Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 5

Archives, etc

This article may contain material merged from a duplicate article, now archived at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Other, along with its complete history; its Talk: page has similarly been archived at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Other-Talk. Noel (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq/archive I found this archive that was missing, perhaps there are others.--Silverback 20:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Fpahl vs Silverback the link to this archive also disappeared. --Silverback 18:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1 - For talk before this time stamp please see the archive Philip Baird Shearer 15:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 2 - archived ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(archived) Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 2 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War - April 2003 Invasion

The proper military term for a massive armed incursion is "invasion", but proper context is needed. The term Iraq War - April 2003 Invasion is the most precise, best way to title this article. 66.98.130.204 07:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A rather good point I think. It is evident that the present title tends to incite people to think that this article is about the whole affair – diplomatic crisis, military buildup, invasion, occupation – while it is (if I understand correctly) only the "invasion" part of this list. Maybe a short disclaimer would be in order too. Rama 08:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Like the disclaimer at the beginning of the article? pookster11 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's actually a good idea, as it enforces to people that the article only refers to the actual invasion operation itself, up to the end of official combat operations. Swatjester 11:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Iraq War - April 2003 Invasion" is a pretty bad title, since... didn't the invasion begin the preceding month? --Mr. Billion 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Iraq War" should be a disambiguation page that links to articles about the build up (and justifications for) entering the region, the actual invasion to the infamous "mission accomplished" Bush PR event, and another article that covers all the events thereafter. This topic is just to large to be covered adequately in one article with one title, based on POV issues and restrictions on article size. --Howrealisreal 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lining everything up as Iraq War- ____ is an excellent idea and how this should have been arranged from the beginning. Unfortunately almost all of the pages about the Iraq war became a place to debate the issue. If the edit and reorganization happens, you'll have the same problems you had here; some individual thinks that they are getting shut out of the process or their viewpoint isn't seen enough on some unrelated article. pookster11 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I'm ok with this. We should be careful about the term "Iraq War" however, as there is the 1979 conflict, the 1991 conflict, and the present one. Possibly there are more in the past. "Iraq war" works alright today, at least for Americans & Brits, because it's fresh on our mind. Let's be careful to pick something descriptive enough that it holds up internationally and for a longish time. On wikisource, I asked an English friend if the term "American Revolution" translated ... he thought I was referring to the Civil War. So, let's try and be sensitive to that when naming. That said, I don't have a great name for this. Derex 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously as time progresses and events unfold the war will be contextualized into the grand scheme of history. Until that time, unless someone can suggest otherwise, I think the best title is Iraq War. pookster11 03:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

i already suggested otherwise, just below. Derex 10:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

perhaps 2003 Iraq War - April invasion? Derex 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Except we still have the issue that the war began in March... pookster11 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I like pookster's idea of Iraq War- ____. Johntex\^talk 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

oh, right. well just "invasion" then. but my point was to use "2003 Iraq war - whatever" as the template, to disambiguate which Iraq war, per above. Derex 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "War" shouldn't really be capitalized. I would view the phrase "Iraq war" as descriptive, rather than as a proper noun, which is one reason I think a leading "2003" is necessary. Derex 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What if its the title of the article, or the proper name of the event being referenced, for example World War II or the American Civil War or the Greco-Persian Wars? pookster11 03:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, those should be capitalized. iraq war is at present a description, not a proper name. Derex 10:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What would the proper name be then? pookster11 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

/clutches head in agony Derex 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How about Third Gulf War - 2003 Invasion Johntex\^talk 18:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think we should be trying to pick a "name" for this. What's wrong with a description? Derex 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, no one is going to type in "Third Gulf War" into wikipedia. 2003 Invasion of Iraq is more common, yet still has a POV. And there is an Iraq War article, correct? --SeanMcG 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, apparently there is an Iraq War, which the article asserts is a formal name. I have left a note on talk asking for the reference on that claim. Casually googling, it looks to me like the most common in-text usage is with a lowercase "war". To be repetitive, the majority here see no POV in the word invasion. Derex 00:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, if March 2003 is correct, then it's Iraq War - March 2003 Invasion. Clearly, the term "Iraq War" can be used to refer to the current or most recent war in Iraq. Prior wars can be titled 1991 Iraq War, or whatever. What's needed is a semantic consistancy in the titling of articles relating to this over-arching topic, that being, the war in Iraq. And the reasons we call it Iraq War - ___ is that people search wiki the same way they search google - a few key words. The key words here are "Iraq" and "war" 192.168.232.76 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think that Iraq War - ___ 2003 Invasion is an appropriate title. If one is looking for a specifically less inflammatory title, you can use "incursion" instead of "invasion". Tigerhawkvok 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Incursion is different from Invasion. Incursion implies a shorter length of time, by a smaller force for a limited goal. Invasion implies a much wider, larger operation. Secondarily, March was the date of the invasion, not April. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments that some might have forgoten to mentioned is the words the '2003 Invasion of Iraq against the wishes of The United Nations and other countries' which someone took out from the article on John Howard and I am wondering why they done this becausen't wasn;t The UN against the invasion? 2.38am 13/2/2006

Saddam arrested AFTER invasion

I think the picture of the arrested Saddam should be removed from this article, as it goes in the time of the following occupation (December 2003).--TheFEARgod 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Saddam SHOULD NOT be removed!!!

IT is history, like it or not... It is a fact and it should be left alone. Its like saying, OMg i do not belive in the holocasut and it should be removed. This artilce is perfectly ok to me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.3.91 (talk • contribs) .

Hussein's capture is outside the scope of the invasion, which ended on May 1, 2003. Discussion of Hussein's capture would go better in History of Iraq (where it appears), or Saddam Hussein (where it also appears). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heptadecagram (talk • contribs) .

It was also a key point of the invasion. It should stay. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

TheFEARgod and Heptadecagram are right, it was after the invasion, so it needs to be removed. Get-back-world-respect 23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I spoke unclearly. His removal was indeed a key point of the motives for the Invasion, but his arrest did not come until well after the Invasion (and instead during the occupation and post-war Iraq). Thus, while it was part of the mission scope, it is not within this article's scope. Liam Bryan 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes...but the mission IS the article. Thus it should stay, right? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the invasion, not what some think was the mission behind it. That depends on opinion anyway. Get-back-world-respect 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this issue. Yes, it did happen after the invasion. But he was the leader of the country before the invasion, and went into hiding sometime during it. And he was captured by the occupying forces. I think some mention should be made of his capture, but be careful to not to parrot the Bush administrations attempt at rewriting history i.e we really went to war to catch this evil man, not his non-existant WMD's. Just a short mention and a link to the relevent article. Imroy 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to that. The picture is unnecessary, but a textual description and link is informative without being distracting. Liam Bryan 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeable as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

While it did happen after the invasion, he was the leader of the country and therefore should be included in its discussion. That's really all there is to it. Tigerhawkvok 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is about the invasion, in which he was not captured. The Iraq war has its own article. I agree with the above users that the picture is not appropriate here. Nameme 02:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening attack

The details in the first paragraph are a little incorrect. The Special Operations activities took place on 19 Mar - before the air bombardment - plenty of newspaper reports and acknowledgement of this now. Also, in fairness, we should remove reference here to just the Australian SAS as they were "but one" of the many special forces units to cross the border into Iraq on that day (TF20, UK SAS, Australian SAS, US Special Forces etc).203.15.73.3 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Special Operations units had been active in Iraq for at least 5-7 days before the invasion. Hell, I was in just a vanilla recon unit, not special operations or anything, and we were over the border 2 days before the invasion begun. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Like your work. Sorry but the 5-7 days is fiction. None went before the President signed the Executo and I was with JSOTF-W where most of the tier 1's were. In any case the section needs work because the Aussies were not first, and were not alone in crossing - was more of a simultaneous effort. When is it likely to be unlocked again? 203.15.73.3 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, and I know this for a fact, because I helped QRF for 5th group as they went across (5 days early), and I'm pretty sure they were far from the first in country. Secondarily, we'd breached and crossed the berm with 3rd ID more than 2 weeks before. Sorry, but you're wrong. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We could go round the bouoy on this several times I'm sure - I'm just as sure of my statement above (comes from sitting in on a vidcon when CFSOCC and JSOTF cdrs got the go ahead). The key point we both agree on though is: the Aussies were not first (and didn't cross on same day as air war), and therefore this section of the article needs work. Best to just use what is publicly available and printed and perhaps mention that there is "speculation' that SO forces from various countries crossed well ahead of the commencement of the air war. Eg ext source: [1]. How do we get this unprotected again? 203.15.73.3 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what you're talking about with the aussies! I had no idea the article said that. Was wondering what the hell you were talking about, I get it now. I don't know for sure, but I'm preeetty sure the Aussies did not beat us cross the berm. Anyway, I agree with your last paragraph, and I'm willing to go with "speculation", doesn't really bother me none if joe schmo doesn't know what operators were doing over there. As for unprotection: it has to be requested elsewhere, and with the amount of vandalism here I dont see that happening for a while. I'd advise you to register, because once it DOES get unprotected, it might get immediately Semi-protected (prevents unregistered editors, and brand new registered editors from posting) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gen. Odom

This information should be included on the page when it is unprotected.-csloat 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're including that information, make sure he's properly titled as LTG William Odom (U.S. Army, Ret.), or the less official Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William Odom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Protests on ALL Continents?

