Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Removal

I have removed the line: "Under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation." because it is simply untrue. I mean, the foremost example that comes to mind is that Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim nation - elected a female Hindu at its prime minister not too long ago. Accidents 03:23, 16 March 2007 (PST)

This addresses specifically Arab Sunni in Iraq, as the source document states. RobS 16:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, firstly, I mean, it isn't cited; the sentence after it links to somebody's testimony before some kind of Senate or Congress panel, but it isn't actually cited. The second problem is that it's simply untrue; as I pointed out, Indonesia - the largest Muslim country in the world - elected a female Hindu as its prime minister not long ago. A lot of Iraqis - most, perhaps - also have secular inclinations from living under Baathist rule for so long, so I think this claim really needs to be questioned. I mean, is it akin to somebody saying that Christians believe in stoning people who cheat on their wives, even though - in spite of what the Bible may say - Christians obviously do not believe in that?Accidents 14:20, 16 March 2007 (PST)
The entire passage is cited to Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on Securing America's Interest in Iraq, 23 January 2007.
(a) Nowher does the source document discuss Indonesia; (b) this article is entitled "Iraq War", not "Inodonesia". Context of the source document gives relevency. Obviously, the source document was not reviewed before removing the proper citation. RobS 17:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Full context:
As all know by now, for even moderately fundamentalist Sunnis, the Shia are disqualified from political power because under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state--while the Shia for them are heretics. The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law. RobS 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow, you're not much of an expert on Islam are you? Salafists are a miniscule, radical minority with little to no support in Iraq, even among the Sunnis, who - being the progenitors of Iraqi Baathism - possess a historical tendency towards forms of secularism. The idea that one American's testimony to some other Americans that "under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" can be held as evidence in the face of mountains of evidence that this claim is totally untrue is utterly insane. I have to wonder: Are you trying to protray this honestly, or do you have a partisan agenda to push with this kind of disinformation?Accidents 14:56, 16 March 2007 (PST)
Wow, (1) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam -- I cited a source. (2) What evidence do you have the source, Luttwak, born in Italy & a former Israeli tank commander, holds US citizenship; (3) Why should that matter? (4) Please address issues; assigning motives in does little to further our agenda of writing this encyclopedia. RobS 18:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I will try to remain civil and stick to discussing my problems with this passage. The point is, it's a patently untrue statement. As for person making the claims, do you honestly believe that a member of the IDF is a reliable source of information on Islam? I mean, by the sounds of it, he isn't a Muslim, and lives in a society that's in a perpetual state of war with Islamic neighbours and which discriminates against its Islamic members systemically. Is this really who we should be asking? Why not ask Muslims what Islam is about, just as we would ask Christians what Christianity is about? As I said, Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country - elected a female Hindu not too long ago. The claim that Islamic law stipulates that Muslim countries must be ruled by Muslims is either untrue or misleading. I mean, as I said, the Holy Bible may claim that people should be stoned for cheating on their wives, but we all know that Christians don't stone people to death, and we'd be liars if we claimed that they did. This situation seems similar to me.Accidents 16:36, 16 March 2007 (PST)
Thank you. In edit conflict yesterday part of my response was ommitted. I intended to include that the statement, The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law specifically does what you refer to, the context of all Islam. Mr. Luttwak needs no qualification, and if your not familiar with the source you may wish to check it out. And I'd seriously encourage reading the Testimony which is among the first invited to appear before the newly Democratically controlled Senate Foreign Affairs Committee--for a reason. Mr. Luttwak's testimony gives in detail where US policy was coming from, where it is right now, and where it is going.
This is a foreign policy discussion, and this article is not a forum for propaganda. RobS 11:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Right, it's not a forum for propaganda. So why are you pasting Zionist propaganda that's demonstrably untrue? The statement that "under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" is a lie. That's what I'm saying. It needs to be removed because it simply is not true.Accidents 18:56, 17 March 2007 (PST)
Ok, I clarified it a bit. RobS 15:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I have removed the line 160 "However, as of yet, there has been absolutely no hard, physical evidence to support the idea of a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and it is often dismissed as propaganda by conservatives desperate for justification." which appears without any citation of source and comes directly after showing DOCUMENTATION by the Iraqi forces... "42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax, and his extensive ties to al Qaeda." If those memos which contain that information are not hard, physical evidence.. what exactly constitutes hard physical evidence for a RELATIONAL LINK between these groups? What proof could be given to such a skeptic as this person who posted (without references) and inveighed that it is "propaganda by conservatives desperate for justification"?? Are these documents "propaganda" then? And on what basis does this person dismiss them? Has he seen and read these memos? This statement which I removed, therefore, is not factual but inflammatory rhetoric and not conservative in viewpoint - in keeping with the mission of conservapedia. Otherwise, why call it conservapedia, why not just go with another (liberal) site and view? I also ask censure and watching of the poster of these comments by conservapedia for non-conservative bias. The poster was Michaelvalentine. Thank you. Skies.

Citations Needed

The following statements are not documented, and so may not be reliable:

"2003 Iraq War (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world" - Is the Iraq War really the largest in the world? Where does this claim come from? There are conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa that probably dwarf it.

"The war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led War on Terrorism." - Is this a documented fact, or a partisan talking-point? The American government certainly casts the Iraq War as related to some kind of "war on terrorism," but seeing as how the war has actually escalated terrorism around the globe, is counter-terrorism really the Americans' objective in Iraq? Let's get critical here, people.

"Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein" - This needs to be linked to a poll or newspaper report that confirms it.

"Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the Jaysh Al-Madhi, have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks." Is this really true? It seems to imply that the United States is acting as a neutral force in trying to prevent an Iraqi Civil War, which is also the American government's claims on the matter. But if that were the case, why would - to quote the USA Today poll linked as number 6 and 7 on the article - "Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents." I mean, the U.S. invaded the country, and is engaged in combat against a popular rebellion; they're a belligerent, not peacekeepers. The wording here just seems off to me.

"Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to Syria, before the onset of the war." - This needs to be linked to a page in which somebody accuses Syria of harboring Iraq's WMD. This has now been done, Mar 2007.

"Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the First Gulf War, and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more." - This needs to be linked to a page which confirms that Iraq was "at least a decade away from producing more".

Accidents 13:36, 15 March 2007 (PST)

General Discussion

How about using a cite that doesn't require a $30.00 charge to view the article cited? Crackertalk 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --Cgday 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

For starters, how is the war in Iraq "the largest war operation in the world"? That claim isn't even cited, it's just lazily thrown out there with no substantiated evidence. Can whoever wrote that provide some citations for that claim, or remove it if none can be provided?

Secondly, the Iraqi Body Count website is not "robust surveying techniques"; it's a collection of deaths reported by at least two Western news agencies, and the owners of that website acknowledge that their number is inevitably going to be far below what the actual death count is. Due to this, I've taken the liberty to introduce statistics from an actual academic study that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I've also added an overview of the Iraqi Resistance, and its popularity in Iraq, with several citations to verify what I have written.

