You're about to do something your friends consider ill-advised (like Marlon Brando going against Johnny Friendly in On the Waterfront). So they try to talk you out of it. Some may tell you privately not to do it, others may voice their concerns publicly.

But when you finally decide to do it, your loyal friends drop all talk of opposition and give you their support: some whole-heartedly, others within limits.

Why?

Because, before the commencement of hostilities, there are two choices:

Attack
Do not attack

But after the hostilities have begun, the choices are different:

Strive for victory
Surrender

There's a big difference between these 2 sets of choices. --Ed Poor

It's also possible to stay neutral after the hostilities have begun. Tokerboy