I seriously doubt Antarctic scientists got out of their research stations and proceeded to protest in the bitterly freezing temperatures. But if they participated from within their complexes, well, then I suppose the statement is accurate. However, I doubt this is the case--though I am unsure--and recommend that it be said that protests took place on all "inhabited continents" or the like. --Marsbound2024 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Surprising isn't it? OK, maybe not. There's pictures on BBC, and the full list at List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests. Ojw 20:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus Jan 19th

What the heck! --Marsbound2024 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article on McMurdo Station: "On February 15, 2003, around 50 scientists working at the base joined the international protest against the invasion of Iraq." Fsotrain09 01:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

P.Gulf wars template

Admins please add the template I added on Gulf War and Iran-Iraq War articles. Thank you.--TheFEARgod 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

France's opposition

It confuses me that Americans are pissed off that France won't join in this war and use the excuse of 'we sacrificed our soldiers on your beaches in ww2.' France sacrificed its navy and its treasury during the AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WAR in order to save America. So both of your nations are equal I'd say.

France was only interested in fighting in the American War of Independence as an excuse to fight Great Britain and to hopefully end Britain's attempt to create an Empire and to hopefully clear the way for a dominant French Empire.

It is entirely irrelevant what happened decades or centuries ago. The overwhelming majority of the world population was against the war, also in many countries that participated in the coalition. So no need to single out the French or any other country. De mortuis... 00:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not american myself, but the impression seems to be that France is the only country thats being criticized by the americans on this issue. most likely because they were the first to wield the veto card. "freedom fries" anyone?

Perhaps the World would prefer America to return to its Isolationist policy from between the end of the First World War to Pearl Harbour. Perhaps the World would also like the consequences America's refusal to get involved in foreign affairs during this time had upon the World and what ultimately happened because of it. After all September 11th was the Pearl Harbour of the 21st century. America doesn't ask for war, it's thrust upon it.

Educate yourself.

• Operation Gladio
• Bay of Pigs Invasion
• Operation PBSUCCESS
• Operation Ajax
• Operation Power Pack
• Invasion of Grenada
• Operation El Dorado Canyon
• Operation Just Cause
• Chilean coup of 1973 and United States intervention in Chile
• Operation Condor
• Reagan Doctrine
• Battle of Mogadishu
• Mujahideen
• Contras
• Brazilian Military Coup

Your country isn't as peaceful and innocent as you may think. Imroy 05:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should educate yourself in why the United States did what it had to protect Freedom and Democracy. The United States did what it did in those cases you states above under the idea that all peoples around the World should be entitled to Democracy regardless of what dictators, communists, or terrorists may want instead. Would you have prefered the United States not to have done what was needed to protect Freedom and Democracy and for the World to now be dominated by dictatorships and communist regimes with terrorist attacks being used over and over in an attempt to destroy those who seek Freedom and Democracy. But I doubt you would be able to excercise your Freedom of Speech in the way you have in this desired future of the World you hold. Perhaps next time you should list the things dictators, communists, and terrorist have done and just how many millions they have killed such as how many millions dictators such as Stalin killed and how many millions died in their revolutions such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. Also perhaps you would like to explain to the Billions of People around the World today who would give anything to have the United States bring them Freedom and Democracy from whatever oppresions they may be suffering why it is you think they should be denied this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.55.154 (talk • contribs)

Of course, once countries such as France in WWII or Iraq today are liberated and given back self-government and democracy, they have to fall in line and do exactly what the liberators ask them to do... Pertinent quote: when Churchill was voted out of office immediately after WWII, he apparently stated that was exactly what he had fought for the right of his countrymen to do.--81.178.70.200 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dictators? You want to talk about dictators? Here's three names - Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The U.S helped to install all three of them. Imroy 06:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, anyone interested in editing the encyclopedia article? Discussion forums are available, elsewhere. De mortuis... 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Soldiers want out

It's not just American soldiers that want to get out of Iraq, most other nation's troops want to go home as well. It's not because they are cowards, but that as far as they see it, they have done what they set out to do. They were told that they were going to Iraq to remove Sadaam Hussein and find his WMDs. They have removed Saddam Hussein, and there are no WMDs. So now the soldiers feel betrayed and that their opions and needs have been forgotten. I'm sure that they are very pleased to see George 'Dub-Ya' Bush and Tony Blair saying that everthing's great, when in fact the situation is getting worse by the day. Brit in Manchester, England. 'Mission Accomplished'? Bollucks.

New polling information should be incorporated into the article, but I'm not sure where?

• "An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately"
• "89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so."
• “Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war.

Source: [2]--csloat 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the invasion which is in the past. Incorporate brief mentions of said dissatisfaction among the troops in Iraq War, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006, American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq, American government position on invasion of Iraq, after a blurb in those articles point the reader towards Multinational force in Iraq where you should write in detail. Iraq War should have a fair amount about this too. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best, thanks. When did the invasion "end"?--csloat 23:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By most accounts May 2003 [3], ie Mission Accomplished. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "by most accounts", "Mission Accomplished" was a pathetic joke. Nearly five times as many coalition deaths have occurred since May 2003 as those that occurred during the "mission" (not to mention thousands more Iraqi deaths). Shouldn't such information be mentioned on this page? I've not read this page carefully in a long time, but for some reason I recall the section you link to above being more detailed than it is now (and sounding less like a brochure from the State Department). I'm not suggesting the way these pages are organized should be changed, but I do think readers should be made aware that May 2003 is an arbitrary cut off point based on a foolish propaganda stunt that wound up backfiring as the guerrilla war against the occupation started heating up.... --csloat 09:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well actually it was the end of Phase 3 and start of Phase 4 of the OP PLAN made by US CENTCOM. Phase 3 was end of "COMBAT" operations - major offensive manoeuvre forces commenced move home. Just because GWB made a fool of himself in a pilots uniform it doesn't mean the statement is wrong. I think you will find that the mission statement of most forces now read something like ..."assist reconstruction....restore utilities...etc instead of "...destroy enemy on feature XB12345678....capture bridge at FB 32156721...etc" Completely different things if you read and understand your military history.141.168.12.244 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that... I'm saying it's bullshit. The forces have had three years to restore utilities and have not done so yet. Are you really suggesting that our troops are dying in Iraq -- and that we are spending billions by the month -- in order to serve as electricians and plumbers? This is an ongoing occupation. This stage of the occupation is different from the invasion, but if you don't think a war is still going on, have a chat with the families of one of these folks.-csloat 18:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should this poll be any different than the thousands of others that have been taken over the last few years? Should everyone of them be included? When did polls become encyclopedic? It doesn't matter if Soldiers and Marines want to be there or not they will go where they are told and they will accomplish the mission assigned to them. As they have always done. Opinions are not encyclopedic. Ask yourself if 5 years from now this poll will mean anything and will it be relevant in this article? --Looper5920 12:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about being "different", but I think the poll is certainly relevent to the current US presence in Iraq. It's relevent because it's a poll of the guys who are actually there, doing the dirty work and seeing the violence first hand. It's easy to sit back and watch the propaganda on Fox News and other channels telling us how everything's going so well in Iraq (girls can now go to school in Iraq! uh...). But the soldiers are harder to sway since they're actually there. Combine this with a recent survey that found (IIRC) something like 40% or Iraqis thought their life was better under Saddam, and you have a picture of how badly the situation has become. Imroy 13:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the one to say that just because you were there does not mean that your opinion is more right than anyone else that was not there.--Looper5920 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but there are certain aspects of the war that "being there" brings you closer to. But that's really not the issue here anyway. Polls are entirely relevant, obviously right now, but certainly years from now as well, when historians look back on this war. It is particularly relevant what the troops in Iraq think when the Commander in Chief has said that the decision to withdraw should come from "commanders in the field" rather than "politicians in Washington."--csloat 18:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The devil is in the detail: "The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq." 944 interviewed from 160,000 deployed on OIF = about 0.59% and credibility = v doubtful. So I think it should not go into the article on those grounds alone, furthermore this is an article about the invasion not about the follow on so if you really want this poll to be somewhere put it on the Post Invasion Iraq page203.15.73.3 01:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a Zogby poll. If you see the methodology indicted in a published source, bring it to our attention. Otherwise I think the assessment of anonymous Wikipedia editors who moonlight as armchair statisticians would be considered original research.--csloat 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and the figure of 944 is taken from the poll (that you linked) hence the quotation marks!!. The 160,000 is in a variety of news sources eg [4]. So if you call doing simple math original research - I'm guilty. Whilst we are pointing at WP Policy pages - perhaps you should try this one: Wikipedia:Civility203.15.73.3 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be uncivil, but Zogby polls are cited by mainstream media all the time and are considered reliable; their methodologies have not, to my knowledge, been questioned. As far as I can tell, they are a well-regarded polling organization. Your "simple math" probably makes sense to you, but if you do the same math for any well-regarded polling you will find it works out similarly. I realize the numbers are public information; the "original research" here is your claim that "credibility = v doubtful," which I believe would be refuted by the pollsters themselves as well as by others who do actual statistical research.-csloat 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page and not the actual article - POV is expected - its how consensus is reached ie. several people sharing a POV. He/she is quite right to put forward their opinion on the research. Your vague argument about NOR would only be valid if the opinion was placed in the article. BTW csloat is as anonymous as 203.15.73.3 - you simply have an anon registration. Me thinks you simply didn't like his/her POV. BTW I agree the poll should be included but only on the post invasion article. Like it or not there were different phases. Australian Forces for example had Operation Falconer for the invasion (lots of offensive ground and air forces) and now for post invasion it is Operation Catalyst [5] (about defensive role - protecting Japanese reconstruction engineers). Krait 07:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with anonymity or with POV -- I don't know what his/her POV is on anything other than the methodology of this poll, and I didn't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with remaining anonymous. My point was that nitpicks about the methodology of a Zogby poll don't invalidate it (as you seem to agree). Sorry to cause trouble - I didn't mean to be snide at all, but I really don't see that sort of point as a meaningful response to this poll (it's a complaint that could be levelled at any poll; there is nothing wrong statistically with Zogby's sample that I am aware of). Anyway, I have added this information to one of the post-invasion pages as was suggested here; my other point above was that this article should have some information about the fact that the break between stages here is based primarily on propaganda, but I suppose that information is in the Mission Accomplished article already. Perhaps I was just in a surly mood, my apologies....--csloat 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