--Accidents 00:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


Wow, there is some hard-core censorship occurring here. Everything I've added is true, and has been rightfully cited. Deleting the section on the Iraqi Resistance is straight censorship at its worst.

I can understand disputes about the second Lancet study, as the numbers may be slightly off (either lower or higher) due to the fact that two of the sample zones were merged into 1 in several occasions for the sake of researcher safety on the ground. I think that criticizing that is absolutely valid, but at least acknowledge that the merged sample zones were similar in economic, social and level-of-violence aspects as well. Beyond that please provide your arguments and discuss them in here before simply changing the page. Thank you.

--Accidents 01:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a little more going on here than just some questions about figures and resistance. I think you're trying to inject some liberal bias into this page on the struggle in Iraq. No matter what way you slice it, that's inappropriate. Affirmlife 04:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And if User:Accidents had tried to inject some conservative bias into the article on the "struggle" in Iraq (surely a term that indicates a bias), would that have been objectionable, or is that OK? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.McTavidge 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does providing -documented facts- about Iraqis' opposition to the occupation and support for the resistance/insurgency reflect "liberal bias", unless you're referring to reality itself as suffering from a "liberal bias" (which seems to be the case)? The figures I provided are factual, and cited; you can check the source documents themselves if you want. I stand by all of the information I provided, and I think it's reliable. I'm interested in the truth, not "liberal bias". If, in this case, truth doesn't conform to an "American conservative" viewpoint, it's probably your opinion that needs to shift, not mine.

And if you have any complaints about the Lancet study, I'll gladly discuss that with you. I studied statistics at the university level, and read the entire report - and the methodology behind it - last year. Apart from the doubling-up of certain similar clusters, the math checks out. Feel free to reply with any of your complaints. I am reverting the page to my last edit.


--Accidents 01:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's the problem - we're here to state our bias, not to pretend that we're referring to ethereal, disconnected "facts" that are actually used only to bolster a particular argument. Your argument has been made and it is both the dominant and the incorrect argument. You're using the "reputable sources" and "methods" that have been so perverted over the course of the last fifty years. Shaking the voodoo stick of "truth" doesn't alter the fact that what people call "truth" changes based on the perspective of the person who presents statements about a certain subject. All voices are biased, and they need to state that bias. I am a conservative. This is an article for conservatives. I'm reverting the article. Affirmlife 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Affirmlife, It's true that Iraqi opinion was optimistic in 2003/2004. I sure you can add a section on this, including your references, without obliterating the rest of the article. JamesK 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The degree of self-delusion and doublethink in Affirmlife's above paragraph is absolutely astounding. Facts are what is scientifically verifiable; for instance, the existence and subsequent extinction of the dodo bird is a documented fact, based on mountains of scientific evidence both that the species once existed and that it has since gone extinct. Just because some kook may argue that the dodo never existed does not mean that that person has a valid viewpoint, because there's no scientific evidence to support that view. Similarly, I have provided facts to this article, citing all of them. Two of the three polls that demonstrate the unpopularity of the occupation by Iraqis come from the occupying powers themselves - the British Ministry of Defence and the American State Department, neither of which is particularly renowned as being a source of "liberal bias," but quite the opposite. I mean, if you know something that I don't know about the polls I'm citing, and have reason to believe that the results have been skewed somehow, feel free to share that and we'll discuss it. But as far as I can see, the mathematics and methodology of the polls cited is pretty standard, so I really don't understand why people insist on hiding these facts. I mean, if we want to educate people on the Iraq War (I do), pointing out the fact that 80+% of Iraqis oppose it seems pretty important to me.Accidents 10:31, 14 March 2007 (PST)

I added a reference to the bit about Iraqis fleeing the country, though a better one will certainly exist. Also, I can't find anything about a MoD Iraqi poll in the first link? JamesK 05:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


Accidents, while I sympathize with you on Affirmlife's editing issues, you shouldn't have wiped HIS sourced comments about initial support for the invasion. Those should be added back. --Dave3172 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.Accidents 10:41, 14 March 2007 (PST)

Guys, all I'm trying to do here is remove the liberal bias. This article is meant to give a more nuanced understanding of the Iraq War than that presented in the conventional liberal media. I even responded in good faith to the proposition that instead of deleting liberally biased information outright, I replace it with sounder information that presents a more balanced perspective. So if the goal here is to present an alternative view of the Iraq War, concisely, I think that my direction with the edits is much more appropriate. And I think the goal here is to present that alternative view. That's my bias. Here's my question - what are yours? Affirmlife 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


Affirm, you are not "adding" your pieces to the article - you are whole-sale deleting and replacing pieces you do not personally like. If you look at the last version Accidents did, he incorporated your poll numbers into the article. You, obviously, did not reciprocate.
If you have a contrasting view, ADD it. Don't delete and replace sourced pieces simply b/c they conflict with your personal view of the war. --Dave3172 14:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
But you've just done the very thing you accuse me of doing! What's your bias? Why do these liberal edits get privileged simply because they were first out of the gate? Affirmlife 14:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Affirm, Accidents merged your poll data into the article. You simply removed his. Your edit has ad hominem attacks against people opposed to the war, you removed any opposing viewpoints, you removed any alternate casualty data. In other words, you delete what you don't like and replace it with your own stuff.
ADD your data. Quit wiping out other people's work simply b/c you personally don't like it. When you do that, I'll stop reverting the article.--Dave3172 14:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Affirmlife, how do my contributions reflect a "liberal bias"? You have yet to explain this. I'm providing DOCUMENTED FACTS, and CITING THEM; you're deleting them and replacing them with undocumented statements that appear to be nothing more than conjecture. I don't understand your position here. I even included your initial Zogby poll and wrote that many Iraqis supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.Accidents 11:27, 14 March 2007 (PST)

This whole article should be trashed. Huge pieces have been changed then changed back then changed again. I see very little in the way of reliable information coming out of this article if people feel they must delete sections over and over again.

Bias

Folks, let's take this from a different perspective. How about using an alternative viewpoint as a baseline rather than using an article rife with liberal cant as a baseline? Let's take my version as representing a 'conservative' perspective on the Iraq War (which I believe it does). That's my purpose here, and I think that if you are all actually in good faith, you should be attempting to edit the article to hew more closely to a conservative perspective.

