Talk:Iraq War

	Pending tasks for Iraq War:
	Use <s > and </s > (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done: Remove POV Add more references. Remove (or at least simplify) the multiple references to the same external article.

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Consensus - "War on Terrorism"

After discussing the relationship between the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism, we have reached a consensus over how to deal with this at Wikipedia. As the "War on Terrorism" is a specific, defined campaign, waged by the USA and its allies, they have full ability to define it, and carry it out as they choose. The campaign is a campaign being waged by them against those they have labeled terrorist groups and state sponsors of terror. As Iraq was labeled a state sponsor of terror [1], and as the Iraq War has always been stated as a part of the War on Terrorism [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], it is a factual statement to say that it is a part of this campaign. The main objection to this was that it allegedly allows the United States and allies determine for the world who is, and who is not a terrorist/state sponsor. This is untrue - this specific campaign is against those they see as terrorists/state sponsors, thus avoiding any issue of NPOV. Another problem arose in discussion, however, dealing with how to represent this fact in the related articles. Some raised concerns that were we to merely state it as part of the War on Terrorism, it might not be clear to people that it is stating it as part of the specificly defined conflict. To address this, we have come to a compromise in which quotations are used in the infobox, ex. Part of the "War on Terrorism." We beleive that this removes any doubt that it is referring to the specific campaign, described at the article's namespace. We came to both of these conclusions through an extensive discussion, and beleive it to be a valid consensus based on the strength of the arguments. If anyone has any objections that are relevant to this decision, please raise them here. Rangeley 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to try to rephrase that and see if I get it right. The US isn't the world arbiter of who is and is not really a terrorist or a sponsor of terrorism. Nevertheless, the US sets up campaigns and whatnot, and it gives them proper names, e.g. "Operation Enduring Freedom", etc. They've named one of their campaigns "The War on Terrorism", and although it is argued that this is a prejudicial misnomer, it is the name they chose. Recognizing that the Iraq War is part of that particular campaign, as classified by those carrying it out, is not really a problem. It's just that the name of the campaign exploits the ambiguity between proper and common nouns to make it appear that any action in the campaign is actually carried out for the purpose of fighting terrorism, defined in whatever way people think of it intuitively. To avoid this prejudicial aspect of the name, we're putting it in quotes, to highlight the fact that it's being used as a proper noun, and that we aren't making any claim as to the appropriateness of the words "War" "on" "Terrorism" to describe what's going on in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the article will be sure to address the controversy over the causes of the war, and their putative relation to terrorism, which is what this naming issue is really about.

Is that just about right? If so, I support the solution described by Rangeley and myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Rangeley 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this decision, please read here for a further rationale as to why quotations should be used. --kizzle 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So does this mean we can finally remove the NPOV and US-centric tag in the template? --Edward Sandstig 06:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why the NPOV tag was ever there, once the US Centric tag went up the other should have come down. As for removing both, as long as its represented by the quotation marks it seems it would be ok to remove both tags. I will start to write up something on the controvery over the inclusion of Iraq War. As per the agreement. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I still have a problem with putting this in the title. I do understand though that this is a US-defined term--so if we have to use this Republican rhetorical device, can we at least label it "Part of the U.S. War on Terrorism" since that a better descriptor of the conflict.Publicus 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we determined that to label it "Bush's" or "United States" then it would not represent all of the players involved, because many of the operations have no US involvement whatsoever. The quotes do enough to show it is a proper noun, not a description. The article makes it clear what this proper noun is. Rangeley 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

However, the Iraqi front in the WOT is solely defined by the U.S.--other nations are fighting terrorism, but it's really the U.S. that has defined the Iraqi conflict most recently as part of the WOT. Sorry to rehash this argument, I must have missed part of the discussion earlier.Publicus 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Every part of the WoT is solely defined by the US/allies. We decided that, however, stating that it is the US War on Terror implies they are the only player, something that is incorrect. Thus we compromised on quotes to make it clear that it is a proper noun. We have talked about this exact topic here [8]Rangeley 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I just wanted to know if the "US" label had been discussed. The quotes on WOT work for me. Nice job on a very small but very difficult piece.Publicus 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This works for me - whether you consider GWOT a real & valid thing or a US fantasy/excuse, it 'exists' and is part of the rhetoric - the quotes appear to do it justice in both interpretations yet does not automatically lend legitimacy; nicely NPOV IMHO. I do have another quibble though...Bridesmill 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I was beginning to think I was crazy. --kizzle 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Was the 27-3 supermajority not enough to end this? Is everyone willing to at least work towards a middleground except Nescio. What would appease you Nescio? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism article says (correctly) that the Bush administration considered the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism, but that this was disputed both at home and abroad. The Rationale-for-the-War section also does not prominently support this theory. Why should the Wikipedia adopt what Bush claims and others dispute?--Bhuck 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly the consensus is still not found. Feel free to await the RFCF and what others, beside you, Zero and me, think of it. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you read the first two paragraphs (by me and GTBacchus), they explain why this is so. Rangeley 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you missed my goodbye, so I say it again. Don't bother addressing me because I have left this debate. Let me explain why. There started a debate whether the Iraq war is part of WOT and if it should say so in the infobox. You stated your case why you think it should. Many others told you why you were wrong. Your response? Simply restate the same argument. Again people correct you. Even 2 polls showed the majority was against having a controversial statement in the infobox. What do you do? Restate the same argument. Well 10 years, 5 films, and 7 novels later all those opposing your view have left and miraculously your POV is presented in this paragraph as consensus. No my friend, wearing out those with opposing views by ignoring every single argument they advance why you are wrong so they no longer wish to take part in any discussion with you is not consensus. It is reaching a POV statement through pestering away other views. Exactly why I stop, the fact you have the gall to present your POV as consensus says it all. Goodbye and feel delighted you get to make this article POV by being the most stubborn of all. Even more than I. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the "War on Terrorism" a proper noun? If so, who created it? What dictates what is within the realm of the proper noun "War on Terrorism"? --kizzle 05:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "War on Terrorism" is a proper noun, which is why we capitalize it. Whether or not something is a proper noun is determined entirely by whether it refers to a specific entity as opposed to a class of entities, of which more than one may exist. There may be many wars on terrorism, but when we say "The War on Terrorism", we're referring to a specific, named campaign, undertaken by those waging it. Whether The War on Terrorism is, in fact, a war on terrorism, is a question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? A WOT that is in no way related to terrorism, and you think that sounds reasonable? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Nescio, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Children know that. It's not a question of what's reasonable, it's a question of what's actual. There actually is something out there with an unreasonable name, oh noes! Besides that, watch your words, or you might shift meaning without meaning to. You just glossed from something "not being a war on terrorism" to it "having nothing at all to do with terrorism"; did you notice that those aren't the same? Anyway, do you understand now, about WOT being a proper noun? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I stated that 1 Iraq was not invaded to fight terrorists (at least the US intelligence community thought there were no links to international terrorism), 2 to be part of any WOT there must be some terrorist in the equation. Nothing wrong with these statements, and coincidentally they are not mutually exclusive. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, it's statement 2 that I'm disputing. If WOT is taken as a proper noun, then there is no more need for the invasion of Iraq to have been about terrorism that there is need for the Holy Roman Empire to have been headquartered in Rome. (It wasn't.) Statement 1 is irrelevant here because actually fighting terrorists is not necessary to be part of the campaign properly (and misleadingly) named WOT. Do you understand where I'm coming from here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying that when Bush says prohibiting grannies from baking cookies is part of WOT, or insisting Intelligent design is science is part of WOT, et cetera, then it is merely on the grounds of Bush saying so? Regardless of any actual terrorism being fought? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite being a flawed example as Zero points out, yes. Based on the conclusion GTBacchus has given, if the Administration stated that the production of cookies had links to terrorism and was now being monitored/banned as part of the War on Terrorism, then such action would be covered under the War on Terrorism tag. --Bobblehead 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblehead. Like the "Great Leap Forward" the WOT is just a term used by the Bush admin (and maybe some allies). Putting it in quotes, and including the criticisms re: whether Saddam was linked to terror, is a fair compromise, IMHO. TheronJ 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of like saying that a particular piece of school funding is part of the No Child Left Behind program, even if some children are, in fact, left behind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not military campaigns or missions, your example is flawed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that spying on US citizens is not part of WOT? Since it is not a military campaign we should not include it. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am saying your example is flawed, you are attempting to compare a military campaign with baking cookies being outlawed. Furthermore its already been stated that any spying that took place on Domestic calls was accidental due to international cellphones, until you have proof otherwise, I will not even address your outlandish claims. TFH --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero, the US government has already admitted that they monitor phone calls involving US citizens without warrants and labelled it as part of the War on Terrorism. Perhaps you recall the whole domestic surveillance scandal from earlier this year?[9] Nescio also never said the spying was conducted on purely domestic phone calls, just that US citizens were spied on.;) --Bobblehead 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They said they have accidentally spied on US citizens not linked to terrorism. They pointed out that part of it was due to the use of international cellphones and it was done by accident. There is no Domestic spy program, that is a POV term used to discredit the work by focusing on the unknown number of accidents. Furthermore his question was "spying on US citizens is not part of WOT?" highlighting only the accidents of the program and from what it sounded like, attempting to state that the accidents were part of the WOT. That is why I felt the need to correct him, his question assumed a position that was false. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That isn't how ECHELON works, Zero. :) Once it's turned on to a source, it monitors every electronic transmission from that source looking for keywords, phrases, and patterns. Once a transmission is identified that contains those patterns, it flags the transmission for a human operator to listen to and determine if there is actually something to the pattern match. Although, I won't go into the constitutionality of the program as that's not something either one of us have the time or expertise to discuss. --Bobblehead 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I will get my tin foil hat if we are gonig to discuss rumored super intelligence groups instead of factually existing and known events and items. I love conspiracy theories and believe in many myself, however agreeing that Echelon exists would negate the need for the NSA program all together ... I say this only because they could be monitoring this very post. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Echelon stopped being rumored a long time ago. The EU has done a number of investigations on the program and during those investigations the US and its allies have admitted it exists and that it is being used. The only thing rumored that is whether or not Echelon is being used as part of the domestic/terrorist/whatever surveillance program. ;) However, considering echelon is already in use by the NSA to monitor international electronic transmissions, it would be silly of them to not use it to monitor electronic transmission involving one international source and a domestic source. Basically the only thing the president did was give them permission to use Echelon on communications that included a US citizen/resident. --Bobblehead 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(Outdent) I would like to believe you but the article itself does not seem to be sure of its existence and use in modern times. Furthermore the NSA program that Nescio was reffering to entails the communications being picked up at the source not through Echelon, the article is also highly unsourced. I like my tin foil hat, I even listen to music about such theories, however my hat does not belong here. I ask Nescio to prove his allegations time and time again, he tells me to go find the proof myself ... I dont want ot have to add a fact tag after everything he says, then remove it in a week, to have him put it back and me have to put another fact tag. For instance in another article he stated the Bush administration uses Unitary Executive Theory to state why it should be allowed to maintain Guantanamo and its practice of Extraordinary Rendition. However I asked Nesio to provide a quote of a high ranking official or cabinet member stating this. He provides a wikilink to person who said that UET could be used to justify torture. Someone saying something can be used, is different from the government actually going ahead and using it. To add some more humor, did you know 26% of New Yorkers think they are being spied on? It appears there are more tin foil hats then baseball caps. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to be naive on the concept of unitary executive and it's use by the White House, but here's a couple of links on the subject for ya. First is a Washington Post article describing the adherence of the counsel to the VP's adherence to the policy. Here's the signing statement from from the extension of the USA Patriot Act in which Bush states the white house is exempt from certain portions of the Patriot Act because of the unitary executive. A memo from then counsel to the President, Alberto Gonzales, speaking on behalf of the Executive branch in which it is discussed that only the most extreme versions of torture are a violation of the Geneva Convention. The signing statement for HR 2863 which included the torture ban amendment in which Bush declares the executive branch is not bound by the law due to unitary executive, etc, etc. :) The White House has applied the concept of Unitary Executive to over 750 laws so far. Also, until the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week, it has also interpreted the Geneva Convention to indicate that al-Qaeda members are "illegal combatants" and are thus exempt from the Convention's bans on torture (see Gonzales's memo). And since I haven't provided you a link for ECHELON, here's an interview by Salon.com of intelligence historian Matthew Aid comparing the data mining of phone numbers to the NSA's Project Shamrock and Echelon.. Basically, the existence of Echelon hasn't been in doubt since the 1990's.. Also, Echelon is also just a code name for a project that used electronic surveillance technology, so even if the code name is no longer being used, the technology behind that code name is being used. --Bobblehead 20:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Using the words Unitary and executive in a document does not mean he is using the unitary executive theory. Also just to follow up the two rulings the article mentions supports the concept, however as I said the president has not justified ER through the UET. As a matter of fact ER is actually supported by the countries in Europe and the middle east. Its also not illegal. Moving a person from one country to another is not a mentionable issue. As for Echelon, you may want to edit the article, it speaks of a place, not just a program. That is why I said it counters the NSA program. If they can and do at a particular location, monitor all communications, then they do not need a seperate NSA program to do what they are already doing ... As for its existence, it seems debated in the article. The proof is exists comes from the government saying do not expect privacy, and use cryptology. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you guys chasing a red herring? Let's stay focused - whatever Echelon is or is not doing, and whether it's part of WOT, is utterly immaterial to the point, which is that "WOT" is a proper noun. Are you with us on that, Nescio? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For my part, WoT is a noun, but if Wikipedia wishes to maintain a global view, then the Iraq War is more properly part of 'The United States'/United Kingdom's War on Terrorism'. The phrase WoT may be generic, but in reference to the Iraq War it is pretty much restricted to the US government, US press, the UK government, and some of the countries that operate in Iraq and as such the inclusion of the phrase in this article needs to reflect that. Very few outside the US view the Iraq War as part of their country's WoT and frequently use qualifiers similar to 'which the US says is part of their WoT'. Even countries, like Canada, that participate and use the phrase 'War on Terror' in regards to other operations (Afghanistan), do not view the Iraq War as part of WoT. The problem arises in trying to reconcile definitions for a generic term like 'War on Terror' when every country that uses it uses it differently and then trying to use that generic term to define an action from a global view when such a view does not exist. --Bobblehead 22:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's a really good point. There's not just the one "War on Terrorism". That example you cite of Canada (which would be better with an actual cite - is it really true?) seems to point to the need for qualifying "WoT" in this context to indicate which WoT we're talking about. That would also help highlight the fact that it's the name of a specific campaign, and not some kind of neutral description. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[10] From the mouth of the man himself, he considered Canadas contributions to the ISAF as their war of contributing to the WOT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1 never happened. US Intelligence stated Saddam did not have links to al-Qaeda, not that they did not sponsor terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Red herring. Let's stay focused on the important point here - WOT is a proper noun, being used as a label and not for the meanings of its component words, taken as common nouns. Whether US intelligence said or didn't say that Saddam had links to Mars doesn't affect that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is ridiculous, like a world war without the whole world involved or a cold war that involves dropping napalm on villagers, what will they think of next? You already admitted Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, lets not go back around in that circle. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A miracle, Zero admitting that you cannot have a War on Terrorism without terrorism in the equation. Thank you God for helping him see the light. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did he say that? Rangeley 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Aparently Nescio can only be sarcastic, he doesnt actually comprehend it. Will he stop arguing now that he has admitted that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, does not deny the PALF link and says himself the war on terrorism was against terrorists and state sponsor of terrorism. Ta-da. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So any country that supports a Palestinian militant organization falls under the definition of a state supporting terrorism and is thus a target for invasion? Wow.. In that case, the US had better invade every single country in the Middle East and vast swaths of Africa and Asia as well.. Heh. Iraq's pre-invasion connections to terrorism are shaky at best and what connections did exist was only Palestinian and part of Hussein's attempt to repair the damage he caused by invading Kuwait. Although, thanks to Bush, Iraq is a huge breeding and training ground for terrorists now. Even better than Afghanistan during the Soviets occupation. --Bobblehead 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Consult the Department of State. I was not the one to list them. As for supporting a "Palestinian militant organization", I think the bigger issue is offering cash incentive for people to blow themselves up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And where do you think they get the money to build the bombs they use to blow themselves up with? *laugh* Seriously, if you think Palestinians were blowing themselves up so their family could get $25k I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya. As sad as it is, becoming a martyr, going directly to Heaven, and taking out a few Israelis was incentive enough. But realistically, it's all water under the bridge now. Whether or not Iraq War is part of WoT isn't that important. --Bobblehead 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus? I cannot find a consensus, just looked in the archive. Can you show me? Añoranza 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Question noted below.. The title Iraq War is a misnomer encompasing only the portion of the war whe Iraq was led by Houssien. The United States is not currently at War with Iraq. --DjSamwise 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the quotations solution, as I have previously stated. KevinPuj 14:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