none neccessary - good result for all I believe. Krait 09:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Result of the invasion

I added terrorism and sectarian violence to the section about what resulted from the war but someone removed it. Why? Especially the latter article should be noted here given that it is kind of the continuation of the violence in Iraq that started with the invasion. Nameme 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about the sectarian violence part, not about the terrorism part. Terrorism is too general to be listed as a result of the invasion. It would be like putting Death there. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "Islamist suicide terrorism"? Specific enough? "killings by al-Qaeda and their allies"? "Suicide attacks"? Come on, "terrorism" is specific enough that we know what it means in this context. There was no Iraqi terrorism prior to March 2003; there never was an Iraqi suicide bomber prior to then, and there was no significant al-Qaeda activity in Iraq prior to then. Now there is tons of it. The word "terrorism" is not vague in this context, I don't think.--csloat 07:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think it should be noted that there are attacks on civilians. If we just put "insurgency" the readers will think violence is only directed at the occupying forces. Nameme 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Related propaganda and phrases

Does anyone else think this section is lacking NPOV? There was propoganda on both sides I believe. Krait 09:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

True. Wiki bias. Few editos speak arab. Would be great to read the arab featured article. Maybe we can get a translator at meta, I'll ask. Nameme 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos

This photo won the world press award: [6] Any chance to get it? Or similar ones? Nameme 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Arabic version

Please take a look at the talk page of Iraq war in order to see a translation of the featured Arabic version of this article. Thanks to Eagle^amn! AlIAS 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC) TwoThirty notes the following on his talk page: The important differences between the Arabic article and the English article are:

• The Arabic article has a section about the legality of the war
• A list of nations that supported the Iraq war (percentage of support was sometimes included)
• A reference to opposition to the war (Three is a picture of protestors in London)
• Reasons given by the American government for the war.
• Reasons given by protestors for the war. AlIAS 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this article is lacking in some good information in several areas (see above comment and arabic language article). In addition there seems to be some 'unqualified' statements, such as "Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence caused from a mostly Sunni Muslim insurgency, and by terrorism of the Al-Qaeda militant network.". This statement, for example, could use some npov phrases like 'is alledgedly caused by' and etc. Sicarii 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As I'm arabian , I can say that the article mostly are acceptable and neutral ... but it really lacks what mentioned above about the previous debate about the legality of the War ... considering the Oil as the important reason of this war is frequently mentioned not only by arab journalists but also by european ... if u return to the logos carried by European Protests b4 the war , you can find many statments like : No War for the Oil . --Chaos 10:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkey accused of invading north iraq

http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=11552

Should this be mentionned? According to this article, Turkey invaded iraq early in the invasion to prevent a stream of kurds fleeing north iraq.

Evilbu 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/Iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles4/slow.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2874635.stm

Those are some of my sources. I understand if you relocate it but it should be included. Evilbu 12:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the Kurdish problem lasting decades, and the unrejectable fact that Turkey did invaded the Iraqi soil both before and during the war, I cannot understand the rationale not to mention Turkey's involvement. Logistical assustance is one thing, troops counting tens of thousands is another one. It was actually a second front on land (and was not that late as the Normandy one). -- Goldie (tell me) 07:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Harsh criticism of US Iraq policy

The following information is related to parts of the article, but I am not sure if it fits here: Insurgencies, frequent terrorist attacks and sectarian violence lead to harsh criticism of US Iraq policy. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. After the Al Askari shrine bombing in February 2006 the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad warned that sectarian violence spread might lead to a civil war in post-invasion Iraq and possibly even the neighbouring countries. [12] De mortuis... 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Temp subpage?

I've noticed an article at 2003 invasion of Iraq/temp, which I presume is a stalled attempt to rewrite this page. It's not been touched for a month and a half. If it's not going anywhere, could someone familiar with the page merge it in and redirect, or flag it for deletion? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Interference with Inspectors

I don't see what the opposition is to mentioning failure of cooperation as a causus belli. It was a major part of the pre-war debate. You want the speeches, [13] May 18,

{Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men. }

France, Russia and Germany, hoping to derail the war, begged Iraq to comply with inspectors: [[14]]

They weren't begging him to give up drones, but they were begging him to cooperate with inspectors, indicating they felt that step would remove impetus for the war.

--Mmx1 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The only person doing Any begging over the airwaves that March was Hans Blix. [15] He's stilly pretty peeved about it after the fact too. [16] They did cooperate which is why Bush stresses that the inspectors have been deceived, Not shut out. In fact the Bush administration Never contested Blix's assessment that they needed "months". [17] They simply ignored it then they said the inspectors have been duped and theres no doubt he has WMDs so we're going in. [18] In the March 17 and 19 speeches the word "cooperate" is never even used. The Bush administration didn't push the case that Iraq isn't cooperating because thats in direct contradiction with what the inspectors are saying. He simply says the inspectors are being deceived and that:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

He even goes on to admit that he has failed to receive international support:

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." [19]

However, earlier on in the Iraq disarmament crisis on September 12, 2002 Bush Did state "cooperation" as a push to action:

"In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take." [20]

On October 7, 2002 he even goes so far as to explain what he means by cooperation:

"Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions." [21]

And exactly what Bush demanded, Bush got: Iraq cooperated with the inspections, and Blix said that, and Bush never contested it. This is why Bush drops all the talk about cooperation and instead switches to deception and further pumps up the supposed WMD threat. See the difference between Bush talking about the possibility of Iraq having WMDs in his September 12 speech and then talking about the Certainty of Iraq possessing WMDs in his March speeches. Iraq met Bush's demands regarding cooperation so Bush made more demands and then just flat out said the inspectors were duped. And thats why saying "cooperation" as a casus belli is weasely. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Iraq under Saddam, was frequently locking its firing RADAR on our "no-fly zone" enforcement aircraft. This single fact alone establishes hostile intent and non-compliance with the 1991 terms of cessation. The arguments against Bush such as the one shown above, are basically straw-dog arguments. Here are the facts 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait, 2) Iraq never fully ceased hotile activity, 3) even on this point alone, USA had 100% full legal right to invade. Merecat 03:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify "our" no-fly zone? Iraq invasion to Kuwait is a fact but this "hostile activity" was willingness to control their own country on the end. I would be really interested to see the international treaty which is declaring this "100% full legal right" - AFAIK it was U.S. imposing no-fly zone over Iraqi soil, and not Iraq imposing a no-gly zone over U.S. soil. Could you allow me to point that the Anglo-American focus without citing the sources does not help to achieve good neutral article. -- Goldie (tell me) 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that by locking their firing radar on U.S. and British aircraft that were, in fact, invading Iraqi airspace and dropping bombs on Iraqi soil, Iraq was establishing "hostile intent" thereby permitting a U.S. invasion, is absurd for a number of reasons. (1) The Iraqis had no realistic chance of shooting down a plane; (2) The US and British planes had no right to be there in the first place, as the UN Resolution which was used to justify the no-fly zones says nothing which authorizes the use of military force (it doesn't even say anthing about zones Iraqi planes can't fly in); (3) Even if one accepts the very questionable notion that the US and Britain had the right to fly those missions over Iraq, Iraq making preparations to fire on those aircraft still doesn't give the US and Britain the right to invade. Only the Security Council can decide on the use of force in this case, as the US and Britain were not themselves under attack. If they were concerned about their pilots being fired on, they could have simply stopped flying over Iraqi airspace. Most importantly, for the purposes of this article, Bush never made this argument in the UN. As for Kuwait, if the Kuwaits felt they were in danger of being reinvaded they could have come to the UN and requested intervention. They did not. The article has it right: the official reason given for the invasion by the US was that Iraq was supposedly hiding a WMD program. Brian Tvedt 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

re iraq 2003 war

this article is middle-school quality, it focuses almost entirely on past issues, somewhat connected to the followup to the invasion. someone should redo the article and actually discuss the invasion of iraq and its aftermath.apparently there was not an actual shooting war, just diatribes lobbed back and forth at the un general assembly and silly council. {unsigned|68.1.44.149}

I agree it needs more coverage of the war itself, but calling it middle school quality is hyperbole. The pre-war debate was easy to source and a HOT topic of POV debate, hence the attention. Now that we have emerging journalistic sources, the combat phase should be updated. --Mmx1 04:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is impossible to write at this moment in time. Until jingoists are laughed out of all intellectual mediums there will be rabid backlash.

Translations

The Wiktionary article 2003 Invasion of Iraq is likely to be deleted shortly, and I do not know where (or if) you folks over here want these translations, but rather than lose them I am passing them over to you to do with as you please.

• Danish: da:Golfkrigen 2003
• Dutch: nl:Golfoorlog van 2003
• French: fr:guerre opposant l'Irak aux États-Unis
• German: de:Dritte Golfkrieg
• Hebrew: he:מלחמת עיראק
• Japanese: ja:イラク戦争 (Iraku senzou)
• Low Saxon: nds:Situatschoon in'n Irak
• Romanian: ro:Invazia Irakului din 2003
• Spanish: es:Invasión de Iraq de 2003
• Welsh: cy:Rhyfel Irac Dau

(all translations by User:Tedius Zanarukando) - TheDaveRoss 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the links for the languages to avoid redirects and disambiguation pages. I checked all the wiktionaries and the articles have been deleted from all of them (if they ever existed), so I made the links go to the foreign languages WP articles instead. In the process, I couldn't help but notice that apparently NPOV doesn't apply to fr:, not even in the naming of articles... Tomer^talk 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In USA, the President sets foreign policy

At any given time, what the president/administration says is the USA's position, is the USA position. Anyone trying to say this is not so, is wrong. Merecat 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"USA's official position" is ok with me. Merecat 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's okay w/me, too. Kevin Baas^talk 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV (Sunni vs. Shia)

I think that this paragraph is POV:

Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find Weapons of Mass Destruction [7][8]. Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence caused from a mostly Sunni Muslim insurgency.

I think it is POV to say who "caused" the violence. The violence is identified as an insurgency. In order for there to be an insurgency, there has to be someone they are plotting an insurgency against. Who are they plotting an insurgency against? And why are they plotting it? And wouldn't it be fair to say, then, that the invading group is partly responsible for the violence caused by their Sunni's attempted insurgency against them? Shouldn't it read something like, "Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence as a result of a continued power struggle between the Sunni Muslims and the US and US appointed Iraqi government"? Andrew Parodi 05:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: The US military response to the attempted insurgency has been to use violence. Perhaps the most NPOV way to state it is to just clip it with: "Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Parodi (talk • contribs)

There are two kinds of violence, insurgents who target the occupants, and terrorists, who also target civilians. Terrorists are not mostly Sunnis. De mortuis... 11:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Sunnis are attacking Shites. It's a civil war. These are not "terrorists". There are no "terrorists" in a civil war. The terrorists in Iraq came from Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, through iraq's now insecure borders, and are therefore neither Sunnis nor Shites. And they are training, for the most part. I haven't heard any reports of them attacking civilians. That's not what terrorists do. Terrorists don't go around randomly shooting people. That would be a serial killer or a mob or in any case some sort of criminal. A terrorist implies coordinted large-scale international efforts. Terrorists don't engage in scattered random acts of domestic violence. They engage in coordinated acts of large-scale international violence. The violence in Iraq, by definition, is a civil war, not terrorism. Kevin Baas^talk 16:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists terrorize the civilian population, that is what is happening in Iraq. It does not have to be on an international scale, otherwise the IRA or ETA would not be terrorists. As I wrote and as you agree, the terrorists are not mostly Sunnis. De mortuis... 17:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunnis and Shites are fighting inside Iraq. Shites's soldiers in the war are "police" and so forth. Sunnis and Shites are fighting. Sunnies are not killing sunnies. however, they are killing shites. shites are not killing shites, however, they are killing sunnis. it is a civil war. There are two clear sides fighting each other. Kevin Baas^talk 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I's not a civil war in the Western sense. Extremist Muslims have for many years, in many locations around the world, been hostile and violent to each other between sects. The fratricide among Muslims in Iraq right now, is part sect-driven but this in-fighting is also being driven by insurgents who wish to fan the flames of discord and chaos. The situation in Iraq is more complex than what you say. Merecat 03:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the terrorists ask for the civilians' ethnicity passports before they bomb them. Targeting civilians is terrorism, even if directed at a certain group - the IRA also targeted Protestants and it still was no civil war. De mortuis... 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the preamble we read "... mostly Sunni Muslim insurgency." I do not see any source referenced about this claim and generally consider such one without being backed by facts as POV. If it was me, I would put the insurgency facts in a section and mention just the insurgency, leaving the reader to make up his/her mind. Of course, the selection and ordering of the facts in the section also should conform the NPOV. -- Goldie (tell me) 07:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no single side being "good guys" and the other being the "bad guys". The Shia-dominated "police" is also responsible for the violence and harsh treatment [22] [23]. It is never that simple, and blaming someone is a blatant POV. -- Goldie (tell me) 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is empirical evidence as to who is drive the conflict, we can cite that. We are not however, supposed to offer professional estimations of our own. The conflict there is complex. We must be careful to cite notable experts as published by reliable sources. Merecat 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

"That the Bush Administration had little or no tangible evidence of a threat."
Where is the source on this, or any information that can be found reguarding this issue? I think there should be more information expanded on why there was no tangible evidence of a threat. As far as I can tell, it is pretty empty. Although Iraq_War-_Rationale Does talk about how there were no links to Al-Qaeda, if thats what was being refered to. KungPaoChicken 07:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Prior to the invasion, US intelligence showed that the presence of WMD or link to AQ was unlikely. The currrent debate is whether Bush was aware of this. Nomen Nescio 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone really,i mean REALLY EVER believe that Bush is giving one bit of thought to WMDs?A reminder:Petroleum prices are 500% in IRAQ now.Even Republicans should be knowing it.for honesty's sake,admit it.Please.--CAN T 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But I thought the chant was "No blood for oil"? If we went to war to steal oil, why aren't we stealing it? Oh yeah, no one talks about that anymore, now it's all "'Bush lied about WMD". Merecat 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's always been the mainstream criticism, merecat. even before we went to war. Kevin Baas^talk 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro Edit war

Can we get some discussion on the proper extent of the intro? --Mmx1 03:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The World War II intro talks about events happening After the war officially ended, don't see why it would be inappropriate in this article. And I certainly don't think it's "poisoning the well" to give a brief mention of how the cassus belli of the war resolved. Better than leaving the reader guessing at least. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagee. This is a politically charged topic. I'd just as soon put "The Iraqis are now freer than they have ever been" at the end of the intro, but that doesn't belong there either. This is not about the war, it's about the 2003 invasion. The logical ending point of the invasion was the capture of Saddam. Merecat 20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate parts to the removed sections. The lack of WMD is not a result of the war but a questioning of the rationale and belongs in the body. The ongoing sectarian violence I can see going either way. --Mmx1 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The military aftermath of the invasion is of course an appropriate topic for the introduction. The political aftermath (elections, for example) is also a reasonable topic to insert in that section, although claims about how much "freer" the Iraqis are obviously don't belong here.--csloat 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's true and verifiable....why not a statement about the first free elections? --Mmx1 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"The lack of WMD is not a result of the war but a questioning of the rationale and belongs in the body." Since the fib about WMD is what got this war started it surely belongs in the intro. The why of this war is the most important thing to discuss. Nomen Nescio 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Says you. Does the allegations of foreknowledge of Pearl belong in the Intro of WWII? --Mmx1 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro currently ends on too negative of a tone. The fact that freedom is increasing and democratic elections have been held, must be mentioned. Also, "plagued by" is too POV. Neutral wording must be used. Merecat 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly your idea of freedom is not shared by others. The US influencing who can be President does not sound like a democracy. Further, even with every democratic principle in place, I would hazard to guess that since the country is on the brink (or already past) of civil war, stating that the current situation is an improvement is open for debate. Nomen Nescio 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My assessment that freedom has increased in Iraq post Saddam, is not unique to me. Merecat 16:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvement is a judgement and misplaced in an encyclopedia. De mortuis... 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

yellowcake

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

Let's get some other heads on this. Hermitage has been removing the "partof: War on Terrorism" from this and the Iraq War article. The "War on Terrorism" was launched by the United States, and claims the War on Iraq is a part of it. Regardless of your opinions on the matter, it doesn't change the fact that the main protagonist in the war considers it a campaign of the "War on Terror." --Mmx1 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a weak argument. Every war has at least two sides. In this case, one side is the US and its allies (UK, South Korea, etc.), and the other side is a guerilla insurgency. First of all, I'm not even sure that all of the coalition partners would agree that the Iraq war is "part of the war on terror", but whether they do or not, I highly doubt that the insurgency would agree. If not, then the statement that the Iraq war is "part of the war on terror" is not a factual statement supported by consensus, but rather a POV statement that implicitly identifies the author of the article with one particular side of the war. Encyclopdias are not supposed to take sides. --Hermitage 01:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that terrorists are most definately being fought against now makes this an absolute part of the War on Terrorism. Rangeley 02:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is about the invasion, not the terrorism that was made possible by the invasion. There was no such terrorism in or from Iraq before the invasion. De mortuis... 04:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not it's inclusion in the "War on Terror" is political or not, whether or not terrorists are actually being fought, whether or not the war/invasion/occupation is legitimate, the War on Terror and activities in Iraq are intimately linked militarily. From that standpoint, yes, it is part of the larger operation, and it should be considered part of the larger campaign, whether or not that campaign has a definite goal, or if its name is a euphemism is another matter entirely. --Nobunaga24 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Iraq had no connection to terrorism prior to this invasion, it is highly inappropriate to adopt the talking points of this administration. We know there was no link to terrorism, we know there were no WMD (the official position of the administration) so on what grounds is this part of the war on terror, except as form of manipulating public opninion through a form of doublespeak/newspeak? No factual basis exists for using this misnomer, only political arguments are advanced. By that same token the invasion of Iran is part of the war on terrorism. Iran supports Hezbollah, Iran is about to share technology with terrorists (where have we heard this before?) so as part of fighting terrorism the US has to invade Iran. Nomen Nescio 09:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone is getting hung up on the "official" name. The point is the operations, militarily and politically, are intertwined. If it was called "The Global War on Islam," or "The War for Global Domination," then I don't think the edit war (of which I'm not a part) would be happening. It's obvious the name is chosen for political reasons, and by and large a euphemism, but I don't think that is the scope of this article. The overarching military operation is called the Global War on Terror, whatever its real goals, and Iraq is part of it. Whether there are really terrorists there or not, or if it's a diversion from the "real" war on terror is another matter. --Nobunaga24 11:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Does that justify us renaming 9-11 The Road to Tyranny to 9-11 A load of Bullshit or Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation Take the Oil because we decide that it's a more accurate title? GWOT is a unified military campaign by the United States of which the War on Iraq is a part. The instigator of this campaign has asserted this link and militarily the two are intertwined. Feel free to criticize the title (as the wiki article does) but that does not justify renaming historical titles because of your disagreement. --Mmx1 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So, since the President asserted Iraq was invaded because SH did not let the weapon inspectors in, we should accept that because that is the official position this administration voiced? Clearly, what you are saying is that we should no longer look at facts, but let misrepresentation of historical facts be part of Wikipedia, because ...., why exactly?

Furthermore, I am not suggesting renaming it, but simply delete the erroneous claim this war is part of the war on terror. Since, SH had nothing to do with 9-11 I fail to see why we should adopt this manipulation of information. Nomen Nescio 15:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly reject the positions being advanced by Nescio. This category is indeed one that applies to this article. Any sugestion to the contrary is not supportable. Merecat 15:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, elaborate. What terrorist threat had to be dealt with in Iraq? In the absence of terrorists, invading Iraq can hardly be part of fighting terrorism. Nomen Nescio 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, whether we as editors accept something as true, is not what gives it currency with the public. This usage definately falls within the framework of the usage of the term. Stop making fights all the time. You keep pushing a two part POV of a) there is no "war on terror" and b) USA is legally "wrong" for taking military action. Please stop it. It's like listening to a broken record. Merecat 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

According to National Review Online "Iraq Is the War on Terror" Merecat 19:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sixteen Words, Again" Merecat 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You misinterpret my words.

• I do not deny there is a war on terror. What I object to is the claim that the invasion had anything to do with fighting terrorism. Which you know is entirely incompatible with the facts. Whether this makes the invasion illegal is not part of what I am saying here, so please don't comment on what I might say on other pages. Clearly we are supposed to report spin, even when it already is accepted as a falsehood.
• As to what we as editors are supposed to do. Are you suggesting that since Saddam Hussein says he was only protecting the Iraqi people, we should present that explanation verbatim without noting that his words are incorrect and he, in effect, was violating human rights? Nomen Nescio 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest Nescio, the truth is piling up and it does not support your anti-USA world view on this topic:

"As journalists, scholars, and analysts pore over more of the intelligence haul seized when U.S. forces toppled the Iraqi regime, the case for removing an America-hating terror-monger responsible for the brutal torture and murder of — literally — tens of thousands of people looks better and better." [24]

Merecat 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Iraq had ties to terror, this has been proven. Saddam gave monetary support to families of suicide bombers as incentive, as just one instance. What you are thinking of is ties to Al Qaeda, which are debatable. Saddam supported terrorism, but regardless of this, a given reason was to fight terror, and further, terrorists are being fought today. It is an interesting POV to say its not part of the War on Terror, but it is as logical as someone who is opposed to the Vietnam war to say it wasnt part of the Cold War. Rangeley 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I should put in my two cents on this issue. For one thing, we should work on the basis of facts not soapboxing as some people (from both sides of the argument) have been doing. I think that this should not be part of the "War on Terrorism" series on the basis that "War on Terrorism" implies that Iraq is linked to the Al-Queda led attacks on 9/11. Did Hussein's Iraq finance Palestinian suicide bomber's families as Rangley asserts above? Yes. Does that mean they supported "terrorism" defined as the use of attacks on a civilian population to advance a political goal? Yes. Does that make attacking Iraq part of the "War on Terrorism"? No. By this logic various U.S actions that have nothing to do with what we refer to as the "War on Terrorism" can be put into that category. Take military aid to Colombia, that could be defined as the "War on Terrorism" by this logic. The FARC, ELN, and AUC are all on the U.S list of terrorist organizations...so should Colombia be added to the "War on Terrorism" series? No, because it has nothing to do with Al-Queda/9-11.--Jersey Devil 02:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, as far as I'm aware, the Pentagon does consider some of its activities in Colombia as part of the War on Terror. The Philippines, too. It's not limited to the Middle East. --Nobunaga24 02:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what a self-fulfilling prophecy looks like.[25] Again it is the cause of terrorism, not fighting it. Nomen Nescio 12:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, we are not here to argue about which came 1st, the chicken or the egg. We are here to compile information along the lines that those in the public know of it. Regardless of whether the term War on Terror originated as propaganda or not, it's in use and it's a valid category. Merecat 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Which war was started first, the war on terrorism or iraq? and was the casus belli of the iraq war terrorism? the answer to the last question is clearly no: the casus belli was self-defence. self-defence is just that, it is not a "war on" something. either the administration fought the war to save america from the horrendous dangers of saddam-hussien al-qaeda's conspiratorial intercontinential ballistic missiles of mass blowing-everything-up which they could have fired at any second and we don't know oh sh!t, or they were fighting a "war on" something. it can't be both. and it was clearly the first - at least that is the administration's position. (for example, read the AUMF) Kevin Baas^talk 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, your argument here, though perhaps well reasoned, is original research. Public history of that term supports it as a category for this article. You can argue against that all you want, but it won't fly. Merecat 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think if the US government calls it part of the war on terror it should be mentioned. I however do not think any government should be allowed to dictate encyclopedias with its propaganda terms. Saddam Hussein for sure called it something else, however, no one would even think of creating a category for his propaganda terms or use it as a title for an infobox. De mortuis... 04:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Saddam, being deposed, is not moving the public debate anymore. However, this category is not exclusive. If you can cite another legitimate one, we can also include that. Merecat 05:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that the Iraq war is "part of the war on terror" is definitely a POV statement. It's a matter of opinion that can't be proven or verified. Thus, it has no place in an encyclopedia caption. Better would be to put a section about that in the article body. Something like "...The Bush administration and its supporters claim that the invasion of Iraq is a part of a larger "war on terror". However, critics contend that..." To put it in a caption implies that it is universally true, when in fact it is quite debatable. Don't state controversial premises as fact in captions. --Hermitage 08:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen, Hermitage. I second that. Definitely POV, and if anything it should go into the body of the article as a "claim" by the Bush administration.

Just because there are terrorist acts going on means nothing - by that rationale, any war fought my the US could BECOME part of the war on terror, and we could invade any country, detroy its military, and when its people in desperation turn to terrorist acts, we declare that we are fighting the "war on terror" there - and voila, the war is now legitimate, even if it wasn't at the start. Very clever, but it has no place in a wikipedia caption.

--Borisknezevic 10:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Part Deux

I am sorry, Hermitage and Boris, but NPOV does not mean the truth has to be abandoned when someone disagrees. For instance, some people still beleive the world is flat. But they are wrong, and we do not need to accomodate their oppinion in the Earth article. The idea that the world is round fits all criteria of a fact. It has been proven through experiments, it has been proven through flight, and finally through space. These are the applicable criteria for that case.

Now, wars are admittedly different. You cannot do a scientific test, however a criteria exists for determining what the war is a part of. Each war is different. In order for something to be considered part of World War Two, a key criteria is that it is fought between the Axis, and Allied powers. The Cold War is quite similar. In order for conflicts to be considered part of the Cold War, the combattants had to be US/Capitalist alligned vs Soviet/Communist alligned. Through this, such conflicts as the Vietnam War, Korean War, and various other minor conflicts are considered part of the Cold War even though the two Super Powers never faced each other directly. The Cold War was filled with proxy wars, and these proxy wars are considered part of the cold war.

The War on Terror is not much different. The criteria for the war on terror must be understood. It has been said both "The War on Terror begins with Al Qaeda, but does not end there." And that any regime supporting terror is considered the same as the terrorists themselves. Perhaps the name has confused you, but it is no more an endorsement of the conflict than calling the Cold war the Cold war is. The War on Terror happens to be the name of this conflict. If you consider every part of the War on Terror worth fighting, than you are absolutely ok to feel that way. If you feel that not every part of the War on Terror is worth fighting, you are absolutely ok to feel that way. If you feel no part of the War on Terror is worth fighting, you are absolutely ok to feel that way. But just like with the vietnam war - despite it not having support its still part of the Cold War - your oppinion on this part of the War on Terror holds no bearing on whether or not we can name it correctly.

There is no legitimate reason to not have the name displayed, only political views that are not welcome. It would be POV for someone to put up "The most vital part of the War on Terror" and it would be POV to put up "Allegedly part of the War on Terror." And it is definately POV to make an exception for this war, while the standard set by other war articles is quite clear. Do not respond with a debate against the justifications for war, or anything political, because whether or not the Iraq War is legal, justified, or necessary has as much effect on its naming as it did with the Vietnam War - None. Rangeley 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's something crucial you are missing. It is precisely the fact that the war on terror as you define it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any particular organization. Thus it is nothing like the Cold War, or the Korean war, or any other such war between two determinable sides. Phrased the way you see it, it is a purely one-sided phenomenon - a mantra of rhetoric invoked for political convenience when fighting ANY conflict. Or a war on an inanimate object - such as drugs, for that matter. That is a much better comparison, by the way - for the war on drugs, like the 'war on terror' in your formulation, is pure rhetoric. Anyone who deals drugs is the enemy. Anyone who deals in terrorism is the enemy. Thus political violence - i.e. terrorism - in that iteration is never legitimate, even if done as a form of resistance to injustice, occupation, apartheid, racism, oppression, etc. Mind you, some of the US's key allies in the so-called war on terrorism are oppressive, undemocratic, militaristic regimes such as Pakistan. Interesting, huh? But even the Bush administration I have to say would not take the view you have of it. Perhaps you should take a look at the Wikipedia article on War on Terrorism. Terms that stand out: "international terrorism" '"state-sponsored terrorism" '"global" struggle against violent extremism" The insurgency in Iraq as we all seem to agree is complex, but to the extent that it is a local movement of resistance to the occupation, it is neither international, state-sponsored, nor global, nor for that matter 'extremist' - but nevertheless terrorist through and through. Got it? --Borisknezevic 00:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Rangeley on this point. Merecat 18:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with this definition is that it applies to everything. You can intervene in any conflict, at any location in the world, say the magic word "terrorism," and presto, another war is part of the war on terrorism. If the US were to invade Spain (fighting ETA) this would be allowed as being part of the that war. If the US were to invade Iran, again it is legitimized with the magic wand. This view of course, is not what wikipedia should be promoting. Nomen Nescio 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well guess what Nescio, I am not Bush and I am not USA gov., so I am not the "You" in your reply. And you know what, if the USA formally declared military action against ETA and called it part of the War on Terror it would be. Same with Iran. Unfortunately for you Nescio, this is called "driving the debate" and the USA is doing just that with this naming convention. Whether you agree with the USA on this point or not, that is what's happening and no amount of denying that will change the underlying fact, which is: A large military power does indeed set the vernacular for those conflicts it engages in. It might not be just, but it is what occurs. Please stop fighting the obvious. Wikipeida does not promote or unpromote anything. You are seeking "unpromotion" of this fact and that's POV. Please stop. Merecat 19:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt apply to everything, it applies to all conflicts that fit the criteria. If Hitler decided to invade Brazil, this would be considered part of WW2. If Stalin decided to invade Morrocco to replace its regime with a communist state, this would be part of the cold war. If the United States went to war with Iran, a known terrorist state, with the purposes of eliminating the regime, this would be part of the war on terror. While two of these will never happen, and we can hope the last is not going to, these are the labels the conflicts would receive. Labeling them correctly is not in any way legitimizing the conflict, but it is instead presenting facts as they are. How you interpret the facts is totally up to you. Rangeley 21:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Good that you bring up the Cold war as an example. This term is universally used by all sides, even in other languages, and thus can be used in an encyclopedia without comment. The "War on terror" is a US propaganda term that is not used in other countries as much and for sure not in other languages. So it must not be used as a caption title in an encyclopedia but rather be mentioned as what it is: a US propaganda term. De mortuis... 22:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

De mortuis..., do you even know anything about history? For example, in the USA, the term The Civil War is well known and well understood. However, there are a sufficent number of loons out there who refuse to refer to it by anything other than The War between the states. For that reason, there exists a redirect to guide them to American Civil War. Frankly, you are doing the exact same thing: You are hypothicating against the validity of the term War on Terror from an irrational perspective. Of course the name is propaganda. So were the terms New Deal and War on Poverty. Are you going to tell me that the National Industrial Recovery Act was not part of the "New Deal" simply because those terms were "propaganda"? Stop being so obtuse. This line of dead-end argumentation is beginning to grate on me. Please stop. And before you again leap in with wrong arguments, what about the term Iron Curtain? The West invented it, the West used it and certainly the Russians did not like it. But no one in their right mind would say it's not viable terminology. Merecat 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, but there is still a difference in the degree of consensus that a particular term is suitable. The number of people who use the terms "war of northern aggression", etc. to describe the civil war are few enough that the term "civil war" is not significantly controversial. Ditto the New Deal. However, the number of people who dissent from the statement that the war in Iraq is "part of the war on terror" is very large. The debate over the name "New Deal" has been put to rest a long time ago, but the debate over the term "war on terror" is very much ongoing. Thus, encyclopedias must not take sides in that debate until it is settled. --Hermitage 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you have confused the issues. What merecat was just talking about is the validity of the term, War on Terror, for the purposes of naming the conflict. While some disagree with it, it is nonetheless (currently) the most widely accepted name in the English language for this term. Just like we call the Vietnam War the Vietnam War, despite other languages (notably Vietnamese, who call it the American War) not necessarilly calling it the same. This is the English encyclopedia, and we use english names here. For instance, the article about the nation of Germany is located at the english name at the country, not the name they call themselves. As most people in the English language call it Germany rather than Deutschland, the article is named accordingly. Likewise, most people call it the War on Terror in the English language, and it is named thusly. But whether or not you rename the conflict the War Against Militant Islam, or the War Waged by Neocons, the Iraq War and subsequently this article will be part of it as it fits the criteria of this war. Rangeley 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hermitage, you need to step back from this and recognize what you are saying, which basically is this: Wikipedia cannot use any term unless and until there is only an insignificant minority objecting to it. Do you realize how absurd that is? If that were the WP naming convention policy, then each and every controversial term, category or article name would have to be held in abeyance from use until this alluded-to threshold is met. Under such a scenario, nothing controversial could ever be written about, because a small band of zealots could everything hostage. You can't use this word, you can't have that category. Hermitage, if the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, then what's it part of? Did the invasion happen independently of USA policy? Are you saying the USA has no name for it's current military operations - those which it asserts are related to terror? The "No!" crowd here says "no" to the term, but do they offer that the USA is using an alternative term? Of course not, because the War on Terror is the currently used term. By the way, with the logic that some here offer, any Stalinist apologist in the 1950's could have easily said "No!" to the term the Iron Curtain. In fact, I am virtually certain that the Communist Russians of that era refused to even recognize the term Berlin Wall. You can be sure that according to them, it was a "safety barrier" to keep out "disease infested Capitalists" or something else. By the way, did the Japanese and the Germans call WWII "WWII" while it was ongoing, yes or no? The answer is no, and you know it. Suffice it to say, since there is no alternative or supplemental category name being offered and since the complaints against War on Terror do not merit its removal, it must be left intact. Now, will the "No!" crowd on this, please give it a rest? Merecat 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good observation: "if the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, then what's it part of?" To answer that question, it would make it a war of aggression, and thereby a war crime. Sufficient reason to propose the adoption of euphemistic language.

As to the war on terror. Since terrorism is a catch-all phrase, it opens up the possibility that every intervention can be seen as part of the war on terrorism. Members of this administration have admitted that in the hypothetical situation that a granny in Switserland gives money to a organisation helping refugees can become a terrorist suspect. The rationale is that when the organisation is said to be helping terrorism, anybody helping that organisation is considered a terrorist. Even if this old lady is unaware of all this and is not in anyway willing to support terrorism she still is seen as a terrorist. And invading Switserland to arrest her becomes part of the war on terrorism, as it was in the case of OBL and Afghanistan. Further, since terrorism is present in many countries (although not AQ related, but mostly local groups) this now means that if the US were to invade these countries (again, even if there is no AQ link) the mentioning of the word terrorism would by your logic mean that that too is part of the war on terror. This effectively means that anything the Bush administration considers terrorism (which is alot) ipso facto becomes part of this war, claiming no limit (in time or location) to this war. It is not part of Wikipedia policy to promote political manipulation. Nomen Nescio 13:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a peculiar term War on Terror and a generic term War of aggression. "War on Terror" is the name given by the USA to a series of actions and policies it has undertaken and expects to undertake towards the aim of dealing with a new series of threats USA deems "terrorist". This term also has popular usage, much like the Korean War, which was not a war at all, but a Police action. Nescio, as best as I can say this, you are simply in error in your logic here. Your argument against the usage of this term is not against the fact that the term War on Terror is actually in use - which it is and you have not refuted that. Rather, your argument is against the morality of various of the USA actions which have been 'justified' to the world on the basis of "terror". I accept that you deny a rubric of "fighting terror" is a valid justification for certain USA actions and you are entitled to hold that view. However, that is a moral argument against the casus belli of USA acts as they pertain to "terror". And it is simply a violation of logic to transpose that thread into an objection to the use of the term War on Terror. Amoral or not, USA is taking various actions that it has referred to as being War on Terror related. Back in Sept. 2001, Bush said "We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them." [26]. It is indisputable that he said that and it's indisputable that this is still USA policy. Now, whether USA's assertions about terror links and WMD's in Iraq were accurate or not, they were USA's assertions and under the doctrine of "no distinction", IRAQ, at the point of the 2003 invasion was inarguably part of the War on Terror. And due to subsequent events there, remains so. Please stop arguing the morality aspect here. You are confusing the issue regarding vernacular accuracy with vernacular morality. They are not the same thing and as wiki editors, we are not arbiters of morality. Merecat 14:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the view that certain parts of this war on terror are amoral. However, morality is not what I am talking about. The USA cannot unilateraly determine what exactly constitutes terrorism and thereby what is part of this war. What is amoral is the fact that this is exactly what the Bush administration is advocating. Furthermore, the war on terrorism is a US invention, which means that it is not mandatory for other countries to adopt the applied definition. Clearly, by using the US administration's stance this is not a NPOV statement. Many countries disagree with what the US considers terrorism. Even worse, by the administration's definition, victims of terrorism are defined as terrorists. Nomen Nescio 15:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, nothing you have said so far refutes the point that the term War on Terror is in actual use among the media, public and elsewhere. And, if based on your arguments, the category of War on Terror was not used, the logical conclusion of that thinking would be to also not use as a category or term Korean War, or Iron curtain or Berlin Wall. This has all been explained above. The word "terror" in War on Terror is not purported to be an absolute definition of "terrorism". You are the one saying that, not the USA. And I did not say that I am "supporting the view that certain parts of this war on terror are amoral". In fact, it's quite clear that I have taken no position on that. And, for you to say that I did, is evidence that however lucid and cogent you may be, you are not engaging here in facts-based debate. Merecat 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I do not deny the existence of this war I fail to see your point. But suffice it to say that many non-American media do not use the US based definition. Which was my point. Nomen Nescio 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But neither did the media in the Eastern Bloc use the term "Eastern bloc", nor Berlin Wall, nor Iron Curtain. Non-use by some is no reason for prohibited use here. The term War on Terror is in wide enough use with suffient meaning, that it's fully valid to use as a category here. Merecat 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, it seems you forgot the point i made a while back that the casus belli for the Iraq War was not terrorism, it was WMD, WMD, and more WMD. To change, after the fact, the casus belli, in documentation, is historical revisionism (negationism). We did not go to war in iraq to fight terrorism. And to clarify nescio's point: this is an international encyclopedia, it is policy to avoid making articles ameri-centric. Kevin Baas^talk 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, you guys just don't quit do you? There was never any chance that Iraq was going to succeed in delivering WMD via conventional means to USA. That leaves only unconventional risks, ie; "terror" usage type risks regarding WMD's from Iraq. Your logic of "WMD = Not Terror" holds no water. Indeed, USA went to Iraq due to the risk that Iraq might strike at USA with WMD. Whether those fears were founded or not, USA did indeed lump Iraq into the War on Terror pot. You may argue that this was unjustly done, but it was done none the less. USA's current assertion of might against unconventional threats is called the War on Terror both by the USA and in much of the English speaking world. Whether this stems from there having been "ameri-centric" influence driving the adoption of that term in the public forum or not, is irrelevant to the fact that the the term has been adopted and if interpreted on the basis it was introduced (and is being used) in the English vernacular, it's use as a category here is correct. Merecat 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing two things here:

1) As I originally stated, a war can be one of two types: 1. self-defense, 2. aggression. a "war on" something is by definition a war of aggression. the iraq war was entered into under the pretense of an "imminent threat", and was therefore a war of self-defense. if you get in a fight, and you go before a court, and say "i was just defending myself", and the judge rules in your favor, you can't change your story later on when it becomes convenient, and even if you do, that doesn't change the nature of the fight. The Iraq War was ostensibly self-defense. read the AUMF. The war was not part of the "war on terrorism" at the time that it was fought. it does not change it's identity after it is over. that, to repeat myself, is historical revisionism (negationism). Kevin Baas^talk 22:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin with all due respect, thats bunk. There is absolutely no reason a "defensive war" can't be part of WOT (war on terror). Not only that, but there is no such thing as "defensive" war. There is war and there is how you choose to prosecute it, period. USA has chosen to prosecute war in Iraq. At the time USA launched that war in 2003, USA asserted "WMD". In 2003, the only forseable way Iraq could have done WMD against USA was asymmetrically - ie; on the sly. The USA name for warfare against enemies of this type is indeed "War on Terror". Kevin, you are the one with revisionism. You are looking back with 20/20 vision and saying things based on what you now know. Back in 2003, the scuttlebutt was Iraq had to be attacked to make USA safe in the post 9/11 asymmetrical conflict environment ("War on Terror"). Merecat 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2) you wrote "Whether this stems from there having been "ameri-centric" influence driving the adoption of that term in the public forum or not" you seemed to be confused of exactly what nescio's point was. by "wikipdia", "the public forum" is not meant. And the point is to distingiush between "the american forum", which you mistake for "the public forum", and the international public forum - the global population. Because wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, it's target audience, and target subject matter, is international. To make an association only made in america (and only by a limited segment of america's populace, for that matter), without proper attribution, violates that principle. Kevin Baas^talk 22:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See UK and Amnesty International links below. Merecat 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There's something crucial you are missing. It is precisely the fact that the war on terror as you define it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any particular organization. Thus it is nothing like the Cold War, or the Korean war, or any other such war between two determinable sides. Phrased the way you see it, it is a purely one-sided phenomenon - a mantra of rhetoric invoked for political convenience when fighting ANY conflict. Or a war on an inanimate object - such as drugs, for that matter. That is a much better comparison, by the way - for the war on drugs, like the 'war on terror' in your formulation, is pure rhetoric. Anyone who deals drugs is the enemy. Anyone who deals in terrorism is the enemy. Thus political violence - i.e. terrorism - in that iteration is never legitimate, even if done as a form of resistance to injustice, occupation, apartheid, racism, oppression, etc. Mind you, some of the US's key allies in the so-called war on terrorism are oppressive, undemocratic, militaristic regimes such as Pakistan. Interesting, huh?

But even the Bush administration I have to say would not take the view you have of it. Perhaps you should take a look at the Wikipedia article on War on Terrorism. Terms that stand out:

"international terrorism" "state-sponsored terrorism" "global struggle against violent extremism"

The insurgency in Iraq as we all seem to agree is complex, but to the extent that it is a local movement of resistance to the occupation, it is neither international, state-sponsored, nor global, nor for that matter 'extremist' - but nevertheless terrorist through and through. Got it?

Guardian acknowledges "War on Terror", but attacks validity of USA actions

The Guardian, UK: it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Chomsky: 'There Is No War On Terror' If you google it you most often find it in inverted commas because except for FOX news journalists are aware of the fact that a propaganda term should not be used thoughtlessly. It is not universally used as the terms cold war or Berlin wall. Most people outside the US would just laugh at you if you told them the Iraq war was "on terror". As a sidenote, talking down on someone like "do you even know anything about history?" does not speak highly of the strength of your argumentation. De mortuis... 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

De mortuis..., when editors ignore even the most basic facts of history, then such questions will arise. However, I can always agree that politeness is best, so sorry that I offended you. Having said that, Chomsky is about as unreliable of a source as you could possible cite, and for that reason, I don't give a rat's you know what, about what he says. Polling Chomsky about USA national security related topics, is like polling the KKK about the NAACP. Noam Chomsky is a committed anti-USA zealot. That you would even cite him is very revealing as to where you think the "center" on this issue is. As for the cite from the Guardian, here is how the sentence reads From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Your citing of the Guardian story supports my analysis here in that a) the term is acknowledged, even overseas, as being extant and in use by USA and b) there is resentment against the USA for pursuing it's interests. The very fact that the Guardian wrote an article denouncing the War on Terror as a "bogus cover", proves that the USA is using that term - if only for a cover. The debate here has not been whether the term War on Terror is a valid term from the perspective of outsiders from USA accepting USA motives and actions. Rather the debate here has been about whether or not the term War on Terror is in use, has it been used to describe USA actions and should we allow a category called War on Terror to be attached to this article. As far as I am concerned, the Guardian story settles the debate about semantics; the term War on Terror is in use and it does refer to USA actions grouped under that title. Now, because the opposition to a category called War on Terror (said opposition based on arguments of 'no actual usage') has been answered, I see no other complaints on this topic. The category War on Terror is valid. Also, see links here:

Additional links which affirm usage of term "War on Terror"

1. DefendAmerica - U.S. Defense Dept. War on Terror
2. BBC NEWS | In Depth | War on Terror
3. washingtonpost.com: War on Terror
4. "War on Terror": Amnesty International's Human Rights Concerns

These four links are the top 4 which Google returns for "War on Terror". Please note that the 1st is USA military, the second is BBC in the UK, the third is Washington Post and the 4th is Amnesty International USA. Each and every on of these sites make clear that the term is extant and in use in the English speaking world. We are writing the English wiki. The only objection which had any merit was Kevin Baas regarding WMD was the Casus Belli and his inference that such a rationale predated "terrorist" concerns with Iraq. Of course, I did (see above) show Kevin's premise on that to be false. At this point, all objections have been answered. Unless something new comes up, I fail to see what objections are left regarding a category called "War on Terror". Merecat 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio replies

• Interestingly, all use comma's to show that it is not a generally accepted word. Second, you still mix up the arguments. Nobody denies there is a war on terror, it is disputed whether Iraq is part of that. Clearly, numerous sources outside the USA use the term with comma's, thereby implying they not necessarily agree with it.
• Or, read the following:
  • Indeed, the metaphor "war on terror" is exaggerated and misleading. In fact it is a struggle against fanatical terrorists. If the word "war" is used to describe the horrific American Civil War AND the current struggle against terrorists (to say nothing of the "war on drugs," the "war on pollution," etc.), then the word has lost all meaning. Moreover, "terrorism" is an abstraction, while terrorists are specific people and specific organizations. "War on terror" is useful only to persuade the American people that Bush is a wartime president and to justify the foolish and now dangerous war in Iraq.[27]
  • For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim.[28]
  • The United States has long insisted that government agents cannot be terrorists. The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Since government action is almost always lawful—or at least not considered criminal by the government itself—governments almost never qualify as terrorists under the U.S. definitions.[29]
  • ...a crusade against terror, is a terrible mistake. It is disproportionate, it is poorly defined, and it is fraught with uncertainty.[30]
  • Despite the trillions being spent worldwide to combat terrorism, there is no war on terrorism. This bears repeating: There is no "war on terror."[31]
  • Bush, however, seems to think of the war on terrorism quite literally -- as a real war -- and this concept has worrisome implications. The rules that bind governments are much looser during wartime than in times of peace. The Bush administration has used war rhetoric precisely to give itself the extraordinary powers enjoyed by a wartime government to detain or even kill suspects without trial. In the process, the administration may have made it easier for itself to detain or eliminate suspects. But it has also threatened the most basic due process rights.[32] Nomen Nescio 09:37, 2 May 2006

The bottom line: It's controversial! Is the term valid or not? It's an interesting discussion, but both sides need to be presented. You can't present both sides in a caption. --Hermitage 09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio immediately above you said this: "Nobody denies there is a war on terror, it is disputed whether Iraq is part of that". But, in your same posting, you go right on ahead and post a quote from commondreams which says Despite the trillions being spent worldwide to combat terrorism, there is no war on terrorism. This bears repeating: There is no "war on terror." [33] Nescio, I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. You are so inconsistant in your logic and assertions that I can only conclude you have no interest is resolving disagreements. Merecat 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Your selective use of quotes (you fail to mention For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. and the metaphor "war on terror" is exaggerated and misleading.) only proves my point. Your gift for ignoring information detrimental to your position is inspiring. Second, you still are not familliar with the principle of reposting, otherwise you would not make the mistake of saying the article was from commondreams, again! Nomen Nescio 10:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hermitage, the word you seek is "determinative", not "valid". There is no such thing as us saying a term is "invalid" on it's face. However, there is such a thing as us agreeing on what will be the determinative measure of defining usage here. Once again, for the final time, during the Cold War, when USA opposed communists, USA used terms such as Eastern Bloc, Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain. Back then, the USSR definately did not agree with USA usage of these terms. However, at no time did USSR opposition to those terms become the determinative measure that defined their usage. If you can't understand that, then well, this will never be resolved. Anyone caring to know what War on Terror means, how that term is being used, what the objections to it are and how the term was coined, etc., can get all that information by clicking the link and reading the article. That category link serves as a topic aggregator, is posted on various WOT related pages and is highly beneficial to the readers. Also, it is simply inarguably true that the USA has applied and does apply the term War on Terror to post 9/11 military and other actions which seek to (among other things) eliminate asymmetrical threats. Is any reasonable editor here going to argue that "terrorism" as typically practiced, is not an "asymmetrical threat"? Of course not! The simple fact is that a category of War on Terror is semantically correct and accurate vernacular in English for the topic to which it refers. And it's also accurate to apply that category to this article. Each objection raised above has already been answered by me several times. Merecat 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding your "Is any reasonable editor here going to argue that "terrorism" as typically practiced, not an "asymmetrical threat"? Of course not!" Please read this "A far sounder definition was offered by Israeli National Security Council chairman Major General Uzi Dayan, who defined as terrorist in a December 2001 speech "any organization that systematically harms civilians, irrespective of its motives." This definition catches all types of terrorism—not just actions that lack political blessings or official sanctions."[34][35]. Nomen Nescio 10:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio you are wrong yet again. That definition is only partially accurate and only regarding terrorist organizations, not terrorist actions. Terrorist actions themselves are by definition asymmetrical. If a powerful authority cruelly harms a weaker entity for no reasonable purpose, that's "repression". And systematic harm over time for no reasonable purpose can be called "tyranny". But, terrorists are not "repressive" and they are not "tyrants". Rather, they are asymmetrical fighters who use methods aimed at both harming and frightening the opposition, hence "terror". This is why the 9/11 attackers were "terrorists" and it's why the fear of Iraq possibly being able to get WMD into USA was seen by USA as a "terrorist" threat. Saddam was too weak to be a conventional adversary of USA - he could only have been an asymmetrical one. And an asymmetrical opponent who might have WMD would certainly be seen as posing a risk of "terrorist" actions. Why this eludes some here, puzzles me. Merecat 10:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that when a country uses "asymmetrical" techniques it is guilty of terrorism? if so, you thereby accuse the US of being a terrorist state. Enlightning view, coming from you. Nomen Nescio 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio and Hermitage, please stop going in circles. If Kevin Baas wants to speak for you both and make a new posting with arguments on this, I'll answer him, but I am not going to repsond to your broken-record complaints on this anymore. Merecat 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• A familiar stance from an editor who still has to respond to several arguments that are not in favour of his position. Nomen Nescio 10:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You put forward critocisms of the name, some of which were purely political (they are from an editorial afterall, its to be expected) and others are more legitimate; for instance the name "War" implies a front line, two sides, two armies, and that sort of thing. Unfortunately, the name Cold War also falls short on this. It was not a typical war, but a string of related conflicts that came together on a common theme. It also included related events that were not even war necessarilly, such as the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Blockade, the Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, and other various 'peaceful' things. I do not see you objecting fervently to the name Cold War, so I have to think that you are driven by purely political reasons for your objections to this. Another objection - that the Iraq War was done for political reasons, can also be said about the Space Race. It was a technological race to get into space, just to say you could do it. But its still considered part of the Cold War. Why? Because it took place between the Soviet Union and the USA. The 1980 winter olympics in which the USA beat the Soviet team is considered part of the Cold War as well. Its simply ridiculous to discount the Iraq war when it has a much clearer connection - the two sides are actually fighting each other. And as for your argument that the Iraq War did not begin as part of the War on Terror - which I disagree with for reasons stated numerous times before - The same can be said about the 1980 Olympics (both of them). One had the victory of the USA over the Soviet Union, the other had the large boycott due to the Afghanistan invasion. Its ludacrous to say "they didnt plan it as part of the cold war so it doesnt count." But that is essentially one of your arguments. There is no debate that terrorists are being fought now, so obviously it is part of it currently. This in itself should end the argument, but you will undoubtedly keep on talking and keep on vandalising the article despite having no legitimate reasons to do so. Rangeley 23:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)