If you want conventional, tired liberal wisdom, go check out Wikipedia. We all need to get our thoughts together about this - what is the alternative, unexplored perspective? I don't think any of you would disagree that the framing language to the facts cited in either of the two article versions has a distinct perspective and view. We need to accept that fact, not reject it. The purpose of this article is to present a more nuanced, conservative perspective. If you find that unacceptable, perhaps you should present your perspective on Wikipedia. Affirmlife 14:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think your version reflects a "conservative perspective" so much as it reflects baseless conjecture, claims that aren't cited, and the blatant suppression of documented facts that contradict your preferred political party's talking points on the matter. I mean, you make a statement as absurd as "less than 65,000 Iraqi civilians have died" without citing it. If you're citing the Iraqi Death Count website, you should probably remind yourself that even the people who run and own that site acknowledge that it is far below the actual death count, as it only includes deaths reported in at least 2 mainstream western newspapers. The Lancet study - as the language I used clearly explains - includes all excess deaths, not just violence, but including the proliferation of disease, malnutrition, etc that has occurred since the 2003 invasion. Unlike the website you seem to be citing, further, the Lancet study actually involved teams on the ground in Iraq, and if I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong on this) they received death certificates for 90% of the deaths they wished to confirm. As for the support for the Iraqi resistance/insurgency, the fact that you're suppressing that is nothing short of partisan censorship.Accidents 11:55, 14 March 2007 (PST)
Oh, I don't know. I think that there's more than enough reason to conclude that certain sources of information are selectively utilized or unutilized by people of different social and political perspectives. My unanswered question is - why would you present this information in this way? Is the purpose of the article to be a web-based sabotage of the war effort, presented as a conservative perspective on the war? I don't think it should be. Affirmlife 15:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the Bush administration is doing a FINE job of 'sabotaging the war' just by following their current stratergy. Even assuming that any criticism of governmental bungling IS, in some bizarre voodoo way, going to affect the outcome of the war for the worse, at this point, any nasty things said about their blunders on some webpage is the approximate equivalent of one extra drop of water in the middle of Noah's Flood. --Scrap 01:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've done a bit of a re-write, trying to incorporate all the points that have been put in the previous versions. It's not perfect, but I hope it will help make some progress on this. JamesK 15:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! Looks much better now. -Gasmonkey

JamesK and RobS, you did a fantastic job. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was suggesting it. Thank you very much. --Dave3172 15:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Based on the view given above now in italics, why is it that if the articles cited are taken from a conservative point of view, and reference Conservative websites and viewpoints, that it is labelled in red at the top as being "biased" when the very slanted Liberal view is also biased and yet never challenged? Only Liberal viewpoints may prevail, even in a conservative encyclopedia? Conservapedia should allow another view on the war and not say it is biased to show a Conservative viewpoint simply because it is a Conservative viewpoint. The references ARE there, and anyone wishing to verify them can click on them. These are controversial issues and Conservapedia should be the voice for the other (non-Liberal) side, not censuring the Conservative viewpoint and reasoning, IMO. - Skies April 2, 2007.

Thanks Skies, you've put a lot of hard effort into this article. And we are carefully reviewing all the citations and references. I suspect it may need a routine cleanup & some wikifying, and there are a few other things that may need inclusion eventually. RobS 20:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

WMD

Only about one-third of 36 million pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared. [1]'

That statement and reference is more than 2 years out of date now. Unless there's a more recent reference it will have to be changed. JamesK 15:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Psychic predictions

This statement,

On-the-ground academic research in Iraq has determined that approximately 600,000 more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than would have otherwise died in that time frame if the war was not raging.[8]

even being cited to the New York Times means nothing. Coulda Woulda Shoulda is not news, neither are psychic predictors of facts that never happened. I seriously think this kinda junk needs to be kept out. RobS 18:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL! Do you even understand how casualty studies are conducted, or how the math behind them functions? These aren't "psychic predictors of facts that never happened". There's massive amounts of mathematics and science behind these studies; you can't publish something like that in a peer-reviewed journal like the Lancet without meeting rigorous scientific requirements to ensure reliable results. The study itself is available in PDF format if you Google it, so yuou can read it and take a look at the math behind it for yourself. Perhaps that will help allay your confusion.Accidents 19:14, 14 March 2007 (PST)
Here is a link to the study on the Lancet's website: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf If anybody has any questions about the methodology or mathematics involved, feel free to ask me and I will try to help you understand. I look forward to putting the Lancet study back into this article, because I see no serious reason to exclude it.Accidents 19:18, 14 March 2007 (PST)
(Edit conflict:I'll read the rest) Yes, I understand. For example, Saddam only killed 250,000 over thirty years; so using the mathematical model we would have to divide 250,000 human lives by 30 and then add back the average for three years (2003 - 2006). Makes perfect logical and scientific sense. It doesn't preclude the possibility that Saddam may have awoke one morning and decided to go on a pogrom and slaughter 650,000 people in the space of three years, thus upsetting the model. Nor does it consider that Saddam may have met an early demise and Uday or Qusay could have likewise gone on such a pogrom.
Point here is, this is junk science, beginning with the conclusion that if not for the Bush- Cheney-Rusmfeld cabal, 650,000 Iraqi's would be alive, i.e. laying the responsibility for murderers and terrorists at the US Admins feet (and yes, all that garbage previously was in the intro to this article before it was fixed with facts).
This is History 101, "If Rommel had 4 more divisions, we'd all be speaking German today". But Rommel didn't have 4 more divisions, and we're not speaking German today. It's the simple difference between historical facts, and speculation. RobS 22:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
And the historical fact is that there are a LOT of dead Iraqis, and since the USA is currently occupying the country, _we're_ Responsible. --Scrap 01:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
By the sounds of it, neither of you is acknowledging that you understand the difference between casualty studies - which are considered reliable because they're applied with sound mathematical techniques - and baseless speculation. I mean, you're taking a peer-reviewed study and trying to discredit it on the grounds that you don't think science itself is reliable. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me. I mean there are reasons to attack the Lancet's methodology in Iraq - merging certain sample zones, for example - but dismissing it as "junk science" is simply ignorant.Accidents 11:39, 14 March 2007 (PST)
Scrap: So the coalition is repsonsible for the death by "violence", as the study refers to it, and murderers and terrorist who commited those acts are not held responsible? And there are several other moral issues that can be discussed regarding this. RobS 14:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Accidents: While I have yet to get into the details of "method" comparing "casualty rates" prior to March of 2003, by what method were "casualty rates" by "violence", i.e. those murdered by the regime over previous years considered the "norm", or basis of this study? But this is definitely not the starting point for reviewing this Study, and I shall outline the proper method of review if editors wish to waste their time any further with this stuff. RobS 14:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
RobS, I appreciate the fact that even though I provided a direct link to the .pdf of the study itself, you were too lazy to read it and answer your own questions. It explains that - and this is a direct quote - "pre-invasion mortality rates were 5.5 per 1000 people per year". There's also a graph, on the third page, exploring death rates under the pre-war sanctions are as well as under the post-war occupation era. Further, seeing as you obviously haven't read it, I can't help but wonder on what grounds you're even disagreeing with the study. Here's a guess: your partisan bias implores you to disagree with the study's results, because they don't make your current position on the issue look very good. If that's the case, I'd suggest you re-evaluate your own critical thinking abilities and challenge your own preconceptions for the sake of intellectual honesty.Accidents 13:26, 15 March 2007 (PST)
Accidents, Thank you. Please, cease with the personal attacks. Indeed I have invested time in the Lancet study as you call it. It has several primea facia difficulties. I do not think we are ready to discuss methods or conclusions. Perhaps, since you may feel strongly about this, begin with properly qualifying the report as to why anyone should pay anymore attention to it than has already been given. Discussing method now is useless. Please qualify the source properly. RobS 20:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Criticisms