25 people total agreed, 3 opposed, 3 were neutral. It started as 4 opposed by Kizzle agreed with the quotation marks as well. and now I guess it is 2 neutral as you also agreed with the quotation marks. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking makes the entire result not notable, second there is an ongoing RFC on the subject, third consensus is not a vote, four your representration of the result is flawed since many more opposed including Iraq in WOT which you fail to mention just like the premise of this manipulated vote was not conform the actual dispute, therefore ate this time there is no consensus. Feel free to contribute to the RFC. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Allegations, allegations ... noone is voting on your poll because its biased, do you not realize that? I hope you are not upset about it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally you understand why your claim of consensus is incorrect, by your own admission a biased poll is useless. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias polls are in fact useless. Are you admitting your poll is bias? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This game of silly questions really is childish. Have a good day. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Rmt2m 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys should realize that none of these "polls" means anything, and citing any poll results to claim you have "consensus" is just silly. There remains significant objection, therefore we don't have consensus. That's all there is to say. Nescio still needs to respond to the "proper noun" point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The honourable consensus brothers have spoken and decided WOT is a campaign by NATO and not the US.[11][12][13][14] Thereby acknowledging that Bush has not the last word and that those NATO members disagreeing with this view have equal right to determine what WOT stands for. So, Iraq is not part of WOT. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The complete sentence reads "The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (also the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT"[1]) is a campaign by the United States, NATO and other allies, with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." However your failure to read it properly does not surprise me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore your comment "The honourable consensus brothers" is in violation of NPA. Please be more civil in the future. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the US is a NATO member, why are you naming the US seperately? Tautology! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

Some operations are conducted by US personnel only such as OEF-P, some are done by NATO as a whole such as Operation Active Endeavor and some are done by joint operations such as OEF-A and OEF-HOA. This has been points out to you already, hence your WP:POINT abuse being noted. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the US is the principal actor and NATO helps out. May we say, supports the US?

It is incomprehensible you don't understand the text you object to, clearly NATO supports the US and is not a prime participant in this war. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 02:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a vote. See how people feel about your assumptions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus my ass. You want to use Wikipedia to press a name here. Even if you assume the the U.S. Governement can decide who is a terrorist or not:

1. War on Terror must be renamed to 2001 U.S. War on Terror or somesuch
2. GWOT must not contain actions which are rejected by the majority of allies.

Your language is inappropriate, you did not sign your comment and your assumptions need some support. Perhaps you should seek the appropriate venue for it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

The infobox shows 55K Insurgents dead or jailed - that would imply that it's good to get them off the street (true) but it also implies that somehow it doesn't matter whether you kill them or just lock them up (forever?? if you consider it equiv to dead??). It also implies that *everyone* locked up is a bad guy. There is pretty well unanimous agreement that this is not so (the debate ranges from 'possibility of a few erroneous arrests & a very small percentage' to 'most are illegally detained' - but in either case it makes the 55K a dubuious figure) This figure really needs to be broken out into separate Killed & Detained. The other quibble is that the civil casualties are all on the left side of the table; whihc implies that they were all caused by the right side of the table, which is patently not true - Saddam's folks and insurgents have been responsible for a lot of them too. Can the civ figure be placed across both columns somehow?Bridesmill 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed your second complaint, but I dont know how to deal with it really. How do we determine which civilians were killed by which side? Rangeley 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its correct according to the Iraq Index. Since its obvious in a war torn country they do not have specific numbers of who is an insurgent and who is a terrorists, since they are almsot one and the same. They have included terrorists into the insurgent numbers. As for civilians killed, the number I provided by the Iraq Index includes only those killed by combat related incidents, not crimes, this excludes war crimes. What this means is that Iraqi's killing Iraqi's for their TV is not included in this number. There is a seperate number for those killed by combat operations and crime, also in the source. As for what it implies ... they are just numbers its not implying anything. Its almost like if you had a statistic of murders in prisons and then went on about how they may be innocent. They are guilty to the effect that they have been arrested as insurgents or terrorists, thats all I can really offer you. The number is about jailed/killed, and so its quotes as such. As for who is illegally detained, this is not the forum for political belief discussion on legallities of detention of insurgents or "freedom fighters". --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind if people provide alternate sources, however they have to be based on a reasonably sized study, one more larger and respected then the Iraq Index. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree that 55 is bogus, just looked at the cited ref & this figure is a most interesting extrapolation from what the doc already says are questionable figures. The civ stats are not much different - a range 18K-34K would prob be more in keeping with what Brookings says; the 33,334 lends a false air of accuracy and reliability. Absolutely - we don't know who killed who re. civs (yes, early on in war it was heavily Coalition 'collateral', but not since then) Which is why I'm thinking have the civ figures stretch across both collumns so it doesn't specify or 'assume who the perpetrator of civ deaths was - would do this, but my box-format-edit skills are abysmal ... Nor am I suggesting that Brookings is bad; it's what I use day to day - just that in this case the use of it is somewhat misleading - the cell that the 33,334 came from says '18,961-33,334' - an honest use of those figures would be to quote the range or the median, not to use the upper limit. Bridesmill 14:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with this, I used the top half number because the previous number cited over 100,000 which was just civilians dead, not differentiating if they died of anything related to combat even, it was also done on shakey methods of taking the total dead in one town, where heavy fighting had gone on, then using that % with the total population and assuming that % of dead was in every city. So I kept the higher number to prevent a fight over such a low number basically. I have no personal preference as to using the whole range. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

it was also done on shakey methods of taking the total dead in one town, where heavy fighting had gone on, then using that % with the total population and assuming that % of dead was in every city. If you're referring to the Lancet study, well, no, completely wrong: in fact, it was done in precisely the opposite way: data collected in Fallujah was specifically excluded because it was an outlier. See this article and this American radio documentary program. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The study counts people who died, not people who died due to the war. The Iraqi Index specifically counts people who have been killed by some sort of military action. And contains a seperate number for people killed by crime, not related to military action. There is no reason to include the number of people dead, when it could have been some guy making love to his wife in the heat and having a heart attack. Its inappropriate to attribute every death to the war. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how to split the cell either. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I tried but with grotesque results - I've posed the question at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict.Bridesmill 15:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point Bridesmill, I would also like to see the Iraqi civilian number put more in the middle--however, we also have to keep in mind that some of the Iraqi civilian dead might also be counted as insurgents, or terrorists, or militia, etc. The same problem can also be seen in the "Iraqi Security Forces" number--some of those might also fall into the insurgent category (those who have infiltrated the ISF for example) so how do we count them? Personally, I have no idea.Publicus 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The source I am using has seperate number for Security Forces killed, so its already stated they are not. As for the whole "what if" thing, we have to assume they are not. For any poll or statistic you can then say, how do you know you counted the right ones, that person may really be an alien ... as an extreme example. But since the poll does differentiate, civilians are non combatants, meaning they are also not security forces, terrorists, insurgents etc. Yes I do know he may have seemed like a civilian but really been a terrorist, its the same with any stat, you in the end can never really tell. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

user:Kirill Lokshin over at the Infobox home has kindly activated the 'Casualties3' field, I just did it on the article; not totally sure if it's the final answer but I think a step in the right direction.Bridesmill 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking contractor dead is a valid figure, but perhaps blended in as part of total Coalition dead (in interest of keeping infobox concise). THey are different form 'pure' civs, in that most of them are simply employees (often ex-military) of the military - technicians without uniforms. Bridesmill 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just felt they should not get their own group. If you want to add that total, to the other total and maybe put a footnote and at the end of the page state this is what happened, that seems fair. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I think there is a misunderstanding, contractors should be moved to civilian dead if anything. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what number anyone puts in the infobox for "Civilian casualties" but either use the numbers from the cited source or find another source. It's dishonest and against Wikipedia policy to intentionally misrepresent a source. --ElKevbo 01:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I completely agree. The source states 34k roof, the anon user is attempting to use a number for people who died due to crime, meaning people being killed over any other reason. The study differentiates between acts of war and all other violent deaths. Both numbers are in the source, just one is not relevant. The anon is attempting to state that all crime deaths are related because a lack of security, but most police in the world do not stop deaths, they get justice for them, so its wrong to assume these people would not have died if it was not for the war. Its also wrong to artificially inflate the numbers. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where are you seeing those numbers in the cited source? I'm seeing different numbers so apparently we're looking in different places.

Incidentally, if the reference citation was more accurate (a footnote with a page number instead of just a link) this debate would be much more clear, perhaps even nonexistent. Folks, please be specific and accurate when you cite your sources. --ElKevbo 01:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bottom of page 10, it lists deaths due to combat and deaths due to combat+crime. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. Thanks! That table they have there takes a bit to figure out. --ElKevbo 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends which figure in the source you use. Iraqi Body Count says the upper limit is 42,900. Lower limit of Iraq Index says 18,961. If you're going to limit it to direct combat deaths, then the combination of the ranges works. --Bobblehead 01:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that range, as long as we cease counting criminal deaths. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you meant deaths due to crime. But let's see how the anons take the new range. *grin* --Bobblehead 01:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I just replaced the upper limit in civilian deaths with 150,000 and cited "The Lancet". As this is the upper limit, and because the "The Lancet" itself said the number could be much higher, and because the study was done nearly two years, I gave this figure instead of 100,000. I think the lower limit is ridiculous, Bush has himself admitted that around 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and Iraq Body Count has given a lower limit above 30,000 after painstaking research. Do we have a consensus on changing the lower limit? Salvador Allende

"The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137."

"However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion."

War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000 - LA Times --kizzle 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Lancet is the only study in the world to come up with a number that high. Its been disputed world round because of this. Its 60,000 deaths higher then most other studies. It even tops the ammount of bodies brought to the morgue for any possible reason. The study was done by gonig house to house and documenting "violent deaths" not military related deaths. Its too board of a study and its use of taknig a sample and applying it to the whole of Iraq is inconsistent. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the Lancet study already, read its page Lancet study. The Iraqi government itself contradicts this number. The government would know more then a random sampling of a few neighborhoods. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To stop the need for studies I am using kizzles LA Times source which documents the numbers provided by the Iraqi Health Ministry, now studies are not needed at all since we have the factual numbers by the government itself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What's your problem. I'm only providing the Lancet study as the upper limit. I personally think the lower limit is outrageously small, but I'm leaving that. The higher limit should be the highest number of fatalities that possibly happened as a result of the war, that's the Lancet study. And of course the Iraqi government would contradict it, they're allies of the American forces. The study was further carried in 33 areas. And there is no other survey that gives the same number because no other survey measures indirect deaths. I'm actually offering a compromise here. How about you leave the higher limit alone, and I'll keep leaving the lower limit alone?

