Encyclopedia > Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq
Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq
Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive1
Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive2
|
Summary of issues under discussion
Sources
This entry is impossible to present without coming from some perspective; what we can do is, when we make the editorial decision to include content, to mention the source of that content.External links to news items should preferably be placed at the bottom of the page, with the title of the news item, source, and date, and a summary of relevant content if not apparent from the title.
Naming
The two reasonable titles for this entry are 2003 invasion of Iraq and U.S. invasion of Iraq (add alternatives if you strongly believe either is deficient). See Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan for a (possibly) comparable discussion.The first avoids (potentially contentious) questions of the nature of the invasion and is permanently unambiguous (as long as the military campaign ends within 2003).
The second follows the standard set by U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, makes a (potentially contentious) definitive statement about the nature of the invasion, and is unambiguous (as long as the U.S. doesn't invade Iraq in the future).
The naming issues affects other entries as well, and is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war) - please use this as a central place for all your naming convention-related discussion.
Another possibility is Second Gulf War or maybe Third Gulf War.
Nature of Coalition/Invasion
Is the phrase "U.S. invasion of Iraq" misleading or not? This question depends on the nature of the coalition and reasons for the invasion. The nature of the coalition is discussed at coalition of the willing.
Nature of Coalition/Invasion
- content moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war)
Many of these countries are supplying medical personel, chem/bio response teams, ships, airbases, overflight rights and other support.
this sentence needs more precision. What is "other supports". Besides, placed where it was give the feeling only coalition forces brings humanitarian help. Could we keep separate notions of war support, from notions of humanitarian support please ? ant
- Considering the fact that some of the nations request not to be named - it'd be difficult to compile a "complete" list or to list exactly what every country is doing.
- re: humanitarian help.. feel free to add that other countries and organizations are also providing humanitarian help. I don't see how the above sentence suggests that its only coalition forces.
Discussion about contributor actions Cunctator, since you're editing other peoples comments on the talk page.. can I edit yours?--BugBoy[?]
- You can. Whether you may is another question. --The Cunctator
- BugBoy must of missed the memo that stated you can do it and he can't. --mav
- Huh? I just said BugBoy can. --The Cunctator
- BugBoy must of missed the memo that stated you can do it and he can't. --mav
"Around midnight UTC (early morning local time), the Turkish military stated that 1,500 Turkish troops had moved into northern Iraq"
- Has this been confirmed? I've heard conflicting info about this. Some have said the troops had always been where they are now and they haven't moved. Others have said they are moving troops in, others have said they're not. And unless I'm mistaken, didn't a Turkish offical just announce that they did not have plans to enter Iraq? Anyone know what is happening exactly?
I thought the "more than 30" were killed in the marketplace - this article says 14 dead and 30 wounded... Perhaps Wikipedians are reporting on breaking events too fast? Given the number of "major reports" that turned out not to be news, we should wait at least a day before adding anything new. --dan
Shouldn't the "Operation" title be at the start of the article, as it is with Desert storm and other wars? I don't mean the actual "article title" - I mean, shouldn't the Operation name be one of the first things listed and in bold as it is in other wars like Gulf War? It was the first thing and then someone moved it down a ways.
Removed from article:
- The invasion is opposed by a majority of the population in most of the coalition nations.
In the US, at least, less than the majority of the population opposes the invasion, according to 2 TV network polls I remember reading. If my memory is wrong, please cite some polls or other proof, and put the correct info back into the article. --Uncle Ed 23:08 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
I think youd better cite sources before saying whether a majority does or does not support the war. Youd also better cite the question and answers offered in the survey. Otherwise the information is useless. Dietary Fiber
- I agree. That's why I removed the statement. Pending sources, etc., it's tantamount to propaganda. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a side one way or another here on the ethics of the war (ask me privately, if you want). I'm just trying to make the article accurate and timeless. --Uncle Ed
Ed: It was referenced. In the "coalition of the willing" entry: [1] (http://misnomer.dru.ca/2003/02/11/a_coalition_of_the_willing).
"Part of the US position..."....which part? exactly who? cite references. Kingturtle 03:41 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)
I don't have an answer, just a question. We have a problem here with the numbers. How do we define the number of combat personnel? Assume (for the sake of example) that Australia has 2000 personnel in theatre (it's actually a bit more than that, but round figures will do for my example). Of those 2000, assume:
- 150 SAS troops. (Obviously combat personnel)
- 30 F/A-18 pilots (ditto)
- 20 Chinook crewmembers (not intended to be combat personnel, but if they have to perform an SAS extraction under fire ....)
- Navy personnel seem like non-combat staff on first sight, but HMAS ANZAC was doing shore bombardment the other day - if you are firing shots, I guess that makes you a combatant.
- And so on.
The exact same problem applies to the Polish force, of course. And indeed, to the US & UK. Tannin 07:14 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)
- The real point that should be gained from this is that the Polish support is, militarily, primarily symbolic. In terms of individual lives, it's significant, but the Polish commandoes are unlike to change the course of the war. The reality is that the U.S. and U.K. presence dwarfs the others, so that to a zero-order approximation this is a U.S. war, to a first-order approximation it is U.S. & U.K. The U.S. is using hundreds of thousands of people and spending billions of dollars and using billions of dollars of equipment. Noone comes close to that. It would be much more disingenuous to state "This is a US, UK, Australian, and Polish invasion" (without stating the disparity in numbers) than to state "This is a US invasion". --The Cunctator
Is there any source for the kurdish coalition forces? 50,000 militia people? I've never heard about this! till we *) 23:19 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
- I don't know how you could count them, they aren't a regular army. I've seen estimates published from 20,000 to 100,000. Don't know what they are up to, they don't seem to have reporters embedded. -º¡º
- More problematic: They don't fight yet, do they? -- till we *) 23:36 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
- The Kurdish Militia claims that there is 50,000.. I've seen news reports that estimate the number much higher (70,00+). I figured 50,000 was a safe guess. Yes, they do fight. 6,000 of them attacked a terrorist camp in Northern Iraq over the last couple of days with US special forces. A hundred or so Iraqis were killed. See [2] (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=392445) for more info. It has been widely reported. There has also been talk of other attacks with Special forces and Kurdish troops. -- 216.229.90.232
Tannin, your insistance on using the term "token" is making the phrase POV. -- Zoe
- I agree - that wording is not at all appropriate. We already report the number of troops and that is enough. --mav
Perhaps we should describe the "token Iraqi resistance" as well? I think anyone who doesn't see that the Iraqi resistance is merely token, is clearly helping the Iraqi propaganda effort. Er, nevermind... Dietary Fiber
What the hell is wrong with describing a token force as a token force? Or is someone seriously going to stand up and say that the miniscule Australian and Polish forces are genuine and serious attempts to influence the military conduct of the war? Fair go, you guys are so POV it's ludicrous. A token force is a token force is a token force. Why the censorship? What's the point? It's not as if there is anything wrong with sending a token force, is there? Tannin 06:32 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what Poland thinks, but Australia doesn't see it as a token force. I read several Australian articles recently complaining that their role in the war was being diminished by the media. In addition, no force is "token". A handful of US Navy SEALs captured an offshore oil station without firing a single bullet. They didn't overwhealm the Iraqi's with their large numbers, they were just "good" enough to get the job done even though they were a small force. Australian commandos have been conducting similar missions along the coast of Iraq (from what I've heard). They're firing weapons, getting fired upon, taking their lives in the hands, siezing explosives and other Iraqi weaponry.. its in no way just a "token force". "Token force" implies that they're useless or just there for show, which couldn't be further from the truth. They're getting the job done. -216.229.90.232
- Tannin, I began to wonder a similar thing when the word "invasion" was censored from the main page. I suppose it's something we may just have to live with for a while.
- "The first casualty when war comes is truth." – Hiram Johnson
- Hephaestos 06:46 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
- The rhetoric on both sides of this would be amusing if it weren't about something so deadly serious. Listen: there's no "censorship" here, nor is is true that "token force" "couldn't be further from the truth". There are just honest disagreements and (sometimes) harsh words.
- If no force were token, then the phrase "token force" would not exist.
- IMHO, as I wrote before, in terms of human lives, what the the Australian and Polish commandoes are doing significant. In military terms, they are not significant. There participation only affects the outcome of the invasion in human and political terms, not military.
- I deliberately put the force numbers in to the entry because I knew that people would argue about whether or not it was appropriate to mention the Polish fighters in the first sentence ad infinitum otherwise. I personally think it's unnecessary to do so, but I can understand that others would reasonably disagree, so I determined what would be a reasonable compromise.
- And that is how we should be editing this entry.
- --The Cunctator
- No force is "token" if its used correctly - as pointed out with my Navy SEALs comments above. Polish commandos doing what they're doing, allows other forces to do something else. Thats not militarily insignificant. If those forces were not there, British or US forces would have to spend time doing those missions themselves. Its not POV to list force numbers (although it may be difficult to be accurate and current), but it is POV to say that those forces are a "token" force. I know for a fact that Australia would not agree with that title. -216.229.90.232
216, I am Australian. Yeah, sure, our newspapers are full of stuff about what "our boys" are doing "over there" (and I have not the slightest doubt that they are very highly skilled and as brave as anyone - the guys working blind on the bottom of a muddy harbour defusing mines, for example ... that sort of skill and dedication and cold wake-up-sweating-in-the-middle-of-the-night courage just blows me away) but the cold hard reality is that they are a tiny token force. Count them. Do the numbers. They ain't there in anything like the numbers required to make a substantial contribution to the military situation, and any analysis that says otherwise is blowing hot air up its own fundamemt. Tell me, 216, as compared with the UK or the United States, and allowing for the different populations in the different countries, what size of contribution is Australia making in Iraq? Now let's do the same with Poland. Tannin
Replace the meaningless acronym POV with "point of view" and what you write doesn't make sense. "It is not point-of-view to list force numbers"? What you mean to say is "Listing force numbers presents a neutral depiction of the Australian and Polish combat contributions". And that's an arguable statement. No single sentence can be entirely neutral. In addition, I believe your definition of military significance means that there can be nothing defined as militarily insignificant. But this is not a "for want of a nail..." war. Tell me: do you believe that a "token force" can exist? Do you believe that there can be such a think as a militarily insignificant force? --The Cunctator 08:24 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
- First, the use of the acronym POV is of course in reference to Wiki's NPOV policy. (Maybe you should read up on it.) To say something is POV, means that it is a point of view to say it. To say its NPOV, means that its not just a point of view. This is generally understood around here.
- What I was saying is (if I have to spell it out for you), its not anyone's "Point of View" to list actual numbers. It IS someone's "point of view" to state that those numbers are insignificant, or in this case, only a "token force". The article should, if anything, list the numbers - but not draw conclusions about those numbers. As I and others have said, the term "token force" has negative connotations. It sounds as if the article is saying that these forces are insignificant, worthless or useless. That is a judgement that the article should not make. We have no idea what kind of a role these forces are going to play before the war is over. Let the reader decide if its a "token force" or not.
- Second, no - I'm not saying that no force could ever be described as a "token force". If say, Switzerland sent troops to Kuwait and they all got dressed up in fancy battle gear and paraded around the streets of Kuwait chanting anti-Saddam slogans and did nothing else... That would clearly be a "token force". They wouldn't be there to help - not even with catering... they would just be there for moral support or simply to put on a show for the media.
- Third, can there be a militarily insignificant force? Sure. Like the Iraqi soldiers that attack a tank with an AK-47. Australian and Polish forces are doing a lot more than that. They're actually helping the cause. -216.229.90.232
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/latest-polls.htm http://www.yougov.com/yougov_website/asp_besPollArchives/bes_arcMain.asp?sID=2&rID=3&wID=0&UID=
Two different polling organisations which are consistently showing majority approval in the UK for this war, so I think we can be satisfied that there is no majority opposing it in that country. I'd be somewhat shocked if the US population wasn't even more in favour. Australia or Poland may well still be against, but that doesn't constitute a majority of the coalition. -- Khendon 09:43 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
- Latest US polls show support up to 70% at least.. over 80% in some polls.
- 45 nations are claimed to be in the coalition: that's figures for 2
Firstly, that should be worded better then. Secondly, until you provide solid figures for at least twenty or thirty of the others, it's a wild assertion and has no place here. - Khendon
- It's not my asssertion, Khendon, I simply restored it after you deleted it. It was referenced (in considerable detail as I recall) by someone else here (on this page or another one - the Lord only knows where everything is now, since Uncle Ed went crazy on the splitting and merging thing yesterday or the day before). Tannin
moved from article
The position of opponents generally reflects the viewpoint expressed by George Bush, Sr. and Brent Scowcroft[?] in their comments regarding the previous Gulf War in the article "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" in the 2 March 1998 editon of Time magazine:
- "While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well ... Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different—and perhaps barren—outcome."
If this article is meant to be a sort of entry for the whole story, please keep it simple and short and to the point. Do not add long quotes; these ones would maybe go very well on one of the many articles about opposition on war. Also, I disagree with The position of opponents generally reflects. That might reflect the general position of american opponents, certainly not the general position of opponents. ant
- The invasion came after the expiration of a 48-hour deadline set by U.S. President George W. Bush, demanding that Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq.
Is that all there is to it? Um, I thought there was something about chemical weapons, crimes against humanity, and the aim of "liberating" an oppressed populace, too. Shouldn't we at least LINK to these ideas? --Uncle Ed 23:21 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
- Don't forget those alleged (read "forged") links with al-Qaeda... Martin
I agree with Bryan's reversion (/w/wiki.phtml?title=2003_invasion_of_Iraq&diff=0&oldid=829628) -- even though, ironically, I actually agree with "anonymous" 100%! You see, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. We cannot take sides in controversial matters, particularly in politics.
Please help to rewrite the article, mentioning some of the major points of view regarding the 2003 Iraq war:
- that it was a "hostile invasion"
- that it was unjustified, illegal, etc.
- that it was a "war of liberation"
- that it was entirely justified, that right-thinking people everywhere should rejoice over how it's turning out, etc.
Meanwhile, allow me to say that an "invasion" occurs whenever one country's military forces enter another sovereign territory without official permission. So, I think even Donny, Dick & Dubya would agree that the US invaded Iraq. --Uncle Ed 15:12 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
An anonymous contributor believes that U.S. forces have not been searching for WMDs, and that is why they have not been found. For his benefit:
- After days of intense digging and searching at least seven suspicious sites near Nassiriya, U.S. experts have found chemical warfare protective suits, but no chemical weapons.
- Chief Warrant Officer Alex Robinson, leading the U.S. search in the area, admitted on Thursday that his list of suspect sites in southern Iraq was "kind of drying up".
- --U.S. digs, searches in vain for Iraqi chemical weapons (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17216643.htm), Reuters, April 17, 2003
--The Cunctator 20:02 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
- This story is about them following a tip. They've been doing that all along and have found some interesting things - like a mobile chemical weapons lab. But the focus of the troops has never moved into a "search for weapons of mass destruction" mode. THey're still busy with other things primarily.
This is directed towards The Cunctator, and is in regards to:
- Some of these terms, like the codename Operation Iraqi Freedom are propagandistic slogans or doublespeak; that is, terminology deliberately chosen to force dialogue to express a particular political viewpoint. This also includes the exclusive usage of "regime" to refer to the Saddam Hussein government (see also regime change), and "death squads" to refer to fedayeen paramilitary forces.
Hi cunc, you asked do you debate that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is deliberately chosen to force dialogue to express a particular political viewpoint? Clearly the selection of operational names is a lot more political then it was in the days of "mincemeat" and "overlord". But I think calling the new ones "propagandistic slogans" or "doublespeak" is strong, especially when we aren't quoting some notable critic. I mean, if Chomsky had said this, that would be great, but not just us writing it in the editorial tone of "wikipedia says". I'll take a pass at adding something in place of the deleted passage. Oh, and [3] (http://www.dix.army.mil/PAO/archive00/Features/june/exercises.htm) and [4] (http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/operations) are amusing reads on operational naming. -º¡º
ref Another difference of media coverage in this war was that the U.S. and British media losts its objectivity in many instances.
uh. They didnot lost objectivity during the previous war ? ant
sorry to put so many refs. It is specifically for º¡º. ant
- Besides your cites, there is a big difference between saying "The US intervention took place without any international legal framework" (the old version) and "Some of the opponents claim the US intervention took place without any international legal framework" (the new version). -º¡º
- which is precisely why I changed it. This said, my version is not very good (but at least acceptable). You are welcome to improve it. ant
- Anthere, I would be happy to help you with it if I knew what you were trying to say. Note that the paragraph immediately after yours says:
- "Several nations, including Austria, say the attack violates international law as a war of aggression since it lacks the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution that could authorize military force. The Egyptian former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has called the intervention a violation of the UN charter."
- To me, this seems like the same point. I'm guessing that there is some important distinction that you wish to make in your statement, but I don't know what that distinction is. -º¡º
note that I was not the one who put the initial statement. I certainly would not have. Yes, the two sentences could be merged. I don't understand exactly why there is such an emphasis put on Austria. Why not noting other nations ? Besides, the following paragraph is only about nations (which I interpret as "government") and not about people. I think it would be right to make the difference. For example, this view has been clearly stated in an official text in Algeria. In other countries, the gov may not have stated it, but the idea is widespread among the public point of view, or maybe some well-known public thinkers claim that point of view. Last, a quite common point of view among opponents is not only the agression is contrary to the strict framework defined by international law, but also that is a very serious precedent of a democracy prefering to act in a military way rather than by more diplomatic means. Leading to the feeling USA request from other nations to respect international laws, but somehow "officially" and bluntly state that it is not itself concerned by these laws, rather over them.
I added the section about the Iraqi payoff now that there is confirmation from General Franks. Given how transient media links are, I don't know whether it is appropriate to include them in the article itself, but here are two:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=409090 http://slate.msn.com/id/2083271/
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|