"The American left has been criticized for its objections to the execution of the war." What is the nature of the criticism? Was it criticized for criticizing the war tactics because criticizing the Administration is somehow unacceptable? McTavidge 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course it's unacceptable! Don't you know that Dissent is Treason? What did you think this was, some sort of "Democracy"? Bush said there would be War, and its our job as Good Citizens to pay for it and die for it, and most importantly, to SHUT UP ABOUT IT. --Scrap 01:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT) </sarcasm>

Actually, the US ISN'T a Democracy, contrary to what Public schools, Hollywood, and the Media would make you believe (they try so hard to convince you). The United States is a Constitutional Representative Republic, NOT a Democracy. Don't be a useful idiot, parroting off everything you hear.--AnthonyM 19:46, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Not-so-current affairs

The last good news you could find from Iraq was in 2004? It's like you volunteer Propagandists For Bush aren't even trying any more. I decided to update it a bit, but I bet it gers diverted or deleted ASAP. --Scrap 02:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Should Civilian Opinion Surveys be included here?

Firstly they're going to be unreliable given the volitile circumstances over there, the language barrier, and the likelihood that they're going to be that truthful if they have a negative opinion of the US Occupation. Secondly, its pretty ridiculous to argue that one poll where Iraqi's say they support the insurgency is invalid because of methods that the another poll seems to adopt, which finds the opposite conclusion, but is submitted without quantification. Either way, they are opinions about opinions and hardly reflect the strict standards for fact that I'm sure the Conservapedia strives for.--RexMundane 17:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would agree with this, and particularly if the so-called opinion survey's are non-indigenious, i.e.can be shown to have any relationship at all with the well known Western media opinion surveys's or other manufacturors of "public opinion." Western opinion surveyor's understand Western media and marketing, not Iraqi demographics. RobS 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Opinion polls

I count 7 or 19 references in this article are about opinion polls; why so many? RobS 21:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS - I noted that the topic contained a LOT of opinion polls with one viewpoint. Rather than removing those biased entries, I refuted them with countering opinions, polls and documentation (such as articles.)

I'll state my concerns here. Opinion polls, while interesting, do not define the facts of a situation. Yes, they can be very influential in moving a situation, but they are not in and of themselves determinitive. For example, a user in Wikipedia who is somewhat of an enthusiast on JFK assassination stuff presented an argument that essentially cited opinion polls from 1963 onwards regarding the Warren Commission Report and other investigations that showed 50%+ did not believe those reports. This editors conclusion was the Warren Commission Report is untrue based upon the fact a majority of random samplings didn't beleive it. An opinion poll was used to determine the truth that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.
Another fear is this might make ABC News polls look good. RobS 21:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS; Since the vast majority of the population just takes poll numbers as gospel truth, the refute of the current mindset with other conflicting poll numbers shows that there is room for dissent on these points - that it is not settled public opinion on the matter. Since we are not discussing old events but a current one - unlike the 1960s JFK assassination - what people think about the matter truly does affect Homeland security and an encyclopedia should not be biased to one view. To let the poll result remain there, unchanged, without attempting to bring balance to the presentation seemed an incorrect approach. I had considered deleting the opinion poll entries in question and all references to polls entirely, but if you look at the page before my edits, you will see it leaves very little page to read. Also, I felt that since I just joined, to join and then start deleting other people's work would not show right attitude or character. I was seeking to help with balance and information, not to censor what was already there.

The addition of the entry "An Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted in May of 2007. 34% of 1,028 adults polled supported the war in Iraq, while 65% opposed it. 1% were unsure. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%." Has NO REFERENCE for it, and is therefore a completely unsubstantiated statement which should be removed until a citation can be given. It is also unclear WHO was polled?? Americans, Iraqis? Middle Eastern countries? Terrorists? Australians, the British? Whose opinion is this.. and is it relevant at all to the overall war effort? It is flawed unless it can be demonstrated to be informing us as a dictionary should do.

There was a citation...www.pollingreport.com All polled were Americans. Pendejo 22:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Cost of war = $9B?

"Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.Iraq: the hidden cost of the war The numbers are highly debated, however, and other sources put the cost around $9 Billion.Iraq War Cost Calculator Notes"

From the second referenced page, I cannot find anything that suggests that the cost is $9 billion. Instead, I find pages that point to the total war allocations being $510 billion through fiscal 07 [2], and $318 billion for Iraq through fiscal 06 [3]. The first referenced page suggests that care of the wounded from Iraq over the next decade will be $2.5 trillion. I would suggest that people double check their information for the facts here. --Mtur 15:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a good observation. There is a difference between "cost" and "allocations"; out of pocket "costs" now vs Iraq's ability to hold a large balance of payments surplus, provide needed oil reserves to world markets, and pay for its own security in the future without being a threat to it's neighbors or dependent on international humanitarian aid programs is not considered or calculated in any of these formulas. RobS 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The person who owns this article is minimizing the perceived cost of the war by deleting information about non-fatal US casualties, 24,476 men and women with limbs blown off, brain damage, blindness, you name it. Many of these injuries would have resulted in the person going down as a K.I.A. in Vietnam, but with God's grace and modern medicine their lives were saved. This is a far bigger mess than people realize. Teresita 19:24, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so this falls under the "coulda woulda shoulda" school of interpretive history. Can you provide another cite other than Justin Raimondo for these stats or claims? RobS 20:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Nope, I absolutely refuse to get into territorial dissing contests like this, I'm not even keeping this one on my watch list now, even though I've got months and months of blog posts on the war, going head to head with some very bright folks. Teresita 07:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Duelfer Report

Okay this is getting insulting now. The principal finding of the Duelfer report was that Saddam had no WMD or significant WMD production capabilities. Yes it also found that he was endeavoring to get the means to get that potentially running again if the sanctions were removed, but the important thing is that he had no WMD and no significant capacity to produce them. The fact that you're denying this isnt just biased, its insulting to anyone who's actually read the thing. We didnt go to war with Saddam because he was gaming the Oil-for-Food program, we went to war because he was supposed to have these WMDs. It turns out he didnt. Stop pretending otherwise.--RexMundane 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