Its not needed anymore, the factual numbers from the Health Ministry have been provided and are being used from the source provided by kizzle, its also up to date. Your accusations of corruption are just that. We are here to provide facts and the government has stated the number around 50k to be a fact, your paranoia does not dispute it. The Lancet study is a study, a flawed one if you would read the article, the only study to come up with a number 3x higher then actual deaths in the country reported by the country itself. No more studies needed, the government has given its own numbers. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a compromise to input a factually wrong number. We have a valid source so there is no need for a guess from a questionable study. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is...verifiability, not truth." I don't particularly like your assertion that numbers published by "the government" trump all other numbers and any other numbers should be removed. It strikes me as inherently POV. It also reminds me of the old "Trust us - we're from the government" joke but that's another discussion. :) --ElKevbo 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The LA Times article also notes that the Iraqi numbers are highly inaccurate. They don't include numbers from outside of Baghdad until a year into the fighting, that a sampling of local health departments indicate that there is an undercount and that actual deaths are well beyond 50,000, and that the number may include militia and insurgents. All in all, the Iraqi government count is just as reliable as any other studies. --Bobblehead 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is the Lancet study is highly debated, it has a number 3x higher then all other studies. It also does not differentiate death, and war related death. If someone dies from lack of water, its considered to be due to lack of water because of fighting, ignoring that much of Iraq is a desert. THe study had almost no inclusion exclusion criteria, it took samplings from 33 towns in Iraq and then said if 1 in every 100 people died in these towns then 1 in 100 people in Iraq must be dead. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have told this user I would support the Lancet claims if they can provide at least 2 more sources with similar numbers, they then asserted that the IRaqi government was corrupt and purposely keeping the numbers low, how do rationalize with that kind of person. I think find out they may be a sock puppet for another user TeaDrinker. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Indirectly related crime" consider the circumstances of each individual crime is unknown by us, we can only go by the study, and the study does not say that the crime would have been prevented if Saddam was still in power, so can we stop asserting that it is. We are not here to count crime statistics at all. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What if we put the numbers in the study with a footnote or ref tag next to it, and then in the footnote section put the caveats described in the article verbatim? --kizzle 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated in other places, if the figures reported are agreeabley tainted don't use them in whats supposed to be an unbiased discussion. --DjSamwise 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The conditions within Iraq make most casualty figures tainted. The US and non-Iraqi coalition fatality count is generally accurate, but US/coalition wounded, Iraqi security force deaths/wounded, insurgent/terrorist/etc deaths, and civilian deaths tend to be estimates at best and frequently rely on media reports and/or admittedly inaccurate Iraqi government figures. --Bobblehead 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure but if at any point one of your refferences is disputed the Iraqi government, our government, Eye Witnesses, and the reports of the rest of the universe and it's apparant that those particular number have a bias, then we do not use them, attempting instead to have a non-biased article, yes? --DjSamwise 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there goes the LA Times article then. It spends more time disputing the 50,000 number than it does explaining the number. Note, I'm not saying Lancet is a reputable source, just that all 'studies' and numbers put out on the civilian dead are more [guesstimate]s than estimates. --Bobblehead 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

LA Times numbers

Just figured I'd create a subsection on the LA Times article Zer0faults linked and is stating is the 'official' civilian count and supercedes all other independent studies. First off, I do not believe the number posted by the LA Times is any more factual than any other study conducted for the following reasons:

1. The number was not released by the Iraqi government, but is rather a compilation of the numbers from the Baghdad morgue and Iraqi Health ministry. Thus it is not an official number and is more consistent with the previously cited studies.
2. The Baghdad morgue numbers do not include fatalities from outside of Baghdad until 1 year after the invasion. There were a lot of civilian deaths during the initial invasion and the lack of inclusion of areas outside of Baghdad is a serious flaw in the LA Times Number.
3. The LA Times also surveyed local health departments in Iraq and says there is an undercounting that indicates the actual number is much higher than the 50,000 quoted. Here's a few quotes from the article:

   "Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west. Health workers there are unable to compile the data because of violence, security crackdowns, electrical shortages and failing telephone networks."

   "However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion."

4. The count does not include fatalities for the 3 Kurdish controlled provinces.
5. The count may include the deaths of members of local militias and insurgents as they do not distinguish that on the death certificates. So it is not purely civilian count.

All in all, the count may serve as a bottom range for the number of Iraqis killed in the conflict, but it certainly does not represent the number of civilians killed in the conflict. --Bobblehead 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So instead of using a number from the Iraqi government, because it is a branch of the government, we instead use a study that has a number 3x higher then all other studies ever done and done to this date? No other accounting has come up with a number of 150,000, its obscene. Its also the only study out of those that have been used that contains a section of pople saying its wrong and bad statistical analysis. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The number does not come from the Iraqi government, it comes from the LA Times. The article itself quotes Iraqi officials saying the number is not accurate, does not represent the number of civilian dead, and does not represent all of Iraq for the reasons I noted above.. And I am not advocating the use of the Lancet study or any other study. I'm just advocating the use of all studies and that the entire range be represented accurately without POV or bias. Remember, WP:Verifiability does not care about factual accuracy, only about verifiability. --Bobblehead 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies I must be misunderstanding something, what is the Iraqi Health Ministry then that the LATimes is using as a source? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What if we put the LA Times numbers in with a footnote or ref tag next to it, and then in the footnote section put the caveats described in the article verbatim? --kizzle 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with how its listed now, if people want to include numbers for people who had violent deaths, then I am willing to go along with that, regardless of how or why. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please? "How its listed now" is not very helpful as it seems to be changing quite frequently (and it seems that anon users not participating in this discussion are doing much of the editing and reverting). --ElKevbo 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly we're talking about this in the casualties.. Until we get further updates, of course.

Civilian dead due directly to war: 50,000+[15]

Total civilian dead(inc. crime and combat deaths):
45,000-150,000PDF[16]

Correct? --Bobblehead 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is it I believe, what I am saying is I am tired of fighting against Democrats and anti-war fanatics. If people want to use an obviously flawed study, the only study in the world that has a number 2-3x higher then all other studies and figures, the only study to be critisized so heavily, then fine. I am not calling you guys Democrats and anti-war fanatics. You guys actually participate in the discussion here. I am reffering to the random IP addy people who just revert with no consideration. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, that the reason that this is the only study to be critisized so heavily is because it is the only study in the world that has a number 2-3x higher then all other studies and figures; which is not considered mathematical proof of bias. Gzuckier 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all people that oppose the war are Democrats and very few are fanatics. Depending on which poll you want to cite anywhere from a third to half of Americans still support the invasion and that's just in the US. Polls outside the US have support even lower than that and see how Wikipedia is an international project, labelling the anon updaters as 'Democrats and anti-war fanatics' borders on a violation of WP:NPA.--Bobblehead 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Only a fanatic would use a heavily flawed study on violent deaths in an attempt to cite them as war related deaths. Then not only not participate in a discussion regarding them, but go onto take the 100,000 number and increase it to 150,000. I also did not label all anon updaters, I labeled the anon updater who reverts without discussion and POV pushes. Sometimes it makes me wish I had never made a username, since anon users have no restrictions on them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether you oppose the war or not is irrelevant to the discussion here. Characterizing your co-editors as "Democrats and anti-war fanatics" is unproductive at best. Lets get back to the discussion as to how to display the casualties. --kizzle 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

People who come here to spread misinformation, and refuse to participate in discussions when asked to on the talk pages of their numerous IP's are not my co-editors. As for the statistics I do not care anymore how they are displayed. If you are going to use a faulty study, layout is not really a serious concern to me. The real concern people should have is why this study has numbers 2-3x greater then all other studies. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me add another opinion that nmbers that are well known to be false should NOT be factored in at all. Let's not make falsely high or low numbers of anything to boost or lower any score. If it's known to be wrong. Drop it. --DjSamwise 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest discussion on Lancet study

The problem with that, which is something that comes up in statistics all the time not just here, is that you can only know an estimate to be "false" if you either have a logical analysis of the methodology showing where bias comes in, or else you know what the real number actually is, in which case you shouldn't be using ANY estimate. The fact that the Hopkins estimate is higher than anybody else's is not grounds for eliminating it from consideration, given that the methodology has survived all skepticism without being shown to be biased, and given that the number being estimated, i.e. simply increase or decrease in the total death rate, would logically be expected to be the largest estimate; larger than any body count from morgues, hospitals, news reports, etc. given that in a war, many deaths are unreported and do not go to morgues; larger than any estimates of civilian deaths, given that it's an estimate of total deaths; etc. Whereas having Pres. Fuzzymath whip the number 30,000 off the top of his head based on nothing is not too reliable, methodwise. Gzuckier 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Key word I'm reading that we might agree on is methodology.. how on earth did they come up with this number? You jokingly say that you believe president Fuzzymath simply guesses. I too am guessing then that he has a reliable and valid methodology and that we should not simply find the mean of the false reports but should elimintate reports from the equation whose methodology has caused it to be invalid. That being said, what then are the methods? --DjSamwise 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq describes the methodology of the study. Basically divided Iraq into 33 randomly selected and evenly populated parts, then a random point was selected within those clusters, then the 30 households closest to that random point were interviewed. That gave them a sample size and they extrapolated that sample out to what it would mean for all of Iraq. Read the article for full details, the criticisms, the criticisms of the criticisms, etc. --Bobblehead 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a typical sample-based study. Which the authors had carried out in other places before and published without similar criticisms. "Statistically valid" criticisms, as distinct from "it just can't be that high" type criticisms, impact the confidence interval more than any question of bias; i.e., the true number might be a lot less than 100,000, but it has an equal probability of being that much more. Again, that's typical of clustering-type sampling, estimating the "plus or minus" is harder than getting the central estimate. Gzuckier 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which brings me to my two suggested points re casualty figures: separate estimates from actual known figures (i.e. US military dead); and the Hopkins ("Lancet") numbers are not, as the table says, an estimate of civilian deaths, they are an estimate of total deaths over and above the death rate prior to the invasion, which is a different thing on two factors. Gzuckier 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"The real concern people should have is why this study has numbers 2-3x greater then all other studies." I think several of us have answered that already. The numbers are three times higher because it relies on excess deaths rather than body counts. This means firstly that it could count those many deaths where the bodies may not have been taken to the hospital or morgue, and secondly that indirect rises in the death rate as a result of by collapsed infrastructure and security.--Salvador Allende 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the study, they had prove the person was dead, therefore unless they presented a corpse, they presented a death certificate or some other item that would come from a hospital or morgue. This is why its obsurd, the one user saying its valid has no clue about it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's me, but I can't follow what you're saying at all, so could you lead me through your reasoning a bit? Gzuckier 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont have an arguement, as I said, if you guys want to use Lancet, enjoy. You can view all the wonderful information at Lancet study, and the appropriate talk page. Just remember, they are not all civilians, and they are not all insurgents, or terrorists. So just be careful how you classify this large number of unknown deaths. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that there is a good reason not to include the Lancet study under civilian dead as its more a representation of Iraqi dead, regardless of them being a "civilian" or not. However, that is also a valid argument against the LA Times article as it to includes militia members, insurgents, and "civilians" in its figures... --Bobblehead 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So the fact that the deaths counted by Lancet are not even determined to be due to the war at all is irrelevant? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "due to the war". The study only comes to the conclusion that 100,000 (with a 95% likelihood) more Iraqis died since the invasion than would have died if the invasion had not taken place. It doesn't say if those 100,000 died because they were shot, blownup, etc. just that if it weren't for the invasion, they would still be walking around the streets of Iraq right now. --Bobblehead 17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and that assumption is made soley on the mortality rate of the year before. The total dead is also derived from asking 1000 households if they had someone die. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Except it was actually 4,000 households, and it took into account discrepensies and anomalies in households and areas, for example it didn't count Falluja because Falluja was particularly violent at the time. They then extrapolated the mortality rate from there figures. This is the most common method of finding figures in surveys or opinion polls, and normally the results are widely respected by governments. In fact western governments regularly use the extrapolation method themselves. Lancet found the 100,000 figure by comparing mortality rates pre- and post- invasion, its basic logic that the growth in mortality rates was a result, directly or indirectly, of the war; what else could it have been?--Salvador Allende 18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know where you get 4,000 from. This is the understanding put forward.

'In his study of Iraq, Roberts divided the country into 33 regions, sampling 30 households for each cluster. In September 2003, each surveyed household was interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002; household members were asked to show documentation to back up their claims only after the interview was finished. According to the authors, 5 (0.5%) of the 988 households that were randomly chosen to be surveyed refused to be interviewed; another 7% were absent at the time of the survey. A total of 808 households were used in the analysis."

Furthermore the reason mortality rates are faulty to use is that more people were dying every year in Iraqi, especially children. UNICEF has said sanctions have been the cause as child mortality rates increased.[17]

"In the south/center of Iraq, the infant mortality rate (the proportion of infants who die between birth and 12 months) rose from 47 deaths per 1000 live births during the 1984-89 period to 108 deaths per 1000 live births during the 1994-99 period."

To state that the people who were above last years number were victims of war, when the numbers were always on the rise, is just wrong. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore only 2 people in each cluster, being 72 total people total, were asked to provide proof of the deaths they spoke about. Not really a valid system, I believe the study does not state how many fo those actually did provide them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. 63/78. BTW, some of your points are pretty damn good. Gzuckier 20:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That said, here are some quotes re Roberts' mortality study:

"The Roberts estimate is, of course, a rough one. Nevertheless, the report deserves to be taken seriously as the first comprehensive attempt to establish the dimensions of the crisis." (Washington Post)

"'My personal belief is these numbers are the absolute best that could be done in the circumstances, and there's absolutely no reason to believe any bias of any kind has found its way in.'"(Washington Post)

[Robert's] "figures have been well accepted." (New York Times)

"'With an almost complete lack of medical care, as well as food insecurity and violence over a vast area, this number does not seem exaggerated," (The Guardian).