You mischaracterize what the Duelfer Report says; for one "report also found that Hussein's capacity to produce WMDs had deteriorated significantly since 1991", whereas the Report states it was started up again in 1997. Then, the repeated reference to "any remaining WMD-related programs were "not of a militarily significant capability." What? So the coalition was supposed to wait until Saddam had an operational capability?
There was much similar discussion in the 9/11 Report; how having all this knowledge, why didn't they act beforehand to avert such a disaster, etc. etc. etc. RobS 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion and its pathetically disingenuous for you to bring it up, though I notice theres a new section about it that quotes Tenet without attmepting to substantiate his claims that even though Osama actively wanted Saddam dead, they were working in joyous collusion. Three cheers for dedication to objective unbiased facts, eh? Although considering I got banned for saying that George W Bush was born in Connecticut and Massachusetts has a relatively low tax rate, its hardly surprising here.
As far as waiting until Saddam had an operational capacity, given that a necessary condition was removal of the sanctions it can easily be argued that maintaining them would be key to minimizing whatever threat he would ever pose. However, this too is inconsequential to the discussion.
The existing entry on the Duelfer report contains information that exclusively backs up the patently false claim that Saddam posed an existing or even potential nuclear threat to the United States, which goes against the principal finding of the report itself. Objective, bipartisan analysts concluded that there were existing stockpiles or functional capacity to produce them, and that was the key finding of the report. That the entry on the report should quote it so selectively as to support the purely anecdotal argument that the opposite is true is Intellectual Dishonesty writ large.
You want to quote a dozen people who said there were WMDs? Be my guest. You're certainly free to present that information in your vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth. Lord knows if you all post enough things with exclamation marks and boldface youre bound to convince the sort of people that impresses. However if youre going to use a report, any report, it is an insult to all intellectual endeavor to ignore the report's principal finding and quote selectively and suggestively to prove that same untruth.
The report does have information that supports the WMD argument. However the report's principal finding contradicts the core of the argument. Stop pretending.--RexMundane 11:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you should stop worshipping at the shrine of the Duelfer report, Rex. It isn't as though it is definitive for all time. It is one report. When it is raised to the status of the Holy Bible by you so that its findings are indisputable, it makes you sound like a religious "political" fanatic - set like stone in one very uninspired viewpoint. It is a REPORT.. done by fallible men who were trying to compromise so both parties could get along and make a statement which set aside their squabbling. It also could be characterized as a cop-out compromise for political expediency. You mention "The report does have information that supports the WMD argument," then discount the possibility in the very next breath. How objective is that viewpoint? You also dismiss all argument that there were any WMD. The sarin warheads discovered by the Polish troops and the Iraqi Survey group, those who were treated for injuries from the one which exploded in an IED (read the stories).. the finding of mustard gas bombs.. all don't matter? Look at the evidence. Don't just believe one report like it is your Bible. These are FACTS, not flights of fantasy. Set aside your political prejudice and try and look at the evidence. You might also note that the special investigator for the Pentagon stated of your vaunted Iraq Survey Group who made this report that he had heard of "facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions" but the ISG had IGNORED that and not ever gone there, quote, "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond.." How throrough does that make their report's findings then? How definitive?

If youre trying to argue that the report is worthless then you're also arguing that it shouldnt be included here without that equivocation. The section currently brags about all the things that tangentially support the idea that Saddam could possibly have posed a nuclear threat, and that exclusively. You havent argued that this is representative of the report, so I assume you concede my point that it isnt. The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt. If the report is relevant then the anti-WMD stuff needs to be mentioned. If, as you're arguing, its worthless, then it needs to be removed entirely. You cannot have it both ways.
Also, keep up the belittling personal attacks, there Skies, really bolsters your argument. Good for you.

Personal attacks.. like saying my contributions are vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth?? I was just replying in kind. A wise man once said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

As for your saying that the report is worthless, it isn't. It just isn't definitive, as you were stating and trying to defend. The report is mentioned on the page, but I didn't post that section and so I cannot defend how it was stated. You say, "The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt." So, rather than personally attacking those of us who are contributing, what suggestions do you have as to how to modify the entry so that it reflects a more even, balanced and unbiased opinion? The report isn't worthless, it does have some validity (though when it selectively ignores people who plead for them to come and inspect, I do wonder at its veracity, don't you?). I am not arguing for its exclusion, only for it not to be seen as definitive and inspired beyond the pale of "regular" men.. men such as those you deprecate when you say the other information which is posted is only put there and highlighted to "convince the sort of people that impresses." Like the information itself is untruthful and deceptive, perhaps? It is not, and your mockery was what caused the personal reply in kind you received. If you wish to remove it from being personal, why don't you try being civil and discussing methods of improving the information to make it unbiased in a way which refrains from deprecating my contributions.

That anything here pretends at being "Unbiased" is hilarious. The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion. It is selectively quoted to prove a point that the report itself is at odds with. You dont want to present the fair view, the one where all the report's findings are discussed, only the ones that support a particular argument. The origional entry included information on all topics. It now included a set so small as to not be objective but argumentative. Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument. Do you deny this?

Thank you for being rational and not personal in this post. I appreciate that. You say that conservapedia is "biased" toward conservative viewpoints.. well, it was called CONSERVApedia for a reason, wasn't it? I don't think people coming to this site expect to hear the Liberal viewpoint touted in every article as absolute truth. The site was created to bring out the conservative viewpoint which conservatives see as under-represented at other sites (and edited out at other sites, as well.) Now, I could point out that the Liberapedia.. called Wikipedia is not without its flaws, either, quote: "The website Conservapedia.com has a long list of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace – even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he’d edited thousands of articles with flair. The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its website’s reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their ten things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this." [1]

I think the Conservapedia strives to be conservative in outlook but with a degree of trust concerning keeping the site as close as it can be to what is factual. Yes, there is a conservative viewpoint expressed in the articles, but that is expected. Do you expect to join the Republican party and then campaign for Democrat issues and viewpoints? You wouldn't get very far doing so, and you won't go far trying to bring non-conservative views out here. But just because a certain viewpoint is unapologetically set forth and adhered to, that does not mean that the articles are all trash or "hilarious" as you called it, and many of us appreciate the refreshing atmosphere where a conservative view is encouraged. You say, "The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion." I shall work on the entry and note that their conclusion was that there are no huge stockpile of WMD in Iraq.. but with caveats because I do not see the point of quoting the report as "gospel truth" when so much of the rest of this entry refutes its conclusion as flawed and leave its conclusions open to disputation.

As for presenting "all the report's findings", this is an entry on Iraq War.. not on the Duelfer Report. They are not synonymous. It is not unfair to discuss only parts of the report rather than the entire thing. For further study the links are given. When you say, "Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument." I do doubt this conclusion. As stated now in the entry, the principle finding was not what the media spun it to be. QUOTE: " Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No." I have noted how the debate has moved to another agenda and away from the central findings under the section "Misreporting the Duelfer Report."

As you know, almost everyone knows what the report was, and perhaps the original poster merely worked from the idea of already known facts and moved forward. It is easy not to state the obvious. As I said, this is not my contribution and I have not touched it, but I will now work to encorporate a mention that the WMD were seen by the report as not existing. I will, however, mention something to the effect that the servicemen who were treated for injuries from the exploding sarin IED bomb would think they did not have a hallucination, and that sarin is actually a WMD. Do you deny that point?

Firstly, its generally incorrect to assume that anyone researching a subject already knows enough about it. Considering too that half the articles on this site are presented as "proof that everything you knew about Sally Fields' Hairstylist is a lie" its not difficult to see how someone thinking that the Duelfer report refuted major WMD claims that upon coming here they would reach the conclusion that it said nothing of the kind.
Next, no I dont deny Sarin is a WMD as considered by the UN (and we know how much the UN is to be trusted) the same way I'm sure that you wont deny that, given that the shell predated the 1991 Gulf war that it doesnt prove Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons.
Also, I care what you're opinion on the Wikipedia is. I entirely do. No, seriously I actually do because the way youve described it is as something that presents facts at odds with conservative views, and that Conservapedia does not think it necessary to incorporate facts that challenge the opinions of Neo-cons. Instead of elaborating on subjects for the purpose of furthering discourse and strengthening everyone's ability to debate productively on such topics, lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else. In the past six hours I've seen people misquoted, called on it, and ignored, Ive seen nonexistant chatroom transcripts mentioned to indict people, and Ive seen, and who is surprised, a desire to have a report correctly represented as blind devotion to the document as though it were a holy book to the pious. After all, why have intellectual discourse when we can pat ourselves on the back for agreeing with each other?--RexMundane 16:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

No, the wikipedia does not present facts at odds with conservative views. The edit all conservative views out, including the facts conservatives bring up. It is called Censorship. Ask any conservative news site or bloggers.. they try to post there and within minutes, all they post simply disappears. So when you accuse conservapedia of, "lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else", I think that is the pot calling the kettle black. I agree it is incorrect to assume people know what the reports are so I gave a little more background and expanded the section. AND I did mention that both Kay and Duelfer said that no huge stockpiles of WMD were found. I hope you approve (but I somehow think you will find fault.. ??) Just remember, it is all due to you. :)

I personally wouldn't have phrased the central thesis of the report so tersely and dismissively, but I do thank you for at the very least including some mention of the core thrust of the report in the section intent on discussing it.
And yes I know all about the 3vil wikipedia's bias, how they use CE, which has no christian basis, instead of AD, which given that most estimates put christs birth at around 5BC, also has no christian basis. And how they insist on providing explanations of how theres no legitimate causal relationship between abortions and breast cancer and alternative explanations of that correlation, oh how dare they try to be objective. Also, did you know that their entry on Ronald Reagan contains no mention of him being the resurrection of Christ, nor how he won the cold war by punching Gorbechev into the sun. The audacity.--RexMundane 17:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion
No it's not. Not as it relates to process, or how these reports are covered in the press or perceived by the public. "Failure to contect the dots...", Remember that one? The Duelfer Report says things quite different than how it was being used here. The Duelfer Report clearly states Saddam was pursing WMD programs, and it extensively details complicity with non-Iraqi companies, governments, NGOs, & individuals. As the report said, Iraq is only half the story.
WMD does not singularly refer to (a) stockpiles, and/or (b) production facilities. A simple illustration: when we says "United States Army", we are not talking about tanks, guns & hardware, we are talking about persons employed in the enterprise. Same is true about NASA; we are not talking about the end result of manufactured rockets and satellites, we are speaking about persons. The same is true about NSA. We are not talking about sophisticated communications technolgy, we are refering to the persons employed in the business. When WMD programs were discussed in 2003 as one reason, among several reasons, for pursuing the object of regime change, nobody ever said it was just stockpiles and production facilities.
Later on, partisan critics and journalists, for whatever reason, tried to make light of the popular misconceptions regarding what WMD programs are--and used this misinformation to invent mindless partisan arguements that serve no discernable purpose other than some domestic political agenda totally unrelated to US securtity needs. RobS 17:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts and contributions, RobS, appreciate it. Rex, I see you bring to the discussion on Iraq War a bunch of baggage from the other site about dates and previous administrations (Reagan), etc. I don't feel they merit any response when the topic is Iraq and that appears to be truly covered now. Thank you both for the discussion, Skies.

No Casus Belli?

Is there some REASON we're not supposed to talk about how President Bush led us into war in Iraq?


We should talk about it. But edits like this belong on the talk page - not in the body of the article.
When there are opposing views, shall we just enshrine one as The Truth? That will degrade trust, and that's the weakness of Wikipedia. It (1) says it won't take sides but (2) routinely takes sides.
I suggest we here acknowledge the existence of opposing views. It's ridiculously easy to detect them, when they are dimetrically opposed. --Ed Poor 14:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
You oppose me adding a few FACTS to the article? My edit was nothing but documented truth and when I have more time, I will add more. This may be a conservative site, but truth knows not philosophical bounds. If you cannot accept the WHOLE story, do not read ANY of it - history is not YOURS to decide. - PKBear 16:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
"just enshrine one as The Truth" You realise that is horrendously hypocritical? By removing the edits which gave that point of view, you have merely left the original one by itself, enshrining it as truth. Don't accuse Wikipedia of taking sides when articles such as evolution exist. MatteeNeutra 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:

Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war.

Got a source for this "acknowledgment"? --Ed Poor 23:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but it's all on sites CONTAMINATED WITH HIDEOUS LIBERAL COOTIES, so I'm sure it'll all be rejected out of hand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1916
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
On the other hand, Bush Said So, so it must be True: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html (Whatever happened to that mistrust for government that the Right nurtured when the Evil One was President? Did it all get shed like a burning coat on January 21th, 2001?) --Sandbagger 23:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course it did. Intellectual honesty is for suckers...--Dave3172 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

End of first phase

Was did Bush's May 1, 2003 claim, of "Mission Accomplished," really mean?