Of course, these quotes are re his previous study, on wartime mortality in the Congo. You know, the good study that everybody liked the results of, which he did the same way as he did the bad study, and came up with not 100,000 deaths, but with 1.7 million deaths, which nobody thought was high. (Couldn't resist posting these) Gzuckier 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many of Zer0faults' comments are good but I fail to see how they are not original research. Maybe it has been discussed already (and if it has, please point me to it; I'm trying my best to follow this discussion but it moves quickly and often) but the correct way to disprove or otherwise comment on this study or any other is to cite other verifiable studies. Because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, it's simply not enough that we believe or even know that something is wrong. We have to "prove" it by citing other verifiable sources. Our own opinions on the factual veracity of cited sources don't really mean a whole lot. It may not be right and you may not agree with it but it's Wikipedia policy. --ElKevbo 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lancet study page contains many of the same criticisms. Furthermore its not original research. Its actually quotes from the document itself. It covers violent deaths, not specifying who or what they were killed by. It also does not distinguish between civilians insurgents or terrorists etc. This is all in the documents itself. It also lists its counting method that only 2 house holds per cluster @ 30 or so clusters were asked to verify the deaths. Meaning most of the deaths were not verified. If you read the study itself you see this, its not original research to state what the study itself says. There is also a range of 8,000 to 240,000 or so for deaths. The only original research is the mortality rate. However its not my research since it was done by UNICEF. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults, I don't know what you're trying to pull at this stage. The UNICEF article and your quotation refer to a rise in mortality rates after sanctions were imposed, not a year on year increase in during the years of sanctions.--Salvador Allende 09:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mortality rates in a 10 year period doubled, that is the point, its not like Iraq had a steady mortality rate or a declining one to say that anything over last years is because of war. It was already doubling every 10 years. That is the point, I dont see the problem with it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with it is that you're bullshitting. It's like. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq, mortality rates rose. Iraq was invaded, mortality rates rose again. Its logical that in the first case the sanctions caused more people to die, and in the second case the war did.--Salvador Allende 13:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

YOu may want to tone your comments down a bit. If mortality rates were increasing already, then a war begins, you cannot simply say everyone who died over last years number died because of the war. It ignores the conditions of Iraq due to the sanctions, due to misappropriations of OFF programme etc. The fact that the country was in an economic crisis before the war gets ignored, as if it played no effect on the constant rise of the mortality rate. Hypothetically, if sanctions were lifted would you have expected the mortality rate to decline to the point where it was before sanctions were inposed, within a 1 year period after they are lifted? I doubt you would, so why are we to assume the reverse? That the beginning of the war would put a halt to anyone dying due to the effects of sanctions and instead move all those people who were in a rising category into a new category of dying because of the war? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A regards to the first suggestion, I regard "bullshitting" as a beautifully onomatapaeic and useful word, nothing wrong with it. You're still talking about "the constant rise" of the mortality rate, you still haven't provided any evidence of this.--Salvador Allende 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The statistics by UNICEF show this, you can ignore them if you like. They do show that mortality rates doubled in the 2 ten year periods covered. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the deaths due to bombing or helicopter gunships could probably be ascribed as not attributable to the same causes as those pre-war. Gzuckier 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm paying attention to them while you're using them but completely ignoring what they mean.

"In the south/center of Iraq, the infant mortality rate (the proportion of infants who die between birth and 12 months) rose from 47 deaths per 1000 live births during the 1984-89 period to 108 deaths per 1000 live births during the 1994-99 period."

Now concentrate...1984-89:Before sanctions...1994-99:During sanctions

The figures simply show an expected rise in mortality as a result of sanctions. Now if you had data showing a rise in mortality rates over the period of the sanction alone, then you might have an argument.--Salvador Allende 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point, its not about sanctions. The point is the mortality rate was increasing, more infants were dying every year. Hence stating all deaths over the number last year are war related, is flawed. With a rising mortality rate, how can you then attribute those deaths to the war? If you look at the Unicef 2004 statistics you can see that the infant mortality rate dropped again into 2004. However the number of children under 5 dynig trippled. What I am showing you is the mortality rate has never been consistent in Iraq. How can you say 5 in 1000 died last year, this year its 7 in 1000, so 2 more in every 1000 died because of the war. You cannot attribute that to the war because the numbers in Iraq have been fluctuating for the past 20 years due to international sanctions, a 4 year drought, and yes even the war, but not entirely because of the war, I am sure a 4 year drought and international sanctions played some role ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally if you want to use the Lancet study then you have to use its full range, 8,000 - 240,000. As that is what it concluded. You cannot merge studies that did not do their research even in similar manners, keeping the low from one and the high from another, its completly misleading, these are research studies not apples. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree to use the Lancet study, I have put it by itself, listed its full range as appropriate and listed what it is counting, since it admits itself to not counting civilians. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero, the finding of the study was not 8,000-240,000. It was 98,000 with 95% confidence, so if you're going to use Lancet, then you have to use the actual findings of that survey. You don't post the results of surveys as ranges, you post them as the median point of the range and the confidence in which you're sure the actual number is within that range. That's why election polls are published as "52% approve of <insert something here> while 36 disapprove of <insert something here> (±3%). --Bobblehead 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are citing two different methods. One is a survey stating X% agree with a +- percent chance of being off. The other says X ammount of people said someone died. Its not a yes or no question, its a count. "The authors estimate that 98,000 more deaths than expected happened after the invasion outside of Fallujah. Had the Fallujah sample been included, the survey's estimate would have been of an excess of about 298,000 deaths, with 200,000 concentrated in the 3% of Iraq around Fallujah (Roberts et al p.5). " I think we should use the Fallujah number since it has a high confidence value and is included in the study, it would be misleading to leave it out since Fallujah is part of Iraq ... Agree disagree? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero, you apparently do not understand how statistics and scientific surveys work, so please stop trying to argue against the findings of the survey and how to display the results. The methodology behind a percentage survey and a number survey are the same, the percentage survey is just a more understandable representation of the numbers. It is easier for people to understand "52% vs 36% (±3%)" than it is for them to understand "156 million vs. 108 million (±9 million). In the case of Lancet, they are merely noting the number of extra people that died in the period, so the equivalent of saying something has a 52% approval rating. Additionally, if you're going to use Lancet as a source, you can not interpret the results presented in the survey and post the numbers you find acceptable, you have to post the actual results of that survey. --Bobblehead 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The results state 298,000 with a 90%+ CI. Hence why I will update the number to reflect 298,000 since its not fair to exclude fallujah. Its whitewashing. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again.. You have to post the results of the survey, not your interpretation of the results. Because the tactics and resultant fatalities in Fallujah were an outlier and not an accurate representation of the tactics and resultant fatalities in all of Iraq they were properly excluded and identified as to why they were excluded. Any alteration of the survey results on anyone's part is POV pandering and a violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Bobblehead 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your hostile approach is starting to make me feel I should just ignore you. However if you read the report you would see that everytime standard numbers are given, fallujah numbers are as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"You are missing the point, its not about sanctions. The point is the mortality rate was increasing, more infants were dying every year."

But it wasn't. The figures show that the infant mortality rate was greater in one five-year period than another, that's all.--Salvador Allende 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering this is all you comments on. I think we have reached an understanding. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting new method, simply refusing to answer my post. We'll get to the rest in a moment. Could you please answer?--Salvador Allende 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You did not ask a question ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a point, the same point I've been making in about my last five messages, you've yet to properly respond.--Salvador Allende 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I feel the same way. Hence why above, 5 messages ago I gave up attempting to explain anything to you and stated I would use Lancet as long as its not misrepresented and uses its complete finding of 298,000 deaths including fallujah. And does not list them as civilian deaths since Lancet does not distinguish that. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WMDs

So where do we go from here? I am sure there will be tons of reports and people analyzing the report that got leaked stating WMDs were actually found, furthermore I did not even know that Deuffler last year stated that insurgents had been using some of those chemical munitions. Anyone have a link to that report? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

This title is only to suppot the link on article. Do not comment here but farther down.

Starting a proper RFC that mentions all views

A severely biased poll has been started on which the initiators of that poll refuse to mention links to previous discussions that opposes their view.[18] Also it only presents their take of the debate, attempts to balance this POV poll by inserting the opposing views are repeatedly deleted. Since this is not a fair poll I have started a RFC which adequately states what the debate is about. Also the massive deletion of comments[19][20][21] on that page makes it absolutely impossible to use it as a fair instrument to determine this dispute.

Results of the previous polls were:

• 16-11 people oppose including a controversial statement in the infobox when asked "Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" Should be used in the Infobox Caption".[22]
• 14-4 people oppose including a controversial statement in the infobox when asked "Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" Should be used in the Infobox Caption".[23]
• 10-3 people stated that WMD was the principal argument to invade Iraq when asked "Users who think the casus belli-(main officially stated reason) of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Was WMD-(Iraq Disarmament Crisis)."[24]

The previous debates for what this poll is really trying to address can be found there: [25][26][27][28] [29][30]

• This RFC is being altered and severely manipulated. Since it is impossible to wait and see what respondents to the RFC think I definitely withdraw. Reaching consensus is clearly not what some people want. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What this is not addressing

• The name of the War on Terrorism. Currently, Wikipedia's article on the conflict is located at vthe War on Terrorism, and until it is not located there, this is the name of the conflict as far as other articles are concerned.
• Whether the Iraq War was justified. This is not an attempt to justify, or use Wikipedia to justify the War in Iraq. There is no agenda being pushed other than that of presenting facts to Wikipedians.
• What the Bush administration was asserting, since it is not about what Bush said but whether Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism.

What this is addressing

• Including Iraq in part of the "War on Terrorism" means that the US went to Iraq to fight terrorism.
• Part of the "War on Terrorism" is not the same as stated by the US as part of the "War on Terrorism."
• That it has been established by the Bush Administration that Iraq was involved in international terrorism and the Bush administration had no way of knowing otherwise.
• Resulting in the recognition of the Iraq War as part of the "War on Terrorism."

Why it is alleged to be part of the War on Terrorism

• The United States and its allies began the military campaign known as the War on Terrorism, a campaign whose goal is "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified by the U.S. as terrorist groups and ending state sponsorship of terrorism."[31]
• Saddam Hussein's regime was considered a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the United States government.[32]
• The United States and its allies began the Iraq War as a stated part of the War on Terrorism, both pre-war, and since it has begun. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

Why it is alleged not to be part of the War on Terrorism

• War on Terrorism lack inclusion or exclusion criteria. We therefore do not know what the limits are of this war and subsequently can't decide what is and what is not part of this war. The idea that when Bush says it is part of it then it is, clearly opens up pandora's box making WOT dependend on what ever Bush thinks and not on objective and verifiable criteria.
• It is not up to President Bush to decide for the entire planet what is and what is not part of this war.
• Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was no terrorism of significance present so suggesting the US went to Iraq to fight terrorism is at best not substantiated by the known facts.
• US intelligence stated prior to the invasion that no proof existed of any link between Iraq and international terrorisme, more specifically no link to 9-11.

Comments

Please leave your reponse to this indicating whehter you think Iraq was invaded as part of the WOT or that it is incorrect to assert that the US invaded to fight terrorism in Iraq.

People that oppose including Iraq in the War on Terror, because they think that "part of the War on Terror" is a statement of fact and inappropriate for such a disputed topic.

1. Comment per WP:NPOV, views must be attributed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: WP:SOAP, not even for the Nicaraguan government, or the U.S. government for that matter.

   Also, I think it was zer0faults who incidently brought up a logical contradiction in including Iraq in the "War on Terrorism": premises: 1. The War on Terrorism is ongoing. 2. The War in Iraq is over. 3. The War in Iraq is(or was) part of the War on Terror. 4. There are currently terrorists in Iraq. logically: if the iraq war is part of the war on terror, the war on terror is ongoing, and there are still terrorists in iraq, then the war in iraq is ongoing. This contradicts premise 2. removing any one of the four premises removes the logical inconsistency. premise 4 is empirically supported; verifiable; sound, so at least one of the premises (1,2,3) is not. Kevin Baas^talk 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Wow talk about a flawed logic statement. Do you see where your flaw is? That assumes that the War on Terror and Iraq War are the same, not that they are linked. Let me give you an example. 1) WW2 ended in 1946 2) Battle of Moscow ended in 1942 3) Battle of Moscow was part of WW2 4) Soviets still defend Moscow. Obviously this means that the Battle of Moscow then did not end in 1942, contrary to historians, but ended in 1946 because the soviets still defended Moscow after 1942.

   Furthermore noone said the War in Iraq got rid of all terrorists. Your logic statement assumes that the terrorists would have to be removed in order for something to bring it to a close. Its almost like stating there are Jews in Germany so the Holocaust is still going on. maybe one day you will see wars are not Black and White. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

2. No infobox should include highly controversial statements. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
4. I'm sorry, but it is totally unclear where I am supposed to write my comment that I disagree with including this article as part of the War on Terror. I do disagree, though, for what it is worth--and the arguments have already been stated.--Bhuck 11:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

People that support including Iraq in the War on Terror, because they think that since President Bush has said Iraq is "part of the War on Terror" it is sufficient to make it a fact, and it is irrelevant whether such a statement is factual or supported by evidence.

• Boycott. User Nescio cut and paste my comment into a header of his own choice that ridicules my opinion beware this poll.Mrdthree 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  In all fairness you responded to a header that was not part of this RFC. Therefore I removed the extra header (to prevent confusion) but never altered your comment, and I even stated that I did so. How this is ridiculing your position I fail to understand. Sorry you feel that way. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the statement I posted under this poll question: "This voting section was so good until I got here and found a straw man argument. So congrads on everything up until this point. In protest I included a reduced statement below.Mrdthree 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)" The reduced statement I placed my vote under was made simply by eliminating the ridiculous phrase: "...and it is irrelevant whether such a statement is factual or supported by evidence." . You should have reverted my statement of support if it didnt fit the RFC, not move under a header I didnt support.Mrdthree 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Boycott Putting votes in a location without users authorization is more then frowned upon. Changing the header after the person has voted elsewhere is also frowned upon. Making a poll, where the user voting against the polsters side also has to say they are donig so without facts and they are not supported by evidence, is just bias. Marking peoples comments as votes is also frowned upon. Moving comments to other locations to hide them from voting people is also frowned upon. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Consider I commented already can you cease to edit this poll. Thank you --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding information is not altering the discussion. It only facilitates the access to the relevant information, which you and your partner eagerly want participants not to find. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I comment on something, then you change its context, its not facilitating anything. Its misrepresenting what I had choosen or spoke about. Now that you have your poll here, which you seem eager to change whenever you want, regardless of what people say during that time, you can leave the other alone and stop attempting to vandalize it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Novel idea, inserting links to previous discussions and evidence of deleting comments is considered altering the debate. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing statements previously agreed to by other is actually vandalism. You caused confusion with Kizzle above as you can see by doing it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that your massive deletion of other editors comments is vandalism. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore this is misleading "That it has been established by the Bush Administration that Iraq was involved in international terrorism and the Bush administration had no way of knowing otherwise.". It is written to assume a negative, which is distateful. It is implying Bush could have known that Saddam didnt engage in international terrorism. However its already been noted he did fund the PALF, which is a fact. SO the question itself is misleading is it not? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It is about what do we consider terrorism and what conduct constitutes support of terrorism? I already exdplained that if links to terrorism suffice then the entire planet is supporting terrorism. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   So you feel funding suicide bombers is not participating in international terrorism? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   I think that funding and training OBL is in no way differnet. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Good then you agree that Iraq being labeled as a terrorist nation by the United States was not wrong. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   I never disputed that, I merely pointed out that in the name of consistency we would also have to label the US as terrorist nation. Since you are not willing to do that I do not see why I should agree with you using a double standard. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Who said I did not agree with you, I think the US Government is evil, I think we slaughtered a bunch of Japanese people to test a toy. However proving and believing are different things. My personal opinion is the US is a bunch of terrorists in nice suits. Again, however, no nation on the planet recognizes the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, the US a permanant member of the UN Security Council however recognizes Iraq as one. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Furthermore the Global War on Terrorism is against nations that are state sponsors of terrorism and terrorists themselves. Hence why your circular logic fails, noone recognizes the US as terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism. If a nation ever did, then yes they would be able to technically attack the US and state its part of the WOT. However Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as you have been pointed out about before. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   That makes your above question misleading as it is assuming there is no link to Saddam and terrorists. Please note this. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Do not edit my comments, its a seperate point. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1. What do you propose was the reason for gonig to war if not terrorism? If we are to reach a concensus you have to share with us your views so we can find a middleground. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Contrary to you and your friend I was not present when directly following 9-11 Bush decided Iraq had to be invaded. So, I am not privy to that information. What I do know is that this administration advocated several reasons for invading that are not compatible with the facts. 1 WMD, contrary to what the administration said there was not rocksolid evidence of SH having WMD. If anything there was rock-solid doubt as to the veracity of that claim, 2 Links to AQ, again many were not convinced by the available evidence, therefore this also is at best a disputed reason, 3 UN resolutions, the fact that mister UN himself dismissed this argument says enough., 4 et cetera. Point is, none of the advocated reasons were at any time considered to be undisputed and undeniably true. That is, outside the administration. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   Will you concede you are wrong if, I can prove the UN even told Saddam not to make any more terrorist comments? I can prove that the link was not only suppose to be to AQ, but to terrorists in general and finally I can prove that the fear of WMDs was that they would fall into terrorist hands. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   I do not doubt you have such information, just like I have information countering that. What we have is a stalemate. Nobody has sufficient evidence, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, he is right. Therefore, since the dispute cannot be settled at this time we should not be advocating either side, see WP:NPOV. Stating as a fact that Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism clearly is suggesting that is the correct and only interpretation. Which it can't be since there is a dispute. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   This is not a stalemate now that you are wrong. How about you layout what you want me to prove and I will attempt to do so. I can provide proof, in the form of Res 114 that proves terrorism was a reason, as well as proof that WMD concerns were linked to the idea they may spread to terrorists, as well as Bush's speechs to the UN that says WMDs may get in the hands of terrorists, I can provide sources that link Saddam to the PALF and funding of suicide bombers, I can provide proof that the UN issued a warning to Saddam about terrroism. So what proof would you need supplied to prove Saddam is linked to terrorism and I will drag it up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Repost from my page: I have asked you on the Iraq War article page, the comment you moved to discussion, what evidence would convince you. You asked for a discussino and in an attempt to reach a concensus. I would like your feedback. Thank you --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• To repeat what I already stated in the multitude of discussions

• If invading Iraq was to fight terroism we should prove Iraq was a terrorist state.
• If funding terrorism makes a country a terrorist state all countries that do so should be considered terrorist states.
• If ties to terrorism suffice to invade a country we should accept that every country that has these ties can be invaded without being bound to the UN charter.

I'll add others but it's a start Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq was on the United States list of nations that sponsor terrorism. They have admitted to funding the PALF suicide bombers fund. The United Nations has warned Iraq about terrorism. That takes care of part one. Point two is something you hope for or wish for, its not something that can be provided with facts, so its void. Number 3 is also something that cannot be provided with facts because its once again somethnig you hope for, so its void. Give me things that you need facts to support and I will do so, do not ask me the meaning of life and why the UN lets Isreal have a bomb and noone else, im not a mind reader. Ask for things to be proven for a fact, that you need proven to see theother side, and I will try to provide them. More questions please. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, this may be a language barrier thing but, State-sponsor of terrorism, and Terrorist state, are not the same thing. One is a nation that funds or permits terrorists to operate within it, the other is a state that opperates as terrorists. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just keep the links and remove your comments, what is so hard about that? Your comments are actually factually false. You are stating a vote took place over if the WOT and Iraq are linked, however the polls state the question as, should the WOT be in the infobox. This leads to people voting, no it shouldnt be in the infobox since its debated if they are linked. This is not them saying if they feel its linked, its them commenting on the inclusion of it in the infobox. If you remove your commentary then feel free to remove mine as well, Just leave the polls there. Also do not say they are about this topic, cause they are not, say related, but even then if they are all about the infobox, then you should say they are about the infobox, or main reason for war, do not misrepresent them to be about the WOT IRaq War link. They are not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding the alleged NPOV of questions

• Your poll makes no sense, it says you are seeking no justification yet it says "that it is incorrect to assert that the US invaded to fight terrorism in Iraq" these things are mutually exclusive. That is seeking a justification, is this some kind of trick to get people to vote in the wrong direction? YOur are in fact attempting justification for an action it seems. Very tricky. COnsidering you started this, will you cease to vandalize the other? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1. To determine what is the reason behind this invasion is not a justification. Please read about reason, validation, justification, explanation and you will find they all mean something different. Since many comments were deleted from the other "poll" I consider it evidence of an agenda by the initiators and violation of NPOV to disallow any other view than those of proponents. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   To clarify, I may be able to explain why a murderer did what he did, but that in no way is a justification for his deeds. So explaining and agreeing with something are two seperate things. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   You seem to never answer the question, what do you feel was the reason? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

   How can we not be seeking to justify something if you are covertly attempting to say what happened in the future, after the invasion actually took place? Also what do you think is the reason that the US invaded Iraq? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Unfair criteria for people supporting, why is there negatives attached to one view and not the other. This is clearly a bias statement made disuade people from voting in this direction, its almost shameful. This poll seems bias. People voting in this directino would be voting against "facts" according to your questions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My response to this has been deleted by Zero, but I am sure he will reinsert it. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I told you to give me the dif so I know what it was, and I gladly would. However you rather post here then get the dif. I wonder why. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Restoring the comment myself since Zero is today more interested in deleting comments than having a fair debate based on all information available.
      • It is your own argument, if Bush says it is then it is, since he has the right to name anything he likes. Also see statements in your poll explicitly mentioning that this is not about the facts. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}
        • Its not my poll, noone owns Wikipedia space, however the "other poll" says its not about justifying anything. Its about why the war was started, not what happened after it began. This is like the 8th time I have told you this for some reason. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
          • • This indeed is about the why, and the title you propose asserts that the why is fighting terrorism. That is fine by me if you can provide sufficient arguments to explain that there is no dispute regarding that subject. Of course, no dispute outside the Bush administration. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Who said there was no link between Saddam and terrorism? the UN even reprimanded the Iraq government for terrorism, why do you keep ignoring this, its becoming as if you do not want to acknowledge facts. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Were Jews burned as a sacrifice to the Gods during WW2? Because that is what Holocaust means, so unless you would be saying we should change the title of Holocaust as well since it does reflect what really happened. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Whats this have to do with my comment above? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I want to see the dif, because gonig through it, I did not see that comment, its also note dated properly so it wasnt a copy paste. Its also not in relation to what I wrote above. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Responding to "irrelevant whether such a statement is factual or supported by evidence," I only observe that your own argument is that Bush gets to decide and this debate is not whether it is true or not.[39][40] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
            • • The arguement, for the 9th time, is that the US Government get to decide who it goes to war with in its own campaign. Nomen Nescio does not get to pick where the US goes, nor do I. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
                • • Why do you keep ignoring the UN charter which clearly forbids the US to do anything outside of its border resembling a war of aggression? Thereby making any opnion the US has null and void, since international law gets to decide and not Mr Bush. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • So no Jews were killed in WW2 because anything that Germany did was null and void since it was acting under a war of agression? So by logic that removes WW2 from ever happening also. Also its a pretty big violation of NPOV to ignore the US view all together, and that comment will be noted. If you really think that since it was illegal, it didnt happen, then I can no longer discuss this with you, and your comment will be noted, you are not looknig for a middleground or facts, you are looknig to supress or paint badly anything that resembles an action by the US. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • • Since nobody is voicing the Nazi talking points that Jews were being relocated I think that we should also not repeat erroneous statements by the Bush administration| Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Cute, I am still waiting for more facts to provide you with, or have I satisfied all you are asking for? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude quit arguing. Nomen is not attempting to increase the value of this article. He is simply arguing you out of his own bias for whatever reasons.. Just keep editing and commenting appropriately like you've been doing. --DjSamwise 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The crux of the matter

Look, its cool and all that you decided to make your own discussion, but rather than debate on and on and on about two different things, I beleive I see the sole hitch in all of this. You, Nomen Nescio, do not beleive the United States has the power to determine what terrorism is for the world. This is true, for instance you mentioned the moon wont be made of cheese if the USA says it is. This is also true, and that goes without saying. However, this is a seperate issue. The United States began a campaign against people they label a certain thing. They can label whoever they want this thing. The label doesnt need to be accurate, for instance I can go around labeling people losers. It might not be true. Lets say I beat up the people I labeled losers. Does it matter if they were losers, or not? No, because they were beat up for the label given to them, therefore to recognize I beat up those I labeled loser is correct. By recognizing that I beat up those I saw as losers, we are not justifying my actions. We are not even calling, or giving credit to, calling the people losers. We are just recognizing that I targetted the people I called losers. Maybe I dont even really think they are losers, and I did it because I have low self esteem and want to tear others down. Doesnt change a thing. I still labeled them losers, and attacked those who I labeled losers. The United States began a campaign against those they labeled terrorists and state sponsors of terror. Thats the premise of the campaign. They might not be terrorists. But they are targetted because they are labeled terrorists or state sponsor of terror. By recognizing that the USA is waging a war against those they label terrorists and state sponsors of terror, we are not justifying their actions. We are not calling, or giving credit to, calling them terrorists or state sponsors of terror. We are just recognizing that they targetted the nations the USA labeled State sponsors of terror, and people terrorists. Maybe the USA doesnt really think they are terrorists, and it was done because Bush had low self esteem and wanted to pick on smaller countries. Doesnt change a thing. They still labeled them terrorists/state sponsors, and attacked those they labeled as such. Do you see the difference between this, and giving the USA the power to be God? The USA has power to determine what labels to give others, and determine how it sees people. If it then goes on to wage a campaign against those they see as a certain thing, we inherently must recognize it. Just like we must recognize that the Nazi regimes actions against those they labeled "enemies of the state" are all linked in the same genocidal campaign, we must recognize the US and allies campaign against those labeled "terrorists and state sponsors of terror." Whether or not anyone is actually an enemy of the state, or whether anyone is actually a terrorist is quite beyond the point. Rangeley 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The crux is that your analogy only works if nobody had told you in advance you were wrong, what we already established in my similar analogy. Everybody can make a mistake, but a doctor that has been warned by his colleages not to operate since they believe the patient will die, cannot explain operating anyway and then the patient dies with: I thought he would live. Nonsense, if you are warned, time and again your presumption is highly dubious, if not wrong, you can't defend yourself by saying, nevertheless I still thought I was right.

Of course, Bush can label anyone he likes, however, to make this a discussion of facts we need verifiable criteria why he labels a person/country as terrorist. Are there real plans being made to attack the US, or is Bush simply eliminating those he dislikes? At this point, without objective criteria there is just no way of knowing on what grounds the WOT is fought. Heck, he could outlaw research into global warming, or alternative fuel, on account of it being a threat to national security. If he says so, it is. Therefore the logic that by labeling someone a terrorist that is enough ecidence you introduce circular logic.

Further, under international law the US is not allowed to wage any war without UN support or out of self-defense. We can rule out self-defense, unless you know of any imminent threat from Iraq. Leaving the UN, and since the UN has the last word on it they too are involved in the debate: what constitutes terrorism and WOT. Remember, this is not limited to US territory, by its own definition it is a fight involving the entire planet. Why can only the US decide how to call this global concept? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If the doctor was warned that removing the tumor would kill the patient, yet still does it ... Did he not still do it to remove the tumor? This also goes to justification, oddly enough during BLix's last statement to the UN he did not say there was no WMD's he said that components of chemical and biological weapons were still unaccounted for. Also Saddam's links to terrorism are facts, so the portion related directly to terrorism, if one were seeking justification, would actually be correct. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

you open up two answers: 1 The doctor was operating to save the patients life, although he was explicitly told that the patient would probably die, 2 he was operating to remove a tumor but was explicitly told the tumor probably was benign and not a malignancy. In either case the doctor went ahead after being told his premise was flawed, so he cannot fall back on the excuse he thought he was saving a life (clearly he knew death was more likely), nor that he was removing a tumor (as he already knew it probably was not). As to the links to terrorism, feel free to explain why we use the double standard of designating Iraq a terrorist state, but ignoring the identical acts by the US, Israel and other countries. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont have to explain why there is a double standard, write to your elected official and ask why his country has not labeled the US a state sponsor of terrorism if you want to know why noone else does it. Stop wasting our time with your unhappiness at your countries lack of action against what you feel are injustices. This is not the forum for you to wage a protest of your or another governments actions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also already explained to you why Bush labeled Iraq a "state-sponsor of terrorism". The country was funding suicide bombers to act against the state of Israel, the same state he fired SCUD's at for no reason duringi the first Gulf War. So he was actually funding terrorism against a member nation of the UN. He admitted this already, its not an allegation anymore. Your question of, is Bush eliminating those he dislikes, does not have to eliminate all other reasons. Maybe Bush did not like Saddam, but tis not Bush who picks who state sponsors of terrorism are. I pointed this out to you before, I do know if you understand, but Bush is not the one that gets to pick who state sponsors of terrorism are. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, nobody denies SH had contacts with terrorists, however, logic dictates that when we apply this consistently you are saying that the US is free to invade any country they call a terrorist state. An overt attempt to eliminate international law. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are saying the US used the designation of a terrorist state correctly, then you are assuming they will use it incorrectly. YOu are not drawing a connection. The fact that even the UN cited Iraq for terrorism should be enough for you. Noone is saying the war is illegal, however you have now admitted that Iraq had ties to terrorism, this means there inclusion on the State Department list of state-sponsored terrorism is correct. Which means there is no reason to believe since they did have terrorist ties, that the Iraq War was not aprt of the Global War on Terrorism. Thank You Finally! Also I really do not care if US attacks a small island full of natives with 10megaton nukes, you have finally stated that Iraq had links to terrorism, which means there inclusion on the state-sponsor list is valid and renounces your own misgiving about the US intent, which should have never been an issue in the first place. Like Rangeley said, I do not care if they even eat babies. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because something is illegal does not erase that it happened or that it was part of a larger invasion, I pointed this out to you already in regards to Germany and WW2. Their invasions of well, most of Europe, were wars of agression. However as you will probably note if you look at the WW2 article, those invasions are listed, they are not removed on the basis they were illegal. This goes to show that the legality of the invasion, does not remove it from its greater context. Also the definition of Global War on Terrorism, according to its article, does not mean the whole world. I think you should read the opening paragraph for more information. It specifies who is involved and why.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody disputes there is a war in Iraq. The dispute is whether this war is about fighting terrorism in Iraq. Don't use a red herring or straw man. If GWOT does not include the entire world, please explain to what geographical location it is limited, and if these limits may change as Bush decides otherwise. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You already admitted their was links to terrorism, you validated the reason given by the administration. If you have some controversial theory such as oil, which the government of France was buying illegally to help Saddam circumvent a UN programme that was suppose to supply humanitarian aids, or something along those lines, then you can state them and let everyone decide if they believe you. However since you now admit to know the Iraqi government had links to terrorism, and the war on terrorism is a fight against countries of that type, then its obviously included. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Last but most importantly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This statement "Heck, he could outlaw research into global warming, or alternative fuel, on account of it being a threat to national security" is an example of crystal ballism. As for the UN, they are not actually part of the Global War on Terrorism, the article specifically states: "a campaign by the United States, NATO, and other allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." So no, the UN would not have the final say, or possibly even a say at all. Which would explain why NATO is conducting operations in Operation Active Endeavor without the UN ever even voting on it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you're promoting the idea that anything Bush says is part of the WOT, it is you who is trying to predict the future. I still have to see inclusion/exclusion criteria and verifiable, objective arguments as to what constitutes terrorism and WOT. To assert WOT is what Bush says it is just won't do since it is circular reasoning. That definition makes my example not a prediction but a logical consequense. Just as observing that an apple will fall to the ground when you release it is no prediction but simply applying the laws of physics. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You dont have to see inclusion criteria, its a war. Show me inclusion criteria for Cold War, WW1, WW2, show me a government inclusion exclusion list for any conflict. You already stated that Iraq had links to terrorism, that means by your own personal definition of terrorism, the exact thing that the war on terrorism is fighting, Iraq is included in. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A GWOT Compromise Proposal

Sorry, I'm new to this dustup, but I have two suggestions.

1. How about, instead of "Part of the Global War on Terrorism" at the top of the Iraq War infobox, we put "See also Global War on Terrorism" at the bottom of the infobox? My reasoning:
   1. It's the frackin' infobox, not the article. This compromise will let people click through to the GWOT article, which states, accurately, that the Bush admin considers Iraq to be part of the GWOT.
   2. Yes, this would leave both sides a little disappointed, but it would resolve the issue and let both people get back to editing the articles.
2. Nomen and Zer0, I love you both, but if I could make a small suggestion, I think it would be best if you both post one or two comments a day on this subject and leave it alone.
   1. You're both good, committed editors, but between you, you're putting out so much text that it's difficult for other people to contribute to the discussion.
   2. Neither one of you will lose the argument if you let the other one have the last word any particular day. You've both explained yourselves very well, and I'm confident that everyone knows how you each feel on this subject.

Thanks, and I hope nobody takes offense -- I appreciate all of your work on these and other topics. TheronJ 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would never take offense to useful advice. The reason of the mess on this page is why Wikipedia:WOT was setup. I think the arguement is done anyway, Nomen has admitted above finally that Iraq had ties to terrorism, considering this admission and the fact that the war on terrorism is on ... terrorism. I think the issue is finally put to bed of it being factually linked, however un justified it may be. Also I would accept see also as well since it is coming from the "voice of reason" in most of my disputes. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You jump to conclusions. Having ties to terrorism does not prove the the invasion of Iraq is about fighting terrorism. Heck, Iraq has one of the largest oils reserves, does that prove the invasion was about oil? Or how about this, another fact is that SH is known to have met with US officials in the past and they send money and technical support. This proves that the invasion was about hiding the US involvement in the invasion of Iran. No, SH was wearing green uniforms and Bush was making a fashion statement by removing a leader that wears green uniforms. What I am trying to say is that stating two facts does not prove a causal relationship between them. Nice example: fact 1: Cheap horses are rare, fact 2: rare items are expensive. Therefore, following Zero's logic without really thinking about it we connect these two statements of facts, since cheap horses are rare, and rare items are expensive we have proven that cheap horses are expensive. QED Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Read UN Res 1441, HJ Res 114, etc. Your conspiracy theories aside, you have now already stated that Iraq had ties to terrorists, the war on terror is about fighting terrorists, iraq was attacked because bush said they had WMDs they would give to terrorists and links to terrorism. Its all together now since you admitted it. Everything else is conspiracy theories. The US goes to war over oil, cause it hates Islam, cause its spreading christianity, to win the elections, to let US soldiers shoot at middle eastern people, to eat babies ... sorry I cant get over that last one. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of TheronJ's proposal? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that we did not change that, as there is no reason to treat that portion differently from other war's infoboxes. I am still for having it state "Part of the Global War on Terrorism" and have an overview in the War on Terrorism article. Though, if this isnt accepted by Kizzle I would accept 'Part of the "War on Terrorism."' Rangeley 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There's all sorts of logical proposals that don't involve "conspiracy theories," stabalization of the Middle-East, combating pan-arabic movements, maintaining a physical presence in the Middle East, exerting American hegemony as stated in the PNAC documents. Invading a country because it supports an anti-Israel terrorist group seems to be far from American interests and would seem to fail a simple cost-benefit analysis. --kizzle 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Those would be possible motives for the entire War on Terrorism as well. But I stated this before some place, something can have ulterior motives, and this doesnt make it any more or less part of a campaign. For instance, a battle in the North Africa Campaign might have been officially stated as part of the campaign to push Germany out of Africa and alleviate the Eastern Front, but the exact location might have been chosen by a general who was looking to find some sweet lovin' in a specific North African village. Even with hormonally charged ulterior motives, it does not alter the officially stated campaign for which it is under. By recognizing the campaign, we do not rule out ulterior motives from playing a part. Rangeley 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep harping on with endless repetitions of your claim about an alleged "officially stated campaign" and add all sorts of outlandish comparisons but never produce any reliable and neutral sources in support of it. The Iraq invasion may well be part of a larger scheme, but not of the "war on terror". Even if everything you say were true, it would be a larger campaign that is tagged by the US administration with the misnomer "war on terror". When will you finally realize that Wikipedia cannot be the place to parrot White House propaganda? Rkrichbaum 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because as much as I disagree with Rangeley on the form in which we present the "War on Terrorism," I believe he is correct in saying that if we use the meaning of "War on Terrorism" as a label for American foreign policy post-9/11, then technically anything can fit in. Now whether these things are justified is an entirely different manner, and that is an argument that is much easier to win in my mind. But if we are treating the "War on Terrorism" as simply a label for foreign policy, then it can fit whatever the Bush administration says. If Bush says lets invade Canada tommorow because it's part of the "War on Terrorism," then by all means it gets included even though its fucking crazy. But this is a purely semantics debate, if you want to start talking about justification I think you'll find it a bit tougher than the avenue you're currently pursuing. --kizzle 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why use an ambiguous label when we just as well can use the neutral description "American foreign policy post 9/11"? 84.178.164.235 03:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (Rkrichbaum 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Same as we use "Operation Enduring Freedom". --kizzle 03:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That title seems to be in dispute. In addition, the "war on terror" is not the name of a particular military campaign as far as I know. So it isn't the "same", anyway. Rkrichbaum 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is one in a long string of phrases to describe American foreign policy post-9/11, "The Long War" and "Global Struggle Against Islamic Fundamentalism" being others. --kizzle 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Authorization of force: "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;" [41]. In this press conference with Bush, Blair, Aznar, and Barasso [42] before the war, Bush states the UN must address Iraq and be responsible "for the capacity to win the war of -- the first war of the 21st century, which is the war against terrorism." And another, [43] which was March 8th was a speech entitled "War on Terror." In it the President states "This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror" with one front being the capture of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad, the other being that the weapons inspector from Iraq has reported to the UNSC on his findings. He goes on to say "He (Saddam) provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries." And finally, on May 1st, Bush announced "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on." [44]. I hope that clears things up. Rangeley 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your quote from the Joint Resolution very clearly mentions the "war on terrorism" in connection with "United Nations Security Council resolutions". At the time the resolution was passed, the administration had hoped that a UNSC resolution would authorize force in the context of the "war on terror". The information that Iraq was "harboring terrorists" was spurious at best and had been reported false before the invasion. Ray McGovern, a former CIA official recently challenged Rumsfeld in public why he lied about that fact. SC members stated that Iraq was not about the war on terror. The SC did not authorize force. The US invaded anyway, but not to enforce a UNSC resolution which would have been in furtherance of the war on terrorism, but for other stated reasons, namely the alleged "immediate threat" posed by Iraq's alleged WMD capabilities based on information that also turned out to be false and made up of whole cloth. So there's no doubt the administration tried to link the Iraq invasion to the "war on terror", right from the beginning on 9/11/01, actually, but was never able to establish this link in reality. That Bush babbles about "victory" while the resistance increases and his soldiers are dying is more proof that WH statements cannot be taken at face value and not stated as fact on Wikipedia. 84.178.164.235 03:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (Rkrichbaum 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

The administration has always claimed that it was part of the war on terror (how big a part has varied a bit), at least in that the "axis of evil" were sponsors of terror. Much as there were other Casus Belli invoked, the reality is that today it is inextricably linked to the war on terror, given the magnet that Iraq (and the coalition forces there) has become in terms of those fighting under the banner of death to America and those with agendas in terms of the middle east(and that is the reality whether you originally called it GWOT, WMD, Oil, Crusades or just a hate-on for Saddam). So while the original aim was debatable, reality now isn't. Yes, there's a background of all sorts of other things, democratization, oppression, call it what you want, but in the foreground and lurking everywhere is facets of GWOT. The problem is 'what to call it' I am not sure if it is reasonable, in light of the complexity of the situation, just to put 'GWOT' in the infobox as that would be over-simpifying things. The text discusses causes & consequences in depth, and as a de facto standard none of the other Persian Gulf Wars list anything as to Casus Belli or rationale in the infobox. In other words, leave it empty & discuss in text.Bridesmill 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not being up on this conflict, but is there a allegedly neutral name for the set of conflicts referred to as the "Global War on Terrorism". If not, my thoughts are (1) Iraq is part of a larger military conflict fought by the US and its allies, so the "part of" field in the infobox is appropriate, and (2) there is no other name available for the conflict, so it will have to be "war on terror", but (3) since it's alleged that the name is POV, the quotes are a fair compromise.

Alternately, there's always my proposal to put the link in the "notes" box, with some note about how the US considers Iraq to be part of the Global_War_on_Terrorism. TheronJ 19:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to proposal

Not only is Zero manipu8lating the RFC, he also deleted the following comment:

Any compromise that still introduces a controversial statement into an infobox is in violation of WP:NPOV. Even if everybody agreed this still violates Wikipedia policy. Further, deleting an ongoing RFC after also deleting every mention of the previous discussions is rather bad taste amd can only be seen as trying to remove all other viewsw than that of the Bush administration.

The past days I have been thinking about this

• 62% and 78% were against including this statement in the infobox, see links above.
• Nevertheless two zealots restarted the debat, which this time included votestacking, leaving out the details and links which I just mentioned, also deleting every comment on the blatant manipulation.
• ''Trying to insert links to the previous debates goit me blocked.

Clearly since including any statement that is controversial is contrary to wikipedia policy we should not do this here. However, since people willingly adopt the Bush talking points as facts in wikipedia I will withdraw from this page. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)''

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This RFC is being altered and severely manipulated. Since it is impossible to wait and see what respondents to the RFC think I definitely withdraw. Reaching consensus is clearly not what some people want. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you just call me a zealot? I think I should mention this on the AN/I report. WP:CIVIL. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, please, this will not solve anything. You have invited you to comment and state your issue with the consensus [45] here, in edit summaries, in your talk page, in the deletion page about Wikipedia:WOT. Edit warring, calling people names, or bringing this stuff back up will get you nowhere. Rangeley 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

People have been attempting to negotiate with you, to find a middleground. However you out of 20+ people are the only one who leaves no room for a compromise, its all or nothing. If you change your mind and are willing to work toward a middleground like kizzle and other users, you are more then welcomed to do so. However filnig AN/I reports against me and ignoring peoples attempts to include you on your talk page are not welcomed, at least by me. Also I did not go and change the very questions of your poll like you attempted to do with the other after 20+ people voted. I instead commented on the additions you were maknig to yours after people voted or commented. Including your slanted summaries of 10+ votes into one sentence. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, truth, reality, & democracy don't always mix, and the majority isn't always right. Which is why votes are a bit of a waste. The quote marks take the POV out of it, and regardless of everyone else calls it, the fact that the bush admin has called it thus has made it a fact - whetehr GWOT is a figment of Bush's imagination or a total realty, the amount of effort that has gone into making it the GWOT has succeeded - so either it is part of GWOT or it is part of "GWOT". But it has been, like it or not, well & truly reified; to ignore this is to rewrite history.Bridesmill 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote marks don't "take the POV out of it". This label in a prominent place on top of the article clearly marks a statement in favor of government propaganda (that the latter is the appropriate description is not even disputed by the proponents of its use here). The comparisons with other labels such as World War II or the Cold War do not apply, these are neutral terms in general use. Nobody would claim that "War on Terror" is a neutral description. It has been pointed out countless times and isn't even disputed that it does not describe the reality of the Iraq invasion and occupation. It is only used by partisans of the Bush administration and their friends. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to put it in a prominent place here. Rkrichbaum 18:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim that "War on Terrorism" is a neutral description, no because it's not a description. If someone talked about a war on terrorism they were thinking of organizing, with lower case letters, so it's not a proper noun, then those words would be used for description in that setting. In this case "War on Terrorism" is a proper noun, and although it's not really a war on terrorism, "Duke Ellington" wasn't really a duke, but that's the name he went by. The "War on Terrorism" is the name this campaign goes by, whatever it's true nature is, and however misleading that name is. Does this argument make sense to you, Rkrichbaum? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Things to do

I cleaned up the redundant wikilinks like the top state, only kept duplicates if they were first mentioned in the infobox or also mentioned there, I also left the ones in the images. Can anyone look over my work and let me know if more needs to be done to scratch that off the list? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok well I am going to scratch it off, if someone feels more work has to be done feel free to put it back. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WMD's

Current news reports indicate that over 500 WMD's have indeed been found in Iraq since 2003. Any suggestions on how to address this? Scented Guano 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When you get debunked by Fox News, you know it's absolute bullshit. Care to provide a source not from Santorum? --kizzle 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually not an isolated incident. Lrge amounts of biological WMD had been discovered in 2005 and previously as well. Here's a citation for ya.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html and earlier http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html I mean you gotta figure, they've HAD WMD for decades (given by the US). So why don't you want to know that they found WMD? Anyway, next time google it before you argue it. :) --DjSamwise 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 ([46])... So we invaded Iraq because of a weapons lab they hadn't even built yet? --kizzle 06:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Deufler report it even says Iraq had chemical weapons, it explains how some insurgent groups made efforts to get their hands on them and it questions if they were distributed before saddams fall or not. The report is just saying these weapons are not as potent as the ones they were looking for. They are also all chemical based, sarin and tabun it seems. Actually reading the report nets a completely different view. It also speaks about insrugents maknig their own chemical weapons, however I did not see much about that in the news. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Can you find the passage and page # that supports your assertion? --kizzle 17:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Volume 3 Page 29. Since May 2004, ISG has discovered dozens of additional munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets and a binary Sarin artillery projectile. In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks, but we can neither determine if the munitions were declared to the UN or if, as required by the UN SCR 687, Iraq attempted to destroy them. Page 30 states a breif spot about al-Abud Network, the group attempting to use chemical weapons of their own if you were reffering to that, but it goes to talk about them more, on page 92, and their connection to Jaysh Muhammad, page 94. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Artillery rounds, rockets, and Sarin artillery projectiles are a far cry from WMDs if I'm not mistaken, especially considering the fact that we were told that America was in danger from these "WMD"s. Also, what do you think of this? --kizzle 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, ask the Iranians and Kurds. Also the threat from WMD was tied to their use by terrorists primarily, hence Sarin in the hands of a terrorist on a crowded train is alot more effective then Sarin being fired from a mortar. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not use apple products, do you have a transcript? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Windows Media version here: My favorite part is Dr. David Kay's quote about Santorum's claim: "... wrong as to the facts and exaggerated beyond all reason as to the interpretation of the 'facts'. There is no surprise that very small numbers of chemical canisters from the Iran-Iraq War have been found. The ISG found them and in my testimony in 2004 I said that I expected that we would continue to find them for a very long time. These are in very small numbers and are scattered. The nerve agents have long since degraded to the point that they no longer pose any substantial threat. In most cases the mustard agent has substantially degraded, but will burn you if skin comes in contact with it." A defense department official sums it up nicely: "[These weapons]...are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." --kizzle 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Its been 3 years since the invasion, I would guess it would be degraded since not properly stored. However Sarin is Sarin. I do not know if you read the report itself but there is a timeline in volume 1 I believe that has a dated entry of Saddam telling his generals there is no WMDs, then a lter entry telling his generals to use WMDs. Anyway point being WMDs were found, the age does not matter, since according to some, the weapons were all destroyed by the UNMOVIC. While we see was not true, they were dispersed and hidden all over Iraq. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you're incorrect about Saddam and his generals. He didn't tell his generals to use WMDs, he told them that he wanted to re-start the WMD programs after sanctions had been lifted. That's definetely a far cry from evidence that he had WMDs. Second, the "WMD"s that were found were known to be there since 1991 according to Kay and were degraded to the point where they did not possess anywhere near the destructive capability as when they were used on the Kurds. Finally, I will reiterate the point which you did not address: "[These weapons]...are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." --kizzle 18:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Which page of the Deufler report are you reffering to? This was I can make sure we are not reading two different things. I will open what I have back up and try to quote it for you. Also your quote is just one mans opinion, the ISG did not even exist till after the war, so who is he to say what we went to war to avoid. Furthermore I wasnt even taking a side, you asked for a page number and I gave it to you, you have a problem with it, its not my report to defend. 500 chemical weapons is quite a bit to miss however when attempting to destory a stash, if you want to believe Saddam missed these and only these, that is your perogative. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the quote you're referring to (reasons for going to war) is from the official from the defense department. The other quote is one man's opinion as well, but he happens to be David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, and is commenting on his area of expertise. The Duelfer Report I'm quoting to refute your assertion about Saddam's generals is here

• Page 1: "The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

WMD revival is way different from WMD posession. Rest of quotes:

• Page 5: "UN sanctions curbed Saddam’s ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to fi nance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."
• Page 9: "The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings of Iraqi offi cials in addition to some documentation suggest that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991"
• Page 13: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
• Page 17: "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
• Page 18: "Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course."

So, your hypothesis is that we went to war over 500 heavily-decayed chemical weapons leftover from the Iran-Iraq war? --kizzle 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the time line, its not a quote. I said specifically timeline, its in either 1 or 3, but not 2 cause thats about nuclear weapons. My hypothesis is that if they found 500 weapons that probably only decayed because they have been sitting in the desert for 3 years, they most likely have other weapons. Considering these weapons have not been under lock and key and stored properly the question is, would they been decayed to the point they are now? Furthermore as I stated Sarin and Mustard are not toys and the fear they would get to terrorist hands is multiplied if you believe they were just buried in the desert and not deployed to units. Also most of your quotes have to do with BW, bio weapons, however Sarin and Mustard are chemical weapons. Did you know prior to the war they, meaning the UNMOVIC people, requested a document from the Iraqi government which was hand written that detailed uses of chemical weapons during the Iran Iraq war, this document was not turned over and it was stated it did not reach standards for their obligations to the UN. The UN stated they needed this document to determine how many weapons were actually around during the war, to know what Iraq was actually destroying now. The document was never turned over, now we find all these weapons from around that time. Do you see the dots connecting as to why Iraq did not want the UN being able to catalogue how many there was and how many had been used? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusions run contrary to the Duelfer report. They wanted sanctions lifted as soon as possible so they could re-constitute their WMD programs... so what would they have to gain from witholding a miniscule stockpile of chemical weapons that were aged more than 3 years (the Iran-Iraq war, which they were from, happened much longer than 3 years ago). Umm ya, mustard gas is not a toy, but heavily degraded mustard gas is also not a weapon. And once again, quoting the defense department official, it was not these WMDs that we went to war over. It was the threat of nuclear weapons and (fake) mobile biological weapons labs, and real working chemical weapons that put us into war, not heavily degraded mustard gas. --kizzle 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It very much does run contrary, if they were not attempting to hide the weapons they had from Iran Iraq war, why not hand over the written document? Also you keep stating they were degraded, yet you seem to believe they were abandoned, if they were just left out in the desert they would of course be degraded, especially if they were left out for 3 years. I do not know the shelf life of properly stored mustard or sarin, I do not think you do either, and none of the reports specify these weapons being found were kept in correct care. Also mustard and sarin are actually very dangerous even when degraded, it will even burn the skin in its poor condition he stated. Considering the fact that insurgents according to that same report managed to make a "improvised chemical device" from the stuff, and have managed to make other unfound chemical weapons, its obviously effective to a degree. Considering you feel these weapons are a non-issue, had the UN found them would they have left them since they are degraded and seem to cause no threat to anyone, if you believe the deufler report that is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get this 3 year figure from? According to David Kay, the chemical weapons Santorum is referring to were in Iraq since the Iran-Iraq war, which happened much longer than 3 years ago. These weapons were degraded before we went in. I don't need to know the shelf-life of mustard gas to quote the head of the Iraqi Survey Group shooting down Santorum's claim that "WMDs have been found". --kizzle 01:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Degraded before we went in is an assumption. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no surprise that very small numbers of chemical canisters from the Iran-Iraq War have been found. The ISG found them and in my testimony in 2004 I said that I expected that we would continue to find them for a very long time. These are in very small numbers and are scattered. The nerve agents have long since degraded to the point that they no longer pose any substantial threat.

In other words, the canisters dated back to the Iran-Iraq War and "have long since degraded to the point that they no longer pose any substantial threat." A valid assumption, at that. --kizzle 01:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It also says a small number, yes 500, they must have been in a small container everyone missed during inspections. I dont believe the deufler reports conclusion, and this just reaffirms it was wrong to me at least. UN did not find these weapons, Iraq tried to hide them by not turning over the documents. You are entitled to your belief however that 500 canisters of mustard and sarin are not equivalent to proof WMDs were in Iraq. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

500 heavily degraded canisters of mustard gas leftover from the Iran-Iraq war that "no longer pose any substantial threat" are not equivalent to proof WMDs were in Iraq. --kizzle 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense to some. 500 canisters of chemical weapons proves there was no chemical weapons in Iraq. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Way to represent my argument with a straw man. 500 canisters of non-working chemical weapons dating back to the Iran-Iraq war that have "long since degraded to the point where they no longer pose any substantial threat" proves there were no working chemical weapons in Iraq. --kizzle 01:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Degraded does not equal not working. So 500 canisters of Sarin and mustard, means there was 500 canisters of chemical weapons. They were not just canisters, they were munitions so it does not get confused. YOu want to see this as proof there was no weapons, fine. I see it as proof there was weapons, especially since they attempted to hide these very weapons. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

NEAL CONAN (host): The report says hundreds of WMDs were found in Iraq. Does this change any of the findings in your report?

DEULFER: No, the report -- the findings of the report were basically to describe the relationship of the regime with weapons of mass destruction generally. You know, at two different times, Saddam elected to have and then not to have weapons of mass destruction. We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.

CONAN: Mm-hmm. So these -- were these the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration said that it was going into Iraq to find before the war?

DEULFER: No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war. These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had. Certainly, the leadership was unaware of their existence, because they made very clear that they had gotten rid of their programs as a prelude to getting out of sanctions.

[...]

DEULFER: Sarin agent decays, you know, at a certain rate, as does mustard agent. What we found, both as U.N. and later when I was with the Iraq Survey Group, is that some of these rounds would have highly degraded agent, but it is still dangerous. You know, it can be a local hazard. If an insurgent got it and wanted to create a local hazard, it could be exploded. When I was running the ISG -- the Iraq Survey Group -- we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction.

Source: NPR Interview with Charles Duelfer, June 22, 2006. --kizzle 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

They are weapons that Saddam said he destroyed that he purposely hid, that are now found. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Deulfer would seem to disagree with you there, as he believes the weapons were not "purposely hid": "'These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had. Certainly, the leadership was unaware of their existence, because they made very clear that they had gotten rid of their programs as a prelude to getting out of sanctions." But I'm glad you're at least not referring to them as weapons of mass destruction anymore. --kizzle 18:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Duefler does not remember, but the invasion almost happened earlier due to Iraq refusing to provide a simple document stating the whereabout for those weapons you feel it misplaced. [47] Once again, chemical weapons are chemical weapons. If Saddam was not hiding these, I am sure he would have just turned over the document yes? I am sure these were just 500 misplaced rounds, I mean I am sure armies misplace 500 Sarin and mustard rounds often. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Chemical weapons are chemical weapons" is a tautology, however the assertion that chemical weapons that you are referring to are WMDs is patently false and the crux of the matter. By the way, I didn't say that I felt Iraq's weapons were misplaced, I said Duelfer believed they were misplaced. You can disagree with him all you want, but I'll personally take his word over yours, as he's a bit more qualified to speculate about such matters. Ah well, at least we agree that the chemical weapons weren't WMDs, or are you going to dispute both David Kay (calling Santorum's claim that WMD's had been found in Iraq "wrong as to the facts and exaggerated beyond all reason as to the interpretation of the 'facts'."), former head of the Iraq Survey Group, and Charles Duelfer ("It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard."), author of the Duelfer report? --kizzle 21:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the complication is in what I am saying. I said Duefler does not follow politics because Iraq attempted to hide these weapons, weapons Duefler thinks were just misplaced. I provided a link to this being proven. The document in question in the link would have accounted for these weapons, it was not provided for a reason. Futhermore, chemical weapons are WMDs, just because he feels they arent destructive enough, does not reduce what they are. You can take the mustard in a few of those weapons and use it for a large scale attack. Just to go on, its like saying if a nuke is dropped in the desert and kills 50 people, its not a WMD because it only killed 50 people. If that sarin is place dinto an IED, as it has been, and explodes in a crowd, what would the effects be? So far more then 500 weapons have been found, part of the effectiveness with a chemical weapon is not the death toll but the chaos from it. What do you think would happen in a crowd after a sarin filled IED goes off? Or if 5 mortars filled with mustard strike the UN building in the Green Zone? As I keep saying, you can say these are not as deadly as something we were looking for, but for the purposes of passing WMDs along to terrorists or for urban combat they are actually highly effective. These are not WMDs if we are counting body count only, then again so is a nuke that does not hit anyone. Also if one of these exploded on a crowded subway car, or during a ralley, what do you think the death toll from just one would be? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing you have proven is that Iraq attempted to withold documents. Why he did so is complete speculation on your part. However, whether or not he was hiding heavily degraded weapons dating back from the Iran-Iraq War is not my point. If a nuke is dropped in the desert, of course it's still a weapon of mass destruction because it has the ability to kill so many people. However, according to both Duelfer and Kay, the chemical weapons had degraded so much to the point where they did not posess anywhere near the destructive capability as pristine sarin or mustard gas do, thus your analogy is incorrect. The maximum death count of a nuke is what determines its status as a weapon of mass destruction. Due to the heavy degredation over 20 years of the chemical weapons, these chemical weapons you refer to simply cannot come close to the maximum level of casualties that pristine chemical weapons can achieve. As Kay explicitly said, they may posess a localized threat but not anywhere close to the pre-decayed level of destructiveness. Arguing with you when you disagree with two of the foremost experts on the characterization of these chemical weapons as WMDs is pointless. I've provided two extremely notable and reputable sources on the matter characterizing these chemical weapons as not WMDs, whereas you can basically quote a senator with sagging approval ratings in an election year. I have no doubt that the reader will come to the correct conclusion. --kizzle 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

We all love duelfer but lets look at the following:

1. ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq, and visited fewer than ten ammunition depots identified prior to OIF as suspect CW sites.
2. We regard 600,000 (tons) as a lower limit on total munitions. Using this number, we estimate we visited about 8-12 percent (in round numbers, 10 percent), or less of the total Iraqi munitions stocks.
3. The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.
   • This ended up being 24 out of 104.
4. "the amount of inspections ISG was able to carry out was consistent with the resources available, and the safety factors involved in carrying out the inspections of munitions facilities."
   • This links to claims by David Gaubatz, former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, that he located 4 depots. Out of those, 3 were not visited at all, and one was visited however not excavated because the equipment was not available. This site was stated by intelligence to contain "stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions." These bunkers were sealed with a 5 foot thick wall of concrete and flooded with water. Duefler stated "The ISG team was not organized nor outfitted for this mission in my opinion and were only concerned to look in northern Iraq. They were not even on the ground during the first few weeks of the war, and this was the most critical time to go out and exploit sites. I feel very comfortable in saying the sites were never exploited by ISG."

This is why I take the ISG with a grain of salt. They did not search even 10% of available locations and did not even search the underground bunkers which were noted several times. Even Hans Blix before being kicked out of Iraq stated that intelligence officials told them of those facilities and said Iraq should turn over the information about them, which they never did. As I said, No they would not have killed millions, but thats not the point of a WMD. You wanting to ignore that Sarin in a train station will kill lots more then a mortar of it being fired in a desert, is all that makes your point. Your context is wrong. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Whoa! I am going to have to insist that this debate halt for a moment because the word tautology has been used in a way that is not absolutely 100% true. See, that sentence was tautologous. Rmt2m 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

According to the US government the US government is not currently at war with Iraq. Any claim that a government is at war with a country needs to be substantiated by a declaration of war. Anyone feel like reworking the title to remove the error and maintain nuetrality.? --DjSamwise 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The war ened in like a month, technically, I think this is just the largest police action ever ... Also the Supreme Court ruled that the Authorization to use force, that the Congress passed was equivalent to a declaration of war. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Sounds like a bit of post-hog wriggling to me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing your inciteful comments the wiki. Care to actually state something. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The original commenter has a good point.. It's more an Occupation of Iraq now.. The war was over when the Iraqi army disbanded shortly after the fall of Baghdad.. Now, question is.. Does the occupation count as part of the war? WWII article doesn't include the occupation of Germany and Japan in the article, but instead has articles for Allied Control Council and Occupied Japan.--Bobblehead 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a pretty interesting idea, it would face no opposition from me to split everything that happened after the fall of baghdad, however I am sure you would face some opposition as that would basically negate this article, since there is already an article on the initial invasion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to negate this article. Just have to create a new article called 'Occupied Iraq' or 'Occupation of Iraq', copy the content of this article (minus the stuff that's mentioned in the the invasion article) then move the invasion article to 'Iraq War' with a redirect from the invasion article to get all those articles pointing to the invasion article to the new name. Then you drop a link in the see also section for the new occupation article in the new 'Iraq War' article and vice versa. Aside from all the editing that would be involved, the hard part would be updating all the links and redirects that point to the existing articles and get them pointed to the correct articles. --Bobblehead 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is since the war only went on for (1) month, most of the contents in here would be phased out and moved to the article about the occupation. We would have an invasion article covering the very beginning maybe 3 days or so, then a war article covering the month after, then an occupation article covering everything till it ends. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry. Still, not really. You'd still keep the entire article up to, but not including, the Post Invasion section. The stuff leading up to the war is important and needs to be covered somewhere. That'd also save on a lot of the moves as you'd just have to move the occupation info to the new article and could keep this article and the invasion article in place. There would need to be other edits, of course.--Bobblehead 18:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. As I said you will face no complaints from me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Hmmm. I foresee lots of copying and pasting in my future from this article to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006. Lots of redundancy between these two articles. --Bobblehead 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

same I believe with 2003 Invasion of Iraq. I believe most of that article is in this article. It is suppose to go, 2003 invasionof Iraq -> Iraq War, kind of like a timeline, then -> Occupation of Iraq would be next. But you have a dif idea in mind, so it may create a mess at first, good luck to you though, sounds like a good idea. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sweet mother of pearl, you be right. At this point it looks like the overlap from the invasion and post-invasion articles are better written.. The idea I'm going with is that this article would be the summary article for the entire conflict. Move the rationale portion from the invasion of iraq into this article and remove it from the invasion article. Move the stuff not covered in the occupation article from this article and then leave only a quick summary of the occupation stuff from this article. Probably have to leave html notes on this article so people know not to put details here. Heh. Lots of work. Hopefully I'll be able to get enough free time to do it successfully. --Bobblehead 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What a stupid argumentation. First of all, governments are not the final arbiters of truth. Second, please rename Vietnam War to Vietnam Conflict. Third, please split up Second World War into several dozen articles each decribing one pairing of combatants.

Merge proposal

I've marked several sections in 2003 invasion of Iraq to be merged into the marked sections on this page. My reasoning for proposing the merger is that the sections are completely redundant to each other and having them in two different locations is violation of wikipedia's summary guidelines. In the end the invasion article will be the detail for the invasion section of this page. Just to make things easier I'm going to make a section for each section from the invasion article so they can be discussed separately. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Political and diplomatic aspects

Support. Obviously I support the merge. Just getting something into this section. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. This whole thing needs order!Hypnosadist 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Support merger to avoid too much redundancy. --Edward Sandstig 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Support The two articles are clones almost, some order is needed. You are brave indeed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dissent See my remark below with respect to overlengthy articles that result from a war that is chronicled daily unlike ancient wars before the Common Era.Patchouli 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Prelude

Support. Obviously I support the merge. Just getting something into this section. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. This whole thing needs order!Hypnosadist 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Support merger to avoid too much redundancy. --Edward Sandstig 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Support The two articles are clones almost, some order is needed. You are brave indeed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dissent See my remark below with respect to overlengthy articles that result from a war that is chronicled daily unlike ancient wars before the Common Era.Patchouli 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

Support. Obviously I support the merge. Just getting something into this section. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. This whole thing needs order!Hypnosadist 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Support merger to avoid too much redundancy. --Edward Sandstig 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Support The two articles are clones almost, some order is needed. You are brave indeed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dissent See my remark below with respect to overlengthy articles that result from a war that is chronicled daily unlike ancient wars before the Common Era.Patchouli 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Military aspects

Support. Obviously I support the merge. Just getting something into this section. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. This whole thing needs order!Hypnosadist 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Support merger to avoid too much redundancy. --Edward Sandstig 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Support The two articles are clones almost, some order is needed. You are brave indeed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dissent See my remark below with respect to overlengthy articles that result from a war that is chronicled daily unlike ancient wars before the Common Era.Patchouli 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Merge

Is there someway we can edit the merger tags on this article to keep them from messing up the layout? --Edward Sandstig 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to change all the redirects of Operation Iraqi Freedom to come here instead. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I think OIF was just for the invasion part, correct? Heh. They've used so many Operation names it's hard to keep track. --Bobblehead 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So was OIF even technically a war?

The start of the war, I think. Both the US and international press refers to the current occupation as the Iraq War... So this article works as the summary for the conflict rather well. --Bobblehead 16:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I went to the US Army page and Operation Iraqi Freedom is the overarching operation name for the the US presence in Iraq.[48] After typing 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' into the search box and finding it pointing to the Iraq War article, it appears that redirect is working correctly. --Bobblehead 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry didnt notice the replies down here. Some of the articles that contain OIF were recently changed by a user to point to 2003 invasion of Iraq, some where reverted, not sure how many that is though. So some links may point to 2003 invasion of Iraq instead of here. I guess that can be tackled on a case by case basis as they appear though. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. No prob. But I think a case by case basis is going to be the way changes like that are made.. Unfortunately I don't have access to the tools that would make mass changes like that doable. --Bobblehead 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do any copy/paste moving without checking first with a friendly admin (like myself). Whenever possible, we try to preserve the history with the content; this is for very important, legal, GFDL reasons. Copy/Paste moves of substantial content are generally a bad idea if there's any way to avoid them. My suggestion is to first iron out which content should go under which title, and then work out a plan for moves and history merges that preserves as much credit as possible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussing which content to move/remove from the articles was going to be the next step in the process. I didn't want to get into any content discussions while the merge proposal itself was out there. Best not to muddy the waters, especially with how contentious the subject of this article is. As for when the content will be discussed, I was thinking I'd kick off the process around July 9, since I'm the guy that kicked off the proposal and won't be around much between this friday and that day.--Bobblehead 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool. So what's the story, we've got 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraq War and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006 now... do those three articles need to be collapsed into two? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Even worse.. If you crack open the articles you'll see they all overlap each other at various points. This means the three articles need to remain, but the overlaps need to be removed.. Basically the intent is to make Iraq War the main article and 2003 invasion of Iraq and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006 detail articles. Means the sections I marked in 2003 invasion of Iraq need to be merged with the appropriate sections in this article and certain sections in this article need to be merged with the appropriate sections in the Post invasion article. I haven't gone into detail to look at which sections in this article should be merged into the post invasion article. --Bobblehead 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, that is complicated. It doesn't sound as if there's a case where the majority of one article is moving to another title though, is there? If that's correct, then there won't be any history merging necessary (or possible), I don't think. Perhaps this has been an irrelevant tangent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you can say a majority of one is moving into another, but it may result in entire sections moving from one article to the other. On a preference level I think the writing in the invasion article is better, so would prefer to replace the War Rationale section (excluding the criticism subsection) with the 4 sections mentioned above. That sort of copy/paste move probably falls under the 'not possible' realm for merging histories.--Bobblehead 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably so. I think the best we'll be able to do in cases like that is to clearly indicate in edit summaries where merged text is coming from, and leave it to future sleuths to track everything down using that trail of breadcrumbs, if they need to determine the source of a particular edit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• These articles are already unmanageable and have too much information. Merging them will create a fantastic hodgepodge of ideas. Let us keep them separate so as to allow organization and avoid throwing a hundred different things at a novice who wants to learn something about the Iraq Conflict.

  --Patchouli 22:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger versus Further Breakup Solution

I suggest that an expert on this war create a flowchart that incorporates as many facts and events about the war as possible and entitled it, "Diagram of Iraq War Facts," or some other appropriate title.Patchouli 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that title is very useful.. or understandable. --DjSamwise 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)