  1. That the US won the war - and that it is supposedly over
  2. That major combat operations had ended - and the war was in a (milder) new phase

What do you think? --Ed Poor 23:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A "milder" phase? How in the name of all that's holy does something in a "milder" phase have an higher average death rate than the actual war itself?

an accomplished mission is one that has gotten to a point that American men and women no longer come home in a box. Res Ipso Loquitor. Sevenstring 23:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Why do you Hate America(tm)? Don't you understand that REAL Patriots don't ask questions. --Sandbagger 23:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
It wasn't Bush's claim, I don't think. It was a military sign. The obvious meaning was that the USA won the Battle of Baghdad. It did not mean "war over" or "all problems solved". The word "mission" doesn't mean the whole war, just an operation within the war. So I say that both of Ed's interpretations are wrong and contrary to plain english. RSchlafly 23:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I just reverts AmesG's change, because he overrode my edit and also inserted a silly and misleading comment about the "Mission Accomplished" sign. He is welcome to discuss it here. RSchlafly 00:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for clarifying that, and knocking down those two straw men I had put up. As a former military man, I followed the progress of the war as closely as I could from unclassified sources. Bush was praising the troops for destroying Iraqi sovereignty (or "toppling the dictatorship"). When the Iraqi troops took off their uniforms and went home, that was a victory of sorts.
Nonetheless, one operation is not a war - and no victory has been achieved. The next phase is counter-insurgency, which is not being done the way I would do it. But since I never even made Corporal (let alone an officer rank), it's probably not my place to criticize. Anyone can be an armchair quarterback.
The conduct of the Iraq War will undoubtedly be an issue in the 2008 US presidential election. --Ed Poor 09:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

False premise. (a) Bush never said "mission accomplished"; (b) no evidence Bush implied "mission accomplished" as to objective of regime change; (c) Tommy Franks explained that incident. (d) This is just another gross lie Bush and Iraqi War critics complain about. Now, if critics could find some valid basis other than provable, manufactured lies of this nature that there is over reliance upon, they could develope credibilty. Til then, it's not worth the time responding to. RobS 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

He may not have said it, but that was the message [4] --Mtur 16:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
What he did say can be read - the opening was "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[5] --Mtur 16:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
(a) That is the point. Bush did not say it. And rational, intelligent, logical analysis exposes the fraud of trying to make something out of it other than what the objective of the war is.
(b) The War's objective, stated clearly, is regime change. Removing the old regime is not regime change. Removing and replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, is regime change.
(c) At the time that banner was hung, the old regime had been removed, but there wasn't even an interrim government established yet. Thus, it is pure unadulterated fraud to imply that that doing half the job, i.e. only removing the old regime, and not finishing the job, i.e. replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, is accomplishing the objective of regime change. RobS 16:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Whether Bush said it or not, he should NOT have stepped foot in front of that banner! What the incident amounts to is another moment of typical Bush machismo - "I'ma get everybody fired up about U.S. military might - nevermind that bin Laden is still alive and free, Hussein isn't in custody, American boys are still dyin', and I STILL haven't stood firm on a unified platform for war - WE WON!"

Face it, if Bill Clinton stood in front a banner saying "I hate Iowa", Fox Noise would crucify him. wouldn't matter WHO put the banner there or whether Clinton believed it - it'd be his fault for letting it stay up.

Now, in Bush's case he didn't only let the banner stay up, he went on to say "major combat operations...have ended" and "[we] have prevailed" - both blatant lies whose sole aim was to garner popular support for a very untimely war. - PKBear 17:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • "major combat operations...have ended" and "[we] have prevailed" - both blatant lies
Right. Like we're going to use airstrikes from aircraft carriers to defend the Bagdad museum from looters. [6] RobS 17:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I would suppose your logic makes sense, in that it's really George Washington and the Founding Fathers fault for the Iraqi mess, in that they failed to foresee that someday the Constitution they had written would lead to the election of George W. Bush, hence the threat to civiliaztion as we know it. Yes indeed, you've convinced me. RobS 18:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
You are being argumentative and childish in your remarks. I suggest you ask Gen. Petraeus or any of the 150k-odd soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines engaging in daily combat operations over there if they are not major. And, as a matter of fact, we ARE still using airstrikes. I guess those are just minor bombs being dropped, right?
Oh, and just where in the world did the Founding Fathers comment come from? Are you even replying to the right conversation? In the abstract, GWB wouldn't make a bad President. His problem is, and always has been, that he's out of touch with reality and trying ever-so-hard to excel beyond some imaginary boundary set by his father (just my opinion, of course). He does what he wants, when he wants, and to whom he wants - and you're a traitor if you ask "why". He does not appreciate that a successful society NEEDS people asking "why". Absence of challenge leads to atrophy.
Surely, 9/11 demanded action. The action required, though, was not against Iraq. Frankly, North Korea was far more deserving of action taken but Bush had his eye on Iraq even before the Towers came down. The focus of our energies should have stayed on al-Qaeda and bin Laden - yet he STILL RUNS FREE! And what does Bush say when confronted about bin Laden's location?
"I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html - PKBear 19:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
as a matter of fact, we ARE still using airstrikes
From day one the issue of "mission accomplished" implied that airstrikes off of aircarriers would have prevented looting and shoplifters. Many critics have not engaged honestly in this debate, with the resultant damage to their own their credibilty. RobS 20:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
On the bright side, we've had repeated assurances from Dick Cheney that the insurgency is in its death throes, on its last legs, and generally coughing up blood. Too bad we've still got that one bombing a day that everyone focuses on.... --BDobbs 17:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Bob Parks

This entire article (copy-pasted in near entirety) is pure conjecture from a site that proclaims it's opinion-based nature directly. Commandment 5 rules out use of this. I know it's tough for some of you, but opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia - even a right-slanted internet-o-pedia. - PKBear 17:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is an EXPERT opinion by Professor of History at the University of Dayton who is a military historian.. He was also consulted by the Whitehouse in the article.. it is not just anyone's opinion. AND I shortened it. It should be allowed in.

"He was also consulted by the Whitehouse in the article"
Considering how well this 'war's been going, I'm not sure that's much of an endorsement. --BDobbs 23:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

New Intro

What is going on here? The article should start by explaining who went to war, and why. RSchlafly 01:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll bring that back; the sourcing for this article is extremely problematic. RobS 14:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Civilian Casualties

The way that this section is phrased makes it seem as though there is no real link between the liberation of Iraq and the number of liberated Iraqi civilians getting killed in homocide bombings, etc. This makes it seem like an attempt to keep the civilian casualty figure artificially low. Surely there's a little bit of intellectual dishonesty here. Iraqi Body Count has a fairly transparent methodology and provides low and high numbers of casualties in an effort to be as unpartisan as possible. Would that not be a better source than FOX News? Jacobin 12:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I put in the IBC numbers three times, and each time they were removed. I finally put in FOX because no one dares disagree with them. Czolgolz 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, so why are the IBC numbers not allowed? Czolgolz 13:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Discussion moved from User talk [7]

Here is IBC methodological statement.Read it and tell me why their numbers don't belong in an encyclopedic article about the war but Fox News's numbers do.

Thanks. 13:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Methodology:

Overview Sources Data Extraction Data Storage Publication of data (including conditions of use) Limitations


1. Overview

     Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.

2. Sources

     Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).
     ABC - ABC News (USA)
     AFP - Agence France-Presse
     AP - Associated Press
     AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
     Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
     BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
     BG - Boston Globe
     Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
     CT - Chicago Tribune
     CO - Commondreams.org
     CSM - Christian Science Monitor
     DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
     FOX - Fox News
     GUA - The Guardian (London)
     HRW - Human Rights Watch
     HT - Hindustan Times
     ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
     IND - The Independent (London)
     IO - Intellnet.org
     JT - Jordan Times
     LAT - Los Angeles Times
     MEN - Middle East Newsline
     MEO - Middle East Online
     MER - Middle East Report
     MH - Miami Herald
     NT - Nando Times
     NYT - New York Times
     Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
     SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
     SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
     Sg.News - The Singapore News
     Tel- The Telegraph (London)
     Times - The Times (London)
     TOI - Times of India
     TS - Toronto Star
     UPI - United Press International
     WNN - World News Network
     WP - Washington Post
     For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
     The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.
     Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the iraqbodycount site.

3. Data extraction

   Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in opposite directions.
        1. Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident is differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially confused.
        2. Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both production and public scrutiny.
        3. Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core facts that most news reports tend to include.
   The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:
       * Date of incident
       * Time of incident
       * Location of incident
       * Target as stated by military sources
       * Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
       * Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
       * Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
       * Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)
   Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.
   Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum
   Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties and potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for the same incident. To reflect this variation, each incident will be associated with a minimum and maximum reported number of deaths. No number will be entered into the count unless it meets the criteria in the following paragraphs. This conservative approach allows relative certainty about the minimum.
   Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.
   Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum column.
   As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present clearly identifying some or all of the dead as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians will be entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6. -CIA Factbook 2002.]
Read it already; and there is a problem with the organization "Iraqi Body Count", not the least of which is the name of the organization to begin with. RobS 13:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

So the name's in poor taste - that's an ad hominem attack - tell me what's wrong with their work. Jacobin 13:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

We have to begin with the undignified name of the organization--shows little respect for the victims and families. It appears to be extremely partisan in nature and insensitive to the deceased. The alleged "humanitarian" image this organization is attempting to foist upon the public must be adequately explained by that organization, and no other. RobS 13:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Again -do you know what "ad hominem" means? You keep talking about names and images - not about substantive questions concerning methodology. But in that spirit, the name "Iraq Body Count" arose from a response to a question anked of General Tommy Franks concerning civilian casualties. When asked for an estiamte, Franks replied "We don't do body counts." There's your respect for vicitms and families. Jacobin 13:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
The source must be properly qualified to be used becasue of the inherently serious and controversial nature of the claims. RobS 13:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

And these sources are not "properly qualified" as comparedd to Fox News or CNN?

ABC - ABC News (USA)
    AFP - Agence France-Presse
    AP - Associated Press
    AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
    Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
    BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
    BG - Boston Globe
    Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
    CT - Chicago Tribune
    CO - Commondreams.org
    CSM - Christian Science Monitor
    DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
    FOX - Fox News
    GUA - The Guardian (London)
    HRW - Human Rights Watch
    HT - Hindustan Times
    ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
    IND - The Independent (London)
    IO - Intellnet.org
    JT - Jordan Times
    LAT - Los Angeles Times
    MEN - Middle East Newsline
    MEO - Middle East Online
    MER - Middle East Report
    MH - Miami Herald
    NT - Nando Times
    NYT - New York Times
    Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
    SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
    SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
    Sg.News - The Singapore News
    Tel- The Telegraph (London)
    Times - The Times (London)
    TOI - Times of India
    TS - Toronto Star
    UPI - United Press International
    WNN - World News Network
    WP - Washington Post


I know I have no part in this conversation, but i think that Iraq body count is not credible at all. It is just a bunch of Bush hating anti American activists [8]Bohdan

Be that as it may, that doesn't mean their numbers are wrong. I think people here aren't interested in some unpleasant truths about this war. Czolgolz 13:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The source must be qualified. RobS 13:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
And how are they not? No one seems to answer that. Czolgolz 13:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
If you wish to use the source for such highly partisan and controversial claims, qualifying the source properly is for you to do, not for us to accept on good faith. RobS 13:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

One source out of 17 was the IBC. How can you justify throwing the whole thing out because of that? Where did FOX get its numbers from?Prof0705 21:58, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, so now CNN is no longer an acceptable source? Czolgolz 23:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

When was it ever? RobS 23:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Apparently never. When I started the civilian casualties section, I quoted Fox News because I knew no one here would doubt it at all. Fox has reported the lowest number of civilian casualty estimates. Over the past month several users tried to insert other sources (CNN, the Lancet, United Nations, IBC), but they were all removed. Now ask yourselves-are the sources removed because they are inaccurate, or because they post data that reflects poorly on the war? Czolgolz 23:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
We've had this discussion. (A) Flawed method; the statisitcal "norm" uses the basis pre-war Iraq under Saddam. Ramsey Clark reports 1,000,000 million dead prior to 2003, and Hillary Clinton attests Saddam is the cause of (whatever the "norm" regards as a basis) those deaths. (B) It is little more than terrorist propaganda, attempting to blame GW Bush & Co. for deaths caused by anti-democratic terrorists. RobS 23:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Block

So is this article blocked forever? The war's changing, even if Conservapedia never does. Czolgolz 13:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Page is now unprotected. RobS 14:00, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

ARE we blocking the article to new posts AGAIN? May 14, 2007

Skies, I unblocked it. RobS 23:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Needs work

Note that over 2/3 of this article is between a pair of quotation marks. That doesn't constitute an encyclopedia article, it constitutes a quote dump with commentary. And how many of these quotes are valid? Just because somebody says it doesn't make it true. The facts about the operations, a timeline of the war, etc. need to be added. --Hojimachongtalk 00:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

We have much good material. Some could probably be spun out into supporting articles. RobS 00:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

It does seem very long. Can some one fix this? And maybe have links or something to clean things up.

ISF Casualties?

The casualty section only covers Coalition, Civilian and Insurgent deaths. Shouldn't the casualty estimate also include deaths of Iraqi Security Force members. They are fighting with the coalition and are an integral part of the exit strategy, so I think the heavy losses they've sustained deserve recognition. TruePatriot 20:10, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Poor sentence

I don't understand what this sentence is trying to convey as it is badly constructed: "In the post-9/11 analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide jihadists, the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason" Conservative 18:55, 20 November 2007 (EST)

There are five citations for that. This refers to the 9/11 Commission Report and other investigations, and the finding that sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War was cited both by bin Laden as a cause for jihad against America, and Saddam who had quite a few things to say about it. Rob Smith 21:47, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Article Length

Perhaps we should consider branching this off into subarticles? Learn together 14:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

It is pretty indigestible at the moment. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:13, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Suggestion for a major re-write

This article delivers virtually no information about the Operation itself. It covers mostly background, justification and aftermath. These are all very worthy subjects but it seems that they have crowded out facts about the subject matter, i.e. who invaded what, when, how and why. If length is an issue (which it probably is), then topics such as justification and aftermath can be summarised and then split off into decent sub-articles. As it stands, somebody wishing to read about Operation Iraqi Freedom doesn't get any of the basic details about the subject. Ajkgordon 13:40, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I agree. This article conatins a lot of justifications - many of which are a tad creaky. Very poor. Darkmind1970 19:12, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools