Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Democratic Party

2007-05-17T16:52:09Z

Czolgolz: /* Homosexual Agenda */

[[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Democratic Party.]]

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being politically between center and [[leftist | left]] of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the [[rightist | right]] of center (see [[political spectrum theory]]). Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats.

The Democrats currently control the United States [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures. <ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 52.6% disapproval and a 38% approval rating according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/index.php?poll_id=18&page=2 RealClearPolitics Congressional Job Approval Poll], 04/09 - 05/01 </ref>

Like the Republicans, the Democrats are currently selecting their candidate for the 2008 presidential election; the front-runners in the contest are Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]] and Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001.

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]].

In 1798 , the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 Jefferson was elected as the first Democrat [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson, a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner, served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808 . During Madison's tenure, the United States fought the [[United Kingdom]] to a draw in the [[War of 1812]]. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feeling". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition. [[Andrew Jackson]], who signed into law the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]] <ref>[http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal], by
Robert Remini.</ref> according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party." <ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/our_history.php Democratic National Committee, ''Our History''], retrieved 25 March 2007.</ref> Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref>

[[Franklin Roosevelt]], president during the [[Great Depression]] and [[Second World War]], was a Democrat, as was his successor, [[Harry Truman]].

==Policies and criticism==

In June 2005, while Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry in President's Bush's foreign policy, [[anti-Semitic]] materials were distributed at the Democratic Party National headquarters. The literature claimed that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occured simultaneously. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref>

It should be noted that the views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform. The same is true of individual Republicans. Nonetheless, Tyrell accuses Democrats of wearing ideological blinders:

:Can anything embarrass [[Speaker Pelosi]] and the rest of the Democratic leadership? Frankly I doubt it. They are all neatly shut off from the world in their fantasy of moral and intellectual superiority. [http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070510-092027-4746r.htm]

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats favor high progressive taxes, higher government spending and a relatively high minimum wage.'{{fact}}

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[union|organized labor]]. The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.{{fact}}

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref>, such as Saxby Chambliss' campaign against Senator Max Cleland--a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14474-2002Jun19.html "Dirty-Bomb Politics"] Mary McGrory, ''The Washington Post'', 20 June 2002</ref>

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] which claims a long standing opposition to school vouchers <ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> reported Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' saying,
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education." <ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--Environmentalists and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace and social engineering means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Hussein Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the disastrous [[2004 Presidential Election]].

===Homosexual Agenda===
Democrat lawmakers and opinion-formers consistently favor measures such as the establishment of same-sex civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption of heterosexual children over defense of the traditional family. Likewise they are vigorous in attempting to amend [[hate crime|"hate crime"]] laws to make criticism of the homosexual lifestyle illegal; while at the same time supporting efforts to [[propaganda|disseminate favorable opinions]] regarding [[homosexuality]] through channels such as the mainstream media and even the educational system in the face of opposition from churches and religious authorities, a broad coalition of [[Republican Party|Republican]] and Independent politicians and a clear majority of the American public{{fact}}. Democrats reject that the [[Homosexual agenda]] exists so would not consider themselves to be in thrall to it, preferring to speak in terms of [[Gay rights|"gay rights"]] when this issue is raised; but from their actions the Democrat Party can certainly be considered the United States' largest and most powerful de facto supporter of the Homosexual Agenda.{{fact}}

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support [[abortion]], [[gun control]], same- sex civil unions, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Both historically and today, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party, and a number of Democratic office-holders, such as Senator [[Jim Webb]] of [[Virginia]], are Catholics. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to [[Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in particular are associated with the [[Republican Party]]. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestant Christians and from secular and atheist white voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestant Christians (and, indeed, among orthodox Catholics) contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Political Parties]]

Talk:Jimmy Carter

2007-05-17T14:53:05Z

Czolgolz: /* UFO sighting */

Is this the same president who got an award for brokering a deal with North Korea which they went on to break secretly? It had something to do with crediting him for ensuring that NK would '''not''' do something with nukes that would endanger the world, i.e., he got credit for preventing them. But we found out years later that they did the thing he got credit for preventing. Lemme google that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.
*The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.
*In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program. [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/12/164726.shtml]

Yes, just what I thought. Now let's see if I can find a more credible sources than Ruddy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
*The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts. [ibid]

I didn't know about this one. Can anyone else verify this? It has the ring of truth, and I've always considered Carter the worst US president of the 20th century - especially on [[human rights]], but this is not a blog. This is an encyclopedia, and everything must be verifiable and trustworthy. Someone else a bit less emotionally involved than I am should continue this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

My impression is that Jimmy Carter was and is a conservative. His vilification was due to "Reagan conservatives" justifying Reagan's presidency. Reagan was actually a radical who tried, and in many ways succeeded, in turning back the clock. Carter supported the Vietnam War and is a religious man. His support of the ERA was tepid at best.

I have to take issue with the first line, "He is not only regarded by most Americans across the political spectrum as being the worst president of the 20th century, but he is also considered by many conservatives to be among the worst presidents in the entirety of American history."

That has the ring of the mealy-mouthed 'Some people say..." that is so common among journalists. It's just a vague impression that is not in any way quantified.

Is there a source for this information? Is there a recent survey of people saying who the worst president of the 20th century is? As it is, there's no foundation to this statement.

: I think both Richard Nixon and Warren G. Harding get in line before Carter on the Liberal Bad President List. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Carter's reputation was in big trouble long before Reagan ever took office; let me give a real simple illustration why Jimmy Carter was, and remains roundly considered one of the most ineffective Presidents of late memory. Carter served from 1977 to 1981; in that time, the Democrats controlled ''both'' House & Senate, i.e. there was '''no''' divided government. The number one priority of the Congressional Black Caucus for each and every one of those four years, was passage and signing into law the [[Martin Luther King]] National Holiday. For some reason, Mr. Carter just could not get the job done. There must have been other priorities that prevented President Carter from convincing a majority of members of ''his own party'', this was an important thing to get done during his first term of office. By contrast, Ronald Reagan, and the Republican controlled Senate, had no problem convincing the Democratically controlled House of Representatives to pass this legislation. And history records the facts of this matter, which is illustrative of Jimmy Carter's failed, ineffectual leadership. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not going to argue that Carter was a good president; he wasn't. But most polls of historians and the like consistently place Carter towards the bottom of the third quarter or top of the fourth quarter. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Nixon tend to score below him for presidents in the 20th Century.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:01, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Republicans discuss this often, of the three Democratic Presidents of recent memory, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, Repubs debate which was the worst. Oddly, the one who got impeached is usually considered the best when considering those three. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

It's amazing how much time "conservatives" waste on debating someone's "conservative" credentials, as opposed to how effective they were in making the United States a great nation.
:Jimmy Carter made the US a great nation? i think your confusing him with Reagan.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Not at all. You totally misunderstood my point, which is that the contributions the president made to the greatness of the United States is more important than whether they were liberal or conservative. By my standards, neither Carter nor Reagan were good presidents, although overall Reagan did more harm than Carter. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, perhaps Wilson, Roosevelt, perhaps Eisenhower, were great presidents.

Exuse me but I think that the best word that describes Carter's Presidency is malaise. Also I don't understand why Coolidge is rated so low. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== UFO sighting ==
I removed the following commentary from the article: "most likely most likely the planet Venus"

I also changed the section title from belief in space aliens to UFO sighting. I am putting notice here in case others want to dispute these changes. Please discuss. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of UFO sightings do turn out to be a particularly bright view of Venus. It would not be surprising. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, but the article went from accusing Carter of believing in little green men, to an uncited explaination. While plausable, I'd prefer it be sourced, wouldn't you? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 01:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Even if the flying sauce was a remote control hologram flown by the Martian version of [[Paul Wolfowitz]], that language is suitable. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:14, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

According to the 1981 book 'MOre Rumor' it was most likely the planet venus. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:53, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Jimmy Carter

2007-05-17T02:41:11Z

Czolgolz: /* Belief in space aliens */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Carter.jpg|210px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jimmy Carter;
Thirty-ninth President of the United States
|-
|Born
|October 1, 1924
|-
|Term
|1977-1981
|-
|}

'''James Earl Carter, Jr.''' was the 39th [[President of the United States of America]] following [[Gerald Ford]] and preceding [[Ronald Reagan]]. He was a [[Democrat]] who served from 1977-1981, after being the Governor of [[Georgia]].

His difficulty in overcoming the challenges that were presented to the nation during his time in office helped lead to the election of [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980. He has been unusually active as an ex-president, serving as an election monitor in many emerging democracies, and as a self-proclaimed "peace advocate", was recognized with the [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]].

==Presidency==

Carter's presidency was marked by a period of American supremacy being challenged abroad and economic recession and [[stagflation]] striking at home. Carter's presidency was marked by retrenchment, after the disappointing agony that had been the [[Vietnam War]], and economic [[stagflation]] churning at home.

In the midst of the 1980 campaign, a pro-U.S. monarchy was toppled by the 1979 [[Iran|Iranian]] Revolution and dozens of [[Iran Hostage Crisis|American hostages were taken]] inside the American embassy by Islamic fundamentalist revolutionaries after Carter gave sanctuary to exiled dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. With the international outrage at the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] invasion of [[Afghanistan]] later the same year, Carter was rendered impotent, as America saw its influence declining abroad.

Despite Carter's own Democratic Party controlling both Houses of Congress, and the White House he failed to reform the tax system, and to reduce the size of the government bureaucracy, as promised during the 1976 campaign, or to pass the Martin Luther King holiday.

He has also been criticized for not doing enough to promote his proclaimed human rights foreign policy stance in his administration, such as continuing to support the [[Indonesia]]n government even while it was implicated in the commission of acts of genocide in the occupation of East Timor.

Carter's response to Soviet aggression against Afghanistan was to single out American farmers who suffered terribly when he terminated the Russian Wheat Deal, a keystone Nixon [[Detente]] initiative to establish trade with USSR and lessen [[Cold War]] tensions.

He was defeated in the 1980 presidential election by Ronald Reagan by nearly ten percentage points. [[Republican Party|Republicans]] also gained control of the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 for Carter (representing 6 states and the District of Columbia).

Carter personally opposed [[abortion]] but only recently, more than a quarter of a century after his presidency, expressed his opposition in public.

===Stagflation===

A major issue President Carter failed to deal with was [[inflation]], caused especially by continued high levels of government spending and the rising price of imported oil, which was the major source of energy for many industries. The Misery Index, Carter's own invention of economic well-being, rose 50% in four years.

Government spending caused interest rates to rise to unprecedented levels (above 12 percent per year). Inflation and interest rates reached their highest levels since [[World War II]]. The rapid change in interest rates led to disintermediation of bank deposits, which sowed the seeds of the [[Savings and Loan crisis]]. Investments in fixed income were becoming less valuable. Holders of both bonds, and pensions being paid to retired people had their life savings wiped out. The stagnant growth of the economy (causing unemployment), in combination with a high rate of inflation, has often been called [[stagflation]], an unprecedented situation in American economics.

[[Bert Lance]], Carter's appointee to head the [[Office of Management and Budget]] which manages the U.S. federal budget, was forced to resign when his past bank overdrafts and "check kiting" schemes in Georgia were exposed.

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Cover of Jimmy Carter's book, ''Peace Not Apartheid'', which accuses [[Israel]] of practicing racism.]]
Carter has been active in foreign affairs since his presidency. His continued work mediating international disputes, organizing election observations, and working with organizations on disease and hunger were cited when he was awarded the 2002 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. In his Nobel lecture, Carter declared his support for "international law":

<blockquote>
Our President, [[Woodrow Wilson]], was honored here for promoting the [[League of Nations]], whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: "collective security" and "self-determination." Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait. <ref>[http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/nobel.phtml Text of Carter's Nobel Lecture] Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, 2002.</ref>
</blockquote>

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Carter was grouped in the "Below Average" group, ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.<ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

In 2001 as President Clinton exited office and handed out many dubious and questionable pardons, some to [[terrorist]]s and others which appeared bought and paid for, Carter blasted President Clinton's actions and refered to them as "disgraceful". + In Jimmy Carter's latest book, ''Palestine Peace Not Apartheid'', he wrote:

In Jimmy Carter's latest book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid", he appeared to endorse Arab terrorism against Israel as a tactic to achieve political ends:

In Jimmy Carter's latest book, ''Palestine Peace Not Apartheid'', he wrote:
<blockquote>
It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
</blockquote>
The sentiment was widely criticized. He apologized for the wording of that sentence, but not for his larger message.<ref>Washington Post, January 24, 2007 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301668.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/books]</ref>

==Belief in space aliens==
[[Image:Carter Sighting Report 2.gif|thumb|right|President Carter's report the planet may have been visited by space aliens.]]
Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969 (most likely the planet Venus); he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization. <ref>http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm</ref> During his presidential campaign, Carter promised to release the truth about any alleged UFO cover-up.

Through Stanford Research Institute, Mr. Alfred Webre was Principal Investigator for a proposed civilian scientific study of extraterrestrial communication presented to and developed with interested Carter White House staff. This took place during the period from May 1977 until the fall of 1977.

==Voyager Probe==
President Carter placed this official statement on the Voyager space probe <ref>http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=555</ref> for its trip outside the solar system on June 16, 1977: "We cast this message into the cosmos . . . Of the 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some - - perhaps many - - may have inhabited planets and space faring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message: We are trying to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope some day, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of Galactic Civilizations. This record represents our hope and our determination and our goodwill in a vast and awesome universe."<ref>http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
:[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265 Carter the worst ex-president -- Steven Hayward]
:[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem] by Deborah Lipstadt.

==See also==
* [[Carter Doctrine]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Jimmy}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Jimmy Carter

2007-05-17T02:40:33Z

Czolgolz: rv inflamatory POV

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Carter.jpg|210px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jimmy Carter;
Thirty-ninth President of the United States
|-
|Born
|October 1, 1924
|-
|Term
|1977-1981
|-
|}

'''James Earl Carter, Jr.''' was the 39th [[President of the United States of America]] following [[Gerald Ford]] and preceding [[Ronald Reagan]]. He was a [[Democrat]] who served from 1977-1981, after being the Governor of [[Georgia]].

His difficulty in overcoming the challenges that were presented to the nation during his time in office helped lead to the election of [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980. He has been unusually active as an ex-president, serving as an election monitor in many emerging democracies, and as a self-proclaimed "peace advocate", was recognized with the [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]].

==Presidency==

Carter's presidency was marked by a period of American supremacy being challenged abroad and economic recession and [[stagflation]] striking at home. Carter's presidency was marked by retrenchment, after the disappointing agony that had been the [[Vietnam War]], and economic [[stagflation]] churning at home.

In the midst of the 1980 campaign, a pro-U.S. monarchy was toppled by the 1979 [[Iran|Iranian]] Revolution and dozens of [[Iran Hostage Crisis|American hostages were taken]] inside the American embassy by Islamic fundamentalist revolutionaries after Carter gave sanctuary to exiled dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. With the international outrage at the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] invasion of [[Afghanistan]] later the same year, Carter was rendered impotent, as America saw its influence declining abroad.

Despite Carter's own Democratic Party controlling both Houses of Congress, and the White House he failed to reform the tax system, and to reduce the size of the government bureaucracy, as promised during the 1976 campaign, or to pass the Martin Luther King holiday.

He has also been criticized for not doing enough to promote his proclaimed human rights foreign policy stance in his administration, such as continuing to support the [[Indonesia]]n government even while it was implicated in the commission of acts of genocide in the occupation of East Timor.

Carter's response to Soviet aggression against Afghanistan was to single out American farmers who suffered terribly when he terminated the Russian Wheat Deal, a keystone Nixon [[Detente]] initiative to establish trade with USSR and lessen [[Cold War]] tensions.

He was defeated in the 1980 presidential election by Ronald Reagan by nearly ten percentage points. [[Republican Party|Republicans]] also gained control of the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 for Carter (representing 6 states and the District of Columbia).

Carter personally opposed [[abortion]] but only recently, more than a quarter of a century after his presidency, expressed his opposition in public.

===Stagflation===

A major issue President Carter failed to deal with was [[inflation]], caused especially by continued high levels of government spending and the rising price of imported oil, which was the major source of energy for many industries. The Misery Index, Carter's own invention of economic well-being, rose 50% in four years.

Government spending caused interest rates to rise to unprecedented levels (above 12 percent per year). Inflation and interest rates reached their highest levels since [[World War II]]. The rapid change in interest rates led to disintermediation of bank deposits, which sowed the seeds of the [[Savings and Loan crisis]]. Investments in fixed income were becoming less valuable. Holders of both bonds, and pensions being paid to retired people had their life savings wiped out. The stagnant growth of the economy (causing unemployment), in combination with a high rate of inflation, has often been called [[stagflation]], an unprecedented situation in American economics.

[[Bert Lance]], Carter's appointee to head the [[Office of Management and Budget]] which manages the U.S. federal budget, was forced to resign when his past bank overdrafts and "check kiting" schemes in Georgia were exposed.

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Cover of Jimmy Carter's book, ''Peace Not Apartheid'', which accuses [[Israel]] of practicing racism.]]
Carter has been active in foreign affairs since his presidency. His continued work mediating international disputes, organizing election observations, and working with organizations on disease and hunger were cited when he was awarded the 2002 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. In his Nobel lecture, Carter declared his support for "international law":

<blockquote>
Our President, [[Woodrow Wilson]], was honored here for promoting the [[League of Nations]], whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: "collective security" and "self-determination." Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait. <ref>[http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/nobel.phtml Text of Carter's Nobel Lecture] Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, 2002.</ref>
</blockquote>

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Carter was grouped in the "Below Average" group, ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.<ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

In 2001 as President Clinton exited office and handed out many dubious and questionable pardons, some to [[terrorist]]s and others which appeared bought and paid for, Carter blasted President Clinton's actions and refered to them as "disgraceful". + In Jimmy Carter's latest book, ''Palestine Peace Not Apartheid'', he wrote:

In Jimmy Carter's latest book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid", he appeared to endorse Arab terrorism against Israel as a tactic to achieve political ends:

In Jimmy Carter's latest book, ''Palestine Peace Not Apartheid'', he wrote:
<blockquote>
It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
</blockquote>
The sentiment was widely criticized. He apologized for the wording of that sentence, but not for his larger message.<ref>Washington Post, January 24, 2007 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301668.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/books]</ref>

==Belief in space aliens==
[[Image:Carter Sighting Report 2.gif|thumb|right|President Carter's report the planet may have been visited by space aliens.]]
Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization. <ref>http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm</ref> During his presidential campaign, Carter promised to release the truth about any alleged UFO cover-up.

Through Stanford Research Institute, Mr. Alfred Webre was Principal Investigator for a proposed civilian scientific study of extraterrestrial communication presented to and developed with interested Carter White House staff. This took place during the period from May 1977 until the fall of 1977.

==Voyager Probe==
President Carter placed this official statement on the Voyager space probe <ref>http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=555</ref> for its trip outside the solar system on June 16, 1977: "We cast this message into the cosmos . . . Of the 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some - - perhaps many - - may have inhabited planets and space faring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message: We are trying to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope some day, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of Galactic Civilizations. This record represents our hope and our determination and our goodwill in a vast and awesome universe."<ref>http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
:[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265 Carter the worst ex-president -- Steven Hayward]
:[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem] by Deborah Lipstadt.

==See also==
* [[Carter Doctrine]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Jimmy}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Mexico

2007-05-17T00:02:43Z

Czolgolz:

[[Image:Mexicof3b.gif‎ |thumbnail|right|0px|The Mexican flag.]]

'''Mexico''' is a country in [[North America]], directly south of the [[United States]]; bordering the North Pacific Ocean is between Guatemala and the US and bordering the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, between Belize and the US. Mexico is a federal republic with 31 states and 1 federal district. It's capital is Mexico City. At present Mexico's territory covers almost 2 million square kilometers with a population of about 108 million (2007).

The states of [[Texas]], [[New Mexico]], [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], and parts of [[Wyoming]], and [[Colorado]]), were part of Mexico until the [[Mexican American War]]. Many U. S. citizens in this region speak Spanish as their native language.

[[Image:Cu11.jpg|thumb|right|The University of Mexico City]]
 
== Economy ==

Mexico has a free market economy. Per capita income is one-fourth that of the U. S.; income distribution remains highly unequal.

It is a newly industrialized country, meaning it is in the intermediate stage between third world and full development. However, some parts of the country (mostly in the south) are noted because of a poor economy, causing it to be the main contributor of [[illegal immigration]] to the [[United States]] to find work.

The Oil production is estimated as 3.6 million bbl/day (2007).

== Government ==
Mexico's government is representative, democratic and republican. It's chief of state and head of government is President [[Felipe Calderon | Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa]] (since 1 December, 2006). The current president is from the PAN or National Action Party. Calderon and the PAN are [[conservative]].

==Religion==

The dominant Religion of Mexico is [[Roman Catholic]]ism <ref> [https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html Facts of Mexico] </ref>. Mexican society tend to be conservative in certain aspects, such as family values.

== See also ==

*[[Mexican History]]
*[[Our Lady of Guadalupe]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:Mexico]]

Talk:Mexico

2007-05-17T00:02:05Z

Czolgolz: /* Emigration */

Thanks for doing the merge, Scott. It's not simply a matter of copy and paste, or I would have done it myself instead of tagging the articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:53, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:No worries - I hope the information is correct - I don't know enough about Mexico to tell, but I've fixed a few pretty dodgy country pages today. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Are American style tacos really the best representative picture for the Mexico article? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Probably not - especially since they're not mentioned in the text. Should they be removed, or have text or caption increased to create some connection? Please do whatever is best, and if you have a better picture, please add it. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Emigration ==

This new paragraph

''== Emigration ==''

''Many Americans (from US) have become angry at tendency for Mexicans to go to the United States, where there is a perception that they are welcome to go and use this healthy economy to make money. Because many aspects of such a culture (such as the common unwillingness to learn or speak English) which are incompatible with American (from US) values, these people are often unwelcome, especially those who immigrate illegally. Groups such as the Minutemen have been active in stopping this influx (sometimes killing them), but it is still a problem with which the US must contend.''

is not in the proper article. This matter concern basically to the United States and ''there'' it should be. Not in an article about Mexico.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm prone to disagree. Remember that Conservapedia seeks to illuminate the American perspective, so it makes sense that such a huge issue should at least be mentioned. To suggest otherwise would imply a bias for those who choose to come to this country illegally.
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 18:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

A common unwillingness to learn to speak English? I guess the three years I spent teaching English in Mexico was a fluke. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Jethro Tull (rock band)

2007-05-16T18:59:20Z

Czolgolz: /* Trivia */

'''Jethro Tull''' is a British rock band often classified as progressive rock, although they were heavily influenced by blues and folk music. Their lead singer, [[Ian Anderson]], is well-known for playing the [[flute]] and for his quirky stage-presence. Their most famous album is [[Aqualung]] (1971).

==Trivia==

Jethro Tull won the first Grammy Award for Heavy Metal performance, causing a great deal of controversy, as many did not consider them to be a heavy metal band. The band did not show up to collect their award, but released a full-page newspaper advertisement the next day stating that "The flute is a heavy metal instrument."{{fact}}

[[Category:Bands]]

School

2007-05-16T17:16:50Z

Czolgolz:

A '''school''' is an [[institution]] where people go to [[learn]].

''Public schools'' are commonly observed over most of the world as a [[community]] effort to improve the minds of their [[children]], and are usually paid for through [[taxation]]. This is nearly the only schooling system used in [[Nordic Countries]].{{fact}}

''Private schools'' are organized similarly, though as their name implies, they are not paid for by society but by the children's parents. Some private schools aspire to very high standards, some specialize in certain modes and topics of instruction (such as a military school), and yet others provide a place for children who need curricula not available in the public systems.

Schooling also occurs (in smaller numbers) in various non-traditional and non-institutional environments. This is often due to concerns of parents about institutional schooling, such as a lack of quality in traditional schools, or a lack of religious [[indoctrination]] that they feel is important to their children's [[moral]] development.

[[Category:Education]]

==See also==
*[[Homeschooling]]

Bill Clinton

2007-05-16T17:14:07Z

Czolgolz: /* Whitewater Affair */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:billclinton.jpg|200px|United States President Bill Clinton]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: indigo no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bill Clinton;
Forty-second President of the United States
|-
|Born
|August 19, 1946
|-
|Term
|1993-2001
|-
|}

'''William Jefferson''' "Bill" '''Clinton''' '''(August 19, 1946 - present)''' served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2001, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]].

== Early Life ==

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946 AD in Hope, Arkansas. His father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. died in a car accident while his mother was pregnant with him. Clinton's mother later married Roger Clinton, and the four year-old William was given his stepfather's name.[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html]

Clinton was active in high school, participating in various student government organizations as well as playing the saxophone. Roger Clinton, however, made Bill's family life unpleasant by repeatedly abusing Clinton's mother and her children. Bill Clinton would eventually stand up to his stepfather in high school, forcing his stepfather to stop beating his mother and kicking him out of the house. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50652] After Roger Clinton underwent alcohol rehabilitation, he would eventually rejoin the family.

Clinton attended [[Georgetown University]], then [[Oxford University]] after receiving a prestigious [[Rhodes Scholarship]]. He also then earned a Juris Doctorate from [[Yale University]] in 1973. At Yale he met [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary Rodham]], whom he would later marry [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html].

== Early Political Career ==

After returning to live in Arkansas, Clinton was elected [[Attorney General]] of Arkansas in 1976 AD. Two years later, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country as a 32 year-old. Though defeated in 1980 AD, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 AD and held it until becoming President in 1992 AD.

== Presidency==
[[Image:Somalia.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Poster to end the "racist occupation of Somalia"; eighteen US soldiers were killed and some of their bodies were bodies were dragged through the streets, [http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=13022]]]
Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote versus President [[George H. W. Bush's]] 37%, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with Bush's proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton was unable to "reform" health-care in the United States with a [[socialism| socialized]] health-care plan. It was a tough sell in the wake of the collapse of Soviet Bloc only a few years earlier. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy.{{fact}} The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee financing, expenses and membership. The program ultimately became so unpopular after two years the Democratically controlled Congress shielded its members records by never bringing it to floor for a vote.

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a victory to Republicans in Congress. This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," and began a series of showdowns with the Republican-led Congress.{{fact}} These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint082800d.html]. This showdown backfired for the Republicans, as it reinvigorated Clinton's flagging approval ratings. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Clinton_approval_rating.JPG].

In late 1995, President Clinton dispatched some 20,000 U.S. troops to [[Bosnia]].

Clinton was reelected in 1996 and carried 49.2% of the popular vote against Republican candidate ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]), who won 41%, and "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]], who won 8%. Clinton spent a lot of the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. A special prosecutor's report was not released until well into Clinton's second term, and brought documented Clinton giving false testimony in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit while President which resulted in his impeachment and disbarment from the legal profession.{{fact}} The main charge was that he had committed perjury in a civil suit. The perjured testimony directly related to an attempt to defraud the plainitff of damages. The Senate failed to make clear what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. <ref>[http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/lieberman.shtml Statement by Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut)], Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.</ref>,

During Clinton's presidency the [[terrorist]] group [[al-Qaeda]] conducted the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, simulataneous bombings of the US embassies in [[Kenya]] and [[Tanzania]] in 1998, and the attack on the [[USS Cole]] in 2000. Terrorist leader [[Osama bin Laden]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for Bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998.</ref> issued two public [[fatwa]]s declaring War on America. <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm Bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> In the 1998 fatwa <ref>Bernard Lewis, [http://www.msu.edu/course/iss/325/stein/read-325-3.htm#Lewis License to Kill], Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998.</ref> bin Laden told ''[[Jihad|jihadist]]s'' worldwide,

{{Cquote|Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by [[Allah]] and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, [[Aden]] and [[Mogadishu]]. <ref>[http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097mohamedinterview&scale=0#a1097mohamedinterview October 1997: [[Ali Mohamed]] Tells FBI He Helped Al-Qaeda Kill US Soldiers, But FBI Takes No Action]</ref>}}

Bin Laden told ''ABC News'' at the time, "We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets." <ref>The 9-11 Commission Report, [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf2. The Foundation of the New Terrorism], Official Government Edition, GPO, 2004.</ref>

Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of [[cruise missile]] attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged. On several occassions <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y= The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism], Byron York, ''National Review Online'', September 11, 2006. </ref> generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks <ref>[http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/21/wwwh8d21.html Airstrikes Against Iraq: 'What Happens Now?'], U.S. Information Agency ''Daily Digest'', December 21, 1998. </ref> where launched which resulted in a 10 point gain in the public opinion polls. Nick Gillespie of ''Reason'' remarked,
{{Cquote|Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and [[Sudan]] … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…" <ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/30827.html Bombs Away - Troubling questions about the U.S. attack on Sudan], ''Reason'', December 1998. </ref>}}

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. Portions regarding civil rights remedies were later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

== Whitewater Affair ==

His close personal business partnerships with James McDougall in a failed Savings and Loan business venture lead to investigation of the [[Whitewater]] affair. Several of the people involved with the sale of land prior to the Clinton presidency were indicted, but the Clintons were never charged with a crime.{{fact}}

== Impeachment ==

On Aug. 17, 1998, after relentless media attention, leaks, and news of Lewinsky's upcoming testimony, Clinton made history by becoming the first U.S. president to testify in front of a grand jury in an investigation of his own possibly criminal conduct. In an address to the nation, he admitted to having had an "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky, but reaffirmed that he did not ask anyone to lie about or cover up the affair.

[[Kenneth Starr]], the special prosecutor in the case, pursued the matter.

Clinton became the second sitting president to be impeached by the US House of Representatives. During his second term Clinton was accused of perjury in connection to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. The US Senate voted to acquit him. He later lost his law license in Arkansas.

== After the Presidency ==

Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fund-raising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami. In the case of the Indonesian tsunami, he teamed with former president [[George H.W. Bush]] to raise money for relief efforts.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], was elected Senator to New York in 2000. Reelected in 2006, she is now seeking the Democratic nomination for president 2008.

Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff was John Podesta between 1998-2001.

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-05-16T15:29:40Z

Czolgolz: /* Sept 11 comments */

{{protected|Geo.plrd}}

This page needs improvement to do justice to Rev. Falwell.

I rolled back the liberal gossip about Falwell and Rev. Moon. It's nothing more than a smear effort of the sort we don't allow under our [[rules]]. Falwell is not an adherent of Rev. Moon's church and Falwell is entitled to do business just like everyone else. The smear was unsupported by a credible resource.

Be fair to Christians and everyone else here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Also I'm not sure that rotten.com is a "reliable" source.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: My addition to this article is based on fact, not opinion. Critics do indeed attack Falwell's connection the Unification Church. This is not an attack or "smear" on Christians in general but a verifiable fact about the controversy surrounding a public figure. Opposing viewpoints supported by citations are welcome, but this is tantamount to censorhip. Rotten has an admitted liberal bias but all their info in this instance is credible and independently verifiable.

--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to edit this article over the next couple days. Falwell has been a tremendous educator, and his efforts deserve more than this. Stay tuned! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 21:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure why my changes were reverted. Jerry Falwell has ties to Republican causes and the Moral Majority is a part of the Religious Right, not the Religious right. For instance the Christian Coalition is part of the Religious Right as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(Belated question) How is it a "smear" to link Falwell and Moon? Has [[Rev. Moon]] done something wrong? (Apart from not accepting [[Young Earth creationism]], I mean ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Just passed away==
CCN just reported his death today.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Someone commented out his support for apartheid. Not sure why as it's factual and documented. I removed the comment block around it...apologies for the double edit.

: Jerry Falwell was frequently misquoted and misinterpreted by anti-Christian enemies. Don't expect any unsourced, biased and misleading information, motivated by anti-Christian animus, to be allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My Civil Procedure professor represented Larry Flynt in his successful defense of Falwell's suit before the Supreme Court. He also played Falwell's attorney (switching sides) in the film version of the trial. Fun stuff. -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==South Africa and apartheid==

Time magazine, Monday, Sep. 02, 1985:
*Falwell opposes apartheid, but professed faith that Botha will dismantle the system eventually, if only everyone is patient. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959695,00.html]

I stand corrected. I'll update changes to reflect this. Stompum
*Page is locked. Mods please remove the line about Falwell's support for Apartheid.

== Sept 11 comments ==

Why were these deleted? They're important, widely publicized, etc. I can't imagine anything other than censorship - that hallmark of Wikipedia - that would compel you to leave his unpopular side out of the article.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:When will you revert to re-include his Sept 11th comments?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe that in the Nancy Pelosi article there is a section about her marching in the same group as a NAMBLA member. Seems very biased and one-sided to leave that part in there, but then take out any mention of Falwell's hateful statements on 9-11 because it might make him look bad. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:52, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think you are going to see anything but a hagiography here. Mr. Falwell represents everything this site's owners hold dear. I'll stick to paraphrasing Randi Rhodes: "If I had anything sympathetic to say about that man at all, I'd say it." But these people love him, and it's their site. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hagiography! Now there's a ten dollar word! Despite his apology, Rev. Falwell's quotes will forever be part of the 9/11 memory. But since the sysops love him, there's no way they'll include anything slightly negative here. RIP Falwell. Hope you don't meet any pagans, homosexuals, feminists, or ACLU members in heaven. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Quotes==
Here's a website (I know it's biased, but the quotes are accurate): http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/devil.html

You can form your own opinion about him, I don't care what you think, but I just thought it might be helpful to create an opinion on him (to conservatives: look for the two anti-semitic quotes.)
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:Oh really? Let's take this one,
*''Alcoholism and Negroes
"There are almost as many alcoholics as there
are negroes."
Rev. Jerry Falwell

You alleged "source" gives us a classic ''argumentum ad ignoratiam''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your reply is barely coherent. Explanation?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Your source uses the conjunctive word, "and"; Rev. Falwell nowhere conjoins alcholism and Negroes; in fact, Rev. Falwell does a compararison of the statisical population of both. This is typical of the trite garbage that passes as reasoned discourse from some sectors of liberalism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
So that's one quote that might be out of context. The rest, though?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 18:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger (I did mention the source is biased), you're entitled to your own opinion.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

OK, I randomly picked a liberal quote of [[Jerry Falwell]]:

"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their
problem."

Colorful and statistically accurate. I agree it's not politically correct. Go to Hillary Clinton for political correctness. [[Jerry Falwell]] spoke the truth in a colorful way, and we thank him for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:How come you don't like women?

How about these?

"The idea of separation of Church and State
was invented by the Devil to keep Christians
from running their own country."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure
as a human being."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna
is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol."

Rev. Jerry Falwell
(Falwell on the teletubbies, come on, how much more paranoid can you get?)
::Did he really say this? Check a less biased source.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I got 10 identical matches on the first page of google...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
::Yes, but he himself did not say this. It was his newspaper. He had no involvement.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I wasn't there, and wikipedia is rather vague about it, but the BBC link is pretty clear, what do you think of his claims about Jews?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

And for all those people with little Israeli flags on their user pages:

"I know a few of you here today don't like Jews.
And I know why. He can make more money accidentally
than you can on purpose.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief.
They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of
their Messiah and Savior.

Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Confronting his critics ==

While I disagree with the Rev on many issues, he was never afraid to discuss his disagreements with others. He would have gladly sat down with Clinton, Dawkins, anyone, and debated any issue. I do wish more people would follow that example, rather than censoring or pushing away those with whom they disagree.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== History will judge him harshly ==

Ultimately, Falwell was one of the group who used religion as a cause for separating rather than uniting. His notoriously stupid remarks about gays just after 9/11, a somewhat thinly disguised anti-semetism, and some absurd remarks on pop culture (you know, the one about the Tele-tubby being a gay role model), rather than appealing to our better selves, goaded our darker sides.

My reading of the new testatment indicates that Jesus preached tolerance and loving thy neighbor. And indeed, when I was a kid, I recall religous folks were always pretty nice people, even their kids couldn't play hockey on Sunday.

Tell you what, read the book of Matthew, look at some old Billy Graham sermons, and forget this mean-spirted blowhard.--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 20:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:So I guess an apology means nothing, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think that an apology undoes the harm he did to a country that was trying to heal, when he tore the wounds open & rubbed salt in them again.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::will someone explain exactly what harm he did?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
Bohdan, here [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/]

Speaker, Frankly, I'm certain Falwell spoke from the heart, and quickly realized America needed to be united in the coming war, and not fighting among ourselves. That's why he immediately issued the apology. Truth is, I'm also fairly certain Falwell gave voice to the sentiments a lot of other Americans were experiencing at the same time. And based upon the daily drumbeat of hatred we see from gays and neopagans directed at Bush, (and comments we've seen here), Falwell was right. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Daily drumbeat of hatred from homosexuals and neopagans? Can you give an... actual example? I'm thrilled to see it.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Polls say 60%+ nolonger wish to take the war to the terrorists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I hate to say it, but that's 60% of the American people, right? So it's not like it's exclusively gays and pagans who don't particularly like Bush. I'm sure there are people in the 60% who are not gay or pagan who hate Bush, while not the majority. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Go to [[:Category:Anti-war movement]] and see who's been anti-war since Falwell made this statement. Incidentally, too bad the NAMBLA article got deleted, they've been leading the anti-war movement since March 2003. But for reference, you can visit NAMBLA advocate [[Harry Hay]]. Seems he's no stranger to anti-war activity and working with America's enemies since the Korean War. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's ''Guilt By Association'', and it is most certainly a fallacy. NAMBLA most certainly has not been ''leading'' the anti-war movement. Have you seen any news reports about NAMBLA organizing anti-war protests? I sure haven't. Not on Fox or otherwise.
::::Then again, you might be implying that the reason why NAMBLA is anti-war is because Falwell accused them of being responsible. As he didn't even mention NAMBLA in the quote, I find this hard to believe. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Past tense ==

Someone who actually sees "edit" rather than "view source" on the article page should go around and change all the verbs to past tense so that instead of saying he does something they say he did something. The man is dead. He's not doing any of those things anymore. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 23:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name ==

Add: Jerry Laymon Falwell Sr.

Thank you

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== External links ==

Add also a link:

External Links: [http://www.falwell.com/ J. F. Website]

And a pic: Image:Falwell.jpg|right [[Image:Falwell.jpg|right]]

( source:http://www.falwell.com/index.cfm?PID=13737 )

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:03, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Battle of Thermopylae

2007-05-16T01:18:21Z

Czolgolz: /* Greek/Persian */

The '''Battle of Thermopylae''' was a famous battle during the [[Greco-Persian Wars]], fought in north western greece. It is known for the fact that 300 [[Sparta|Spartan]] soldiers and 7000 other Greek soldiers (most notably the [[Thespiae|Thespians]]) held off an army of several hundred thousand [[Persia|Persian]] soldiers (led by [[Xerxes]]) for three days, therefore giving the rest of Greece time to group and prepare to the south. It was considered to be a defining moment in the war.

== Greek/Persian ==

The battle of Thermopylae was fought between the Greeks and the Persians in 480 BC. The Persian "God king" Xerxes, master of the huge Persian Empire, was waging war on Greece for control of its lands and people. The battle is most known for two factors: 1) the impressive show of strength by the Persians, whose forces numbered between 200,000 to 2 million 2) the determination and bravery of the few thousand Greeks who tried to stop them. The estimated 6700 Non-Spartan Greeks ([[Athens|Athenians]] and soldiers from other city-states) were led by the Spartan king [[Leonidas]]. The Spartans themselves numbered a few hundred.

The Greek soldiers were able to successfully hold off the Persians because of the terrain and their fighting style. Because the mountain pass was so narrow at the location they had chosen to fight, the Greeks only had to face a small number of the Persian army at a time. Also, the Greek [[phalanx]], a fighting style consisting of ten rows and ten columns of soldiers carrying twelve foot long spears and rounded shields gave the Greeks a huge advantage. This fighting style was so effective because the tight formation and shields left practically no part of a soldier unprotected, and the twelve foot long spears enabled men from a few rows back to attack. It was also effective because when a Greek soldier died on the front line, he was immediately replaced by a new soldier. After two days of battle in which the Persians were unable to advance, a traitorous Greek farmer named [[Ephialtes of Trachis|Ephialtes]] told the Persians of a secret path that let the Persians get around and attack the Greeks from behind. 300 Spartans and 700 [[Thespians stayed]], while the Athenians left to gather more forces, and the impressive last stand allowed Sparta and Athens to regroup and eventually defeat the Persian forces in the [[Battle of Platea]]. It is estimated that 20,000 Persians were killed by the Greeks. The traitor Ephialtes is so derided in [[Greek]] tradition, that his name is now a synonym for "nightmare."

The battle of Thermopylae was considered to be a key battle in preventing the overrunning of Western civilization by Eastern invaders.

A movie was made about this battle in 2007 named "300". However, the movie was based upon the highly-stylized graphic novel by Frank Miller and so mixes historical fact with historical fiction.{{fact}}

== See also ==

*[[Alexander the Great]]
*[[Julius Caesar]]
*[[The Crusades]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]

== Source ==

Cartledge, Paul, Thermopylae; the Battle that Changed the World, Overlook Press, New York, 2006

{{DEFAULTSORT:Thermopylae, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Ancient Greece]]

Same-sex marriage

2007-05-15T15:58:24Z

Czolgolz:

A '''same-sex marriage''' is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that has the same legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman.

Unheard of a few decades ago these unions are one of a number of issues involving gay rights and the "culture wars."{{fact}} In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states, and was concerned about test cases that would make it to the Supreme Court which would require a state that did not allow homosexual unions to recognize as valid a state that issued licenses for gay unions. The Defense of Marriage act was passed, which President Clinton signed, prevents this possibility, and does not allow the Federal Government to recognize marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and a couple of other states also provide civil unions. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would be illegal in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

Same-sex marriages are allowed in [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[South Africa]], [[Monaco]], [[Spain]], [[Cayman Islands]], [[Greenland]], [[Netherland Antilles]], [[Turks and Caicos Islands]], [[Pitcairn Island]], [[French Guiana]], [[Falkland Islands]].

[[Israel]] approves of same-sex marriages performed abroad, but does not perform them in the country.

Same-sex unions or registered partnerships are allowed in [[Hungary]] (from July 2007), [[Andorra]], [[Italy]9 (some regions), [[Luxembourg]], [[the Czech Republic]], [[Denmark]], [[Finland]], [[Germany]], [[Iceland]], [[Norway]], [[Portugal]], [[Slovenia]], [[Sweden]], [[Switzerland]], [[France]], [[United Kingdom]], [[Martinique]], [[Guadeloupe]], [[United States]] ([[Vermont]], [[Connecticut]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[California]], [[Maine]], [[District of Coumbia]] and [[Hawaii]]), [[Mexico]] ([[Mexico City]] and [[Coahuila]]), [[Australia]] and [[Norfolk Island]], [[New Caledonia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Brazil]] ([[Rio Grande do Sul]]), [[Argentina]] ([[Buenos Aires City]] and [[Rio Negro Privince]]).

Same-sex unions are considered in [[Hong-Kong]], [[Philippines]], [[Taiwan]], [[Austria]], [[Faroe Islands]], [[Gibraltar]], [[Greece]], [[Gernsey]], [[Ireland]], [[Isle of Man]], [[Jersey]], [[Lichtenstein]], [[Poland]], [[Bermuda]], [[Costa Rica]], [[New Caledonia]], [[Chile]], [[Colombia]], [[Uruguay]].<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world Homosexuality laws of the world at Wikipedia]</ref>

==Reference==
<references/>

[[Category:Law]]

Conservapedia:Articles for deletion

2007-05-15T15:56:20Z

Czolgolz: /* Keep */

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/archive 1|01]]

When this page gets too big, we can archive it. Once a month is probably good enough.
----
__TOC__

=Current discussions=

== [[Homo]]==
*(1) factually incorrect; this ''is not'' a definition of the word, "homo"; Gr. "homo" simply means "same".
:::Nope, that's wrong. I don't know Greek, but in English, the American Heritage Dictionary (online) gives three entries for "homo."
::::The ''first entry'' for [http://www.bartleby.com/61/56/H0255600.html homo] is "Noun: A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans."
::::The [[http://www.bartleby.com/61/57/H0255700.html second entry]] is "''Offensive Slang'' Used as a disparaging term for a gay man or lesbian."
::::The entry for the ''prefix'' (not word) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/58/H0255800.html homo-] is, indeed, "same."
::::I'd like to make a request: due diligence really requires checking a dictionary before saying what a word "means," if it's an important element of a debate. (The dictionary is ''prima facie'' correct. If the dictionary is wrong, fine, but in that case one should both state what the dictionary says and then explain why it's wrong.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Dictionaries ''do not'' give definitions, they give usage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::What dictionaries give ''is'' indeed a definition. It sets boundaries for a meaning of a word. You can talk about whether it is a correct or an incorrect definition, but it's a definition. Dictionaries do, as you say, claim only to document the meaning of the word ''as it is currently used'' by most educated people. However, one of the reasons I like the AHD is that in cases where usage is uncertain or controversial, the definition or definitions are followed by a paragraph or two summarizing the opinions of their usage panel as to how it ''ought'' to be used. There's no such paragraph here, so they've judged this is not a term where the usage is disputed.
::::::But in any case I'm not sure what your point is. What authority do you suggest we should use for the meaning of words? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::P. S. "homo" may mean "same" in Greek, as in homogenized, etc. but surely it means "man" in Latin, as in "Ecce Homo!" and the French ''homme'' and, well, the English ''human.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:28, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*(2) this misuse of the term appears to be a end run around the various [[evolution]] amd [[homosexuality]] articles

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 12 May 2007
===Decision ===
=== Background ===
===Keep ===
*'''Keep.''' Rewrite if necessary to include whichever dictionary meanings are relevant. Edit if necessary to attain whatever sort of balance of viewpoints Conservapedia deems appropriate. Protect if (and only if) necessary to prevent abuse. It may or may not have been created in bad faith, but it's a legitimate entry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
*'''Keep''' as the genus name. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 00:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
*'''Keep''' --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

===Delete ===
*'''Delete.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
*'''Delete.''' --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
*'''Delete.''' [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
*'''Delete.''' [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
*'''Merge''' relevant material into [[homo sapiens]] and change this page to a redirect to that page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:*It seems there is a difference of opinion on the truth; the current [[Homo sapiens]] article twice says "humans have been around in anatomically modern form for approximately 130,000 years". This article says "only the last 80,000 years or so". Given that at the core of this dispute is much of what the definition of facts and truth is, granting the evolutionists this unfair advantage of not having to state '''''anything''''' of a factual or reliable nature, while at the same time granting the ability to disclaim anything they claim, yet holding creationists ''to a different'' standard, is not acceptable. This is particularly important, given at root we are discussing the methods used to discern factual knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
*'''Merge''' as per Philip, then '''Delete''' the remainder. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

=== Comments ===
[[Category:Articles for deletion]]

Brian and Philip....did you not see the other article on Homosexuality? We are not talking about doing away with anything other than this redundant article, misnamed. Of course anything in the present example, not included there, would be merged. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Apart from a reference in the first sentence, what does the [[Homo]] article have to do with homosexuality? Most of [[Homo]] is actually talking about [[homo sapiens]], which is why I'm suggesting merging the relevant parts of this to that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Philip, make it so. The point is, it is a stub, and would be better off incorporated into those existing articles. I just assumed, wrongly I guess, that everyone would understand you save the relevant parts, and get rid of the rest. And this isn't even my nomination to delete! Everyone is so picky over things that should be a given. Nothing is ever easy here, is it? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:11, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:I would be for a '''merge''', too. However, there is very little to merge because what we see is evolutionists at odds with themselves, or weaseling away from being pinned down on any relevent "facts". The mainspace "homo" should be little more than a wikitionary version of the Greek term, and perhaps something of a disamibiguation page. What is clear, however, is the creation of this page not only was an end run around several other articles, it changes the rules of debate, because it does not hold to same positions articulated elsewhere in the evolutionist viewpoint while at the same time attacking and impugning creationism with alleged "scientific evidence". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:21, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==[["Same-sex marriage"]]==
This is nonsense. It is little more than Conservapedia being used to further the gay agenda. Even the entry at [[Marriage]], which likewise appears written to further the gay agenda, states,
''"In the U.S. there are over a thousand federal benefits to marriage but none to same-sex civil partnerships"'', thus proving such an entity does not exist. IOW, there is no such thing as "gay marraige", "same sex marriage", etc. It is a contradiction in terms, and simply is using Conservapedia as a platform to gain recognition or acceptance of the contradiction as a norm. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:So, whether or not you agree with it, closing your eyes won't make same-sex marriage go away. It's important to note the movement's progress, which is all the article currently does. And while you may consider the phrase oxymoronic, discussion on the talk page, common parlance, and accepted definitions all seem to prove to the contrary. Please don't take a losing talk-page battle to AFD out of spite.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 12:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::"Common parlance" among gay activists vs a few millenium of recorded history is not much of a match. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Apparently this makes you very angry. Why is that? But the fact is that things change: the meaning of the word has changed, despite the fact that the law hasn't caught up yet. Also, I think it's real classy that, since you lost the talk page war AND the AFD war, you decided to "move" the article in a way to express your disdain. Real classy.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 10:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:The line that I would take is that "marriage" is defined by God to be a husband and a wife. If that is correct, then no amount of legislation, court decisions, or popular usage are a high enough authority to override God. Of course many people, presumably including you, will disagree that any God did any such thing, but the point is that the issue is one of who is right about God, the issue is not one of what popular or current usage is. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you're confusing "marriage" with "holy matrimony." God didn't say anything about my wife and I needing to sign pieces of paper to be filed at the Vital Records office, but that's "marriage" as far as the civil authorities are concerned. File the papers and you're married, don't file them and you're not married. If you want to file jointly when it comes time to render unto the Department of Revenue, that is.
::But in any case, if there is, say, a style sheet or conservative usage guide that calls for placing the words "same-sex marriage" within quotation marks that certainly should be mentioned in the article, and it would be a good justification for using quotation marks that way throughout the article. Or if Conservapedia just wants to do it because the phrase is considered invalid, that should be noted, too. I don't see how that argues for deleting the article, however. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::P. S. "Marriage" just means "joining." Sailors "marry" ropes and chefs "marry" flavors... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Decision ===
=== Background ===
=== Keep ===
* '''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 12:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
* [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Delete ===
* [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Comments ===

=Kept=
* [[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Keep]]

=Deleted=
* [[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Delete]]

Catch 22

2007-05-15T13:39:16Z

Czolgolz: new page

#REDIRECT [[Catch-22]]

Catch-22

2007-05-15T13:36:53Z

Czolgolz: new article

'''Catch-22''' was a 1961 anti-war novel by Joseph Heller. It deals with [[Syria|Syrian]]-American bombarier John Yossarian. Yossarian is stationed on the Italian island of Pianosa during [[World War II]]. He attempts to get out of flying more combat missions by pretending to be crazy. The problem is, only a sane man would want to get out of combat, therefor Yossarian cannot be considered crazy.

The term 'catch-22' has come to mean an unwinnable situation.

==References==

Heller, Joseph. ''Catch-22''. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961.

Charity

2007-05-15T04:56:00Z

Czolgolz: /* Charity and Religion */

'''Charity''' has several meanings, from the commonly used and understood, to the abstract and technical.

*''Charity'', as used most commonly, refers to generosity, especially the giving of time or resources without the expectation of Earthly reward. The noun refers to an institution that engages in such behavior. <ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity</ref>

*''Charity'': as a [[Christian]] [[virtue]].<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm</ref> This is enumerated among the Divine virtues by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13. It is the greatest of the three, included with [[hope]] and [[faith]]. In this sense, charity refers to a divinely infused love, unlimited and directed toward Man and toward God.
==Charity and Religion==

Charity is important to most religions, and is practiced by both religious and secular people and organizations.

*Christianity: the Catholic theologic sense is mentioned above. Most Christian faiths require practitioners to give of themselves as they are able. Mormons are usually said to require to donate 10% of their income to support the church and it's works.
*Islam: charity ('زكاة', 'zakat', in Arabic) is one of the [[Five Pillars]] of the religion. A tithe of money (normally 10%) is given to help the poorest in society.
*Judaism: Judaism uses the concept of ''tzedakah'', or ''righteousness''. The theology behind this is quite layered and complex.

For [[Libertarians]], charity is the choice of the individual, as any societal intervention must be voluntary, and based on the decision of the individual. It goes against Libertarian belief to tax people involuntarily and redistribute wealth as "charity".{{fact}}

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-05-15T03:44:49Z

Czolgolz: /* Civilian Casualties */

== 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.
[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 03:23, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:This addresses specifically Arab Sunni in Iraq, as the source document states. [[User:RobS|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?[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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'''. [[User:RobS|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?[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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.[[User:Accidnets|Accidents]] 18:56, 17 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::::Ok, I clarified it a bit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== 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".

[[User:Accidents|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? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --[[User:Cgday|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.

--[[User:Accidents|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.

--[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:Affirmlife|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.[[User:McTavidge|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.

--[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Affirmlife|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. [[User:JamesK|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.[[User:Accidents|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? [[User:JamesK|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. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.[[User:Accidents|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? [[User:Affirmlife|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. --[[User:Dave3172|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? [[User:Affirmlife|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.--[[User:Dave3172|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:Affirmlife|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:Affirmlife|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. --[[User:Scrap|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. [[User:JamesK|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. --[[User:Dave3172|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. [[User:RobS|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. [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/scope.html]'''

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. [[User:JamesK|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. [[User:RobS|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.[[User:Accidents|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:Scrap|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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? [[User:McTavidge|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. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT) </sarcasm>

== 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. --[[User:Scrap|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.--[[User:RexMundane|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. [[User:RobS|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? [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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.

== 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.[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war] The numbers are highly debated, however, and other sources put the cost around $9 Billion.[http://costofwar.com/numbers.html 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 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf], and $318 billion for Iraq through fiscal 06 [http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3601&from_page=../index.cfm]. 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. --[[User:Mtur|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Teresita|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? [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Teresita|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.--[[User:RexMundane|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. [[User:RobS|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.--[[User:RexMundane|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." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/11549 </ref>

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?--[[User:RexMundane|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.--[[User:RexMundane|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. [[User:RobS|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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::You oppose me adding a few FACTS to the article? My [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 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. - [[User:PKBear|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 [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] exist. [[User:MatteeNeutra|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"? --[[User:Ed Poor|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?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::Of course it did. Intellectual honesty is for suckers...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of first phase==

Was did Bush's May 1, 2003 claim, of "Mission Accomplished," really mean?
#That the US won the war - and that it is supposedly over
#That [[major combat operations]] had ended - and the war was in a (milder) new phase

What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why do you Hate America(tm)? Don't you understand that REAL Patriots '''don't ask questions'''. --[[User:Sandbagger|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: He may not have said it, but that was the message [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/] --[[User:Mtur|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."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html] --[[User:Mtur|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. [[User:RobS|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. - [[User:PKBear|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. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2942449.stm] [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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 - [[User:PKBear|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. [[User:RobS|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.... --[[User:BDobbs|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. - [[User:PKBear|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. --[[User:BDobbs|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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll bring that back; the sourcing for this article is extremely problematic. [[User:RobS|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? [[User:Jacobin|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. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

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

''Discussion moved from User talk'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS#Iraq_Body_Count]

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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Jacobin|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Jacobin|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. [[User:RobS|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 [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/spruiell200507260924.asp][[User:Bohdan|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. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:The source must be qualified. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:And how are they not? No one seems to answer that. [[User:Czolgolz|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. [[User:RobS|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?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 21:58, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

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

:When was it ever? [[User:RobS|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? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Block==

So is this article blocked forever? The war's changing, even if Conservapedia never does. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:Page is now unprotected. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:00, 19 April 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. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:We have much good material. Some could probably be spun out into supporting articles. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-05-15T03:35:40Z

Czolgolz: /* Civilian Casualties */

== 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.
[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 03:23, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:This addresses specifically Arab Sunni in Iraq, as the source document states. [[User:RobS|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?[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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'''. [[User:RobS|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?[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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.[[User:Accidnets|Accidents]] 18:56, 17 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::::Ok, I clarified it a bit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== 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".

[[User:Accidents|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? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --[[User:Cgday|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.

--[[User:Accidents|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.

--[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:Affirmlife|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.[[User:McTavidge|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.

--[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Affirmlife|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. [[User:JamesK|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.[[User:Accidents|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? [[User:JamesK|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. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.[[User:Accidents|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? [[User:Affirmlife|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. --[[User:Dave3172|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? [[User:Affirmlife|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.--[[User:Dave3172|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:Affirmlife|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:Affirmlife|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. --[[User:Scrap|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. [[User:JamesK|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. --[[User:Dave3172|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. [[User:RobS|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. [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/scope.html]'''

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. [[User:JamesK|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. [[User:RobS|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.[[User:Accidents|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:Scrap|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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.[[User:Accidents|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. [[User:RobS|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? [[User:McTavidge|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. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT) </sarcasm>

== 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. --[[User:Scrap|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.--[[User:RexMundane|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. [[User:RobS|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? [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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.

== 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.[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war] The numbers are highly debated, however, and other sources put the cost around $9 Billion.[http://costofwar.com/numbers.html 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 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf], and $318 billion for Iraq through fiscal 06 [http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3601&from_page=../index.cfm]. 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. --[[User:Mtur|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Teresita|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? [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Teresita|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.--[[User:RexMundane|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. [[User:RobS|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.--[[User:RexMundane|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." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/11549 </ref>

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?--[[User:RexMundane|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.--[[User:RexMundane|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. [[User:RobS|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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::You oppose me adding a few FACTS to the article? My [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 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. - [[User:PKBear|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 [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] exist. [[User:MatteeNeutra|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"? --[[User:Ed Poor|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?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::Of course it did. Intellectual honesty is for suckers...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of first phase==

Was did Bush's May 1, 2003 claim, of "Mission Accomplished," really mean?
#That the US won the war - and that it is supposedly over
#That [[major combat operations]] had ended - and the war was in a (milder) new phase

What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why do you Hate America(tm)? Don't you understand that REAL Patriots '''don't ask questions'''. --[[User:Sandbagger|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: He may not have said it, but that was the message [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/] --[[User:Mtur|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."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html] --[[User:Mtur|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. [[User:RobS|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. - [[User:PKBear|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. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2942449.stm] [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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 - [[User:PKBear|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. [[User:RobS|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.... --[[User:BDobbs|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. - [[User:PKBear|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. --[[User:BDobbs|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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll bring that back; the sourcing for this article is extremely problematic. [[User:RobS|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? [[User:Jacobin|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. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

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

''Discussion moved from User talk'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS#Iraq_Body_Count]

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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Jacobin|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Jacobin|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. [[User:RobS|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 [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/spruiell200507260924.asp][[User:Bohdan|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. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:The source must be qualified. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:And how are they not? No one seems to answer that. [[User:Czolgolz|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. [[User:RobS|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?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 21:58, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

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

==Block==

So is this article blocked forever? The war's changing, even if Conservapedia never does. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:Page is now unprotected. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:00, 19 April 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. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:We have much good material. Some could probably be spun out into supporting articles. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Noam Chomsky

2007-05-15T02:18:26Z

Czolgolz:

[[Image:Chomsky3.gif|right|thumb|130px]]
'''Noam Chomsky''' is a extreme socialist linguist who is best known for his writings on politics. He has always been extremely critical of [[America]] and [[Israel]] and sympathizes with [[Palestinians]] and terrorist organizations such as [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. He has also been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].{{fact}}

== Further Readings ==
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html The Chomsky Hoax] by Paul Bogdanor
*[http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/an_intellectual.html An Intellectual Crook] by Oliver Kamm
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23543 Chomsky's New Blood Libel] by Alan Dershowitz
[[category:scientists]]
[[category:political people]]
[[category:authors]]

Talk:Starlight problem

2007-05-15T01:20:40Z

Czolgolz: /* My applogies, but thats funny */ typo

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

United Nations

2007-05-15T01:15:51Z

Czolgolz: /* History */

[[Image:UN1.jpg|thumb|right|Seal of the United Nations]]
The '''United Nations''' is an organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It has since devolved into a radical debating society which has blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref>

It was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919.

==Organization==
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''Security Council''' handles matters relating to international peace and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.

The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpreation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.

The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is Ban Ki-moon, the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==

The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.

[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]
The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "[[Zionism is racism]]" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations. Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict.{{fact}}

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

==History==
The United Nations originated as a bureau within the US State Department during [[World War II]] tasked with planning and organizing a post-War future. President [[Franklin D. Roosevlet]] envisaged "four policemen", the British Empire, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Kuomintang]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism. Ulitmately the Kuomintang were subverted and replaced by the Soviet Union's [[Comintern]] ally, the [[Chinese Communist Party]]. The CCP holds the UN Security Council seat to this day, despite the fact their Soviet ally abandoned the policy of workers world revolution and communist subversion more than 15 years ago.

In the original planning stages State Department employee and KGB Agent [[Alger Hiss]] was tasked with much of the organizational work and later became the first Secretary General at the United Nations Charter Conference in San Fransisco. US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said a the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest." Nonetheless, the separate alliance of [[NATO]] came into existence at the same time and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

==External link==
:[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
:[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
===Criticisms===
:[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
[[category:politics]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-05-15T01:15:11Z

Czolgolz: /* Casualties */

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "coalition of the willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

==Background to regime change==

In the post-9/11 analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[Jihad|jihadists]], the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason. <ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found this,
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War <ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] programs which were credited with insuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], addressing a gathering of the radical anti-war group [[Code Pink]] spoke from her own knowledge and experience,

{{Cquote|There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. …For now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children. <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> }}

==Arguments for regime change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation from Ba'athist tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. It also found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The survey, published March 19, 2007, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been caught in the middle of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. The 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. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. As the Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

==The Surge==


Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==
As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?" (See the Conservapedia entry "Opinion Poll" <ref> http://www.conservapedia.com/Opinion_poll </ref> for further elaboration on the importance of the phrasing of questions, etc.)

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign assistance is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

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%.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many 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.{{fact}}

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime intent===
The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a Chemiclal Weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded Chemical Weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. 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. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "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 to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
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.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref>

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

Coalition Troops

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,400 U.S., and over 270 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 25,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

Enemy Casualties 

Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, has calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

Civilian Casualties

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]

Talk:Starlight problem

2007-05-15T00:25:08Z

Czolgolz:

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Cuban Missile Crisis

2007-05-14T19:11:55Z

Czolgolz:

{{stub}}

Lastng fourteen days from October 14-28 1962, the '''Cuban Missle Crisis''' marked a pinnacle of [[Cold War]] tension.

The president of [[Cuba]] and the premier of the [[Soviet Union]] had made a pact.

At the time, satellite technology was in its infancy. The [[United States]] Military had a few satellites in orbit and it was their photography that alerted the USA to the situation. It was early in the term of [[John F. Kennedy|John Kennedy]] who was a young and inexperienced president at the time.

The United States discovered that the [[Soviet Union]] was installing offensive missiles capable of nuclear warheads at air bases in Cuba. The potentially nuclear missles would soon be able to launch and strike the U.S. within minutes of launch. Washington D.C. was well within their range. President Kennedy demanded that the Soviets remove the missiles. To ensure this would happen, and to insure no further develop of the missle base, he sent had the Navy blockade the island. Secret negotiations ensued. The Russians demanded that U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey be removed for the removal of missiles in Cuba, but this was rejected. It was understood by both sides that the United States was militarily superior to the Soviet Union.{{fact}} Eventually, [[Nikita Khrushchev]], the Soviet premier at the time, backed down to avoid a possible war with the United States and to maintain a relationship with Cuba.

[[Category:United States History]]

Chaldeans

2007-05-14T19:09:28Z

Czolgolz: /* Modern Usage */

'''Chaldean''' has both a historical and a modern meaning.
==History==
A Hellenistic term for the Ancient Babylonians.

The Chaldeans seized the Assyrian capital, Ninevah (from the story of [[Jonah (prophet)|Jonah]]), in 612 B.C., and destroyed it. They soon conquered all of Mesopotamia and Syria, as well as [[Judah]] in 586 B.C. ending the Jewish nation and beginning the exile. Although the Chaldeans only remained in power for fifty years, they were responsible for founding what is known as the [[Neo-Babylonian empire]]. Elaborate and beautiful palaces and buildings were constructed by the Chaldeans. The famous Hanging Gardens of Babylon were made during Chaldean rule.

The Chaldeans’ short reign is chronicled in the Biblical story of [[Daniel]]. As a teenager, Daniel was captured by the Chaldean army during its first attack on Jerusalem. While Daniel served under [[Nebuchadnezzar]], one of only a few Chaldean kings, he interpreted dreams, witnessed the miraculous survival of Shadrach, Meschach and Aben-nego in the fiery furnace, and accurately predicted Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall. Under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar’s son, [[Belshazzar]], Daniel witnessed the writing on the wall, which he interpreted as a sign of Belshazzar’s imminent downfall. The very next day, the Persians invaded, killed Belshazzar, and took over the Babylonian empire.
==Modern Usage==
'''Chaldeans''' are an [[Eastern Rite]] [[Catholic]] minority originating in the [[Middle East]]. The speak a language called "Chaldean" which is a branch of [[Aramaic]]. They are closely related to modern [[Assyrians]]. Many Chaldeans have immigrated to the U.S. from Iraq due to anti-Christian persecution.{{fact}} There are large Chaldean communities in Los Angeles and Detroit.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

2007-05-14T17:54:01Z

Czolgolz:

{{stub2}}

'''Elizabeth Cady Stanton''' was a American woman's rights activist. She died before she could achieve her goal of seeing women get the right to vote. As with most leaders of the early women's right movement, she was a staunch anti-abortionist.{{fact}}

[[Category:Women|Cady Stanton, Elizabeth]]

Talk:No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T17:52:37Z

Czolgolz:

It's not just NEA criticism, if you look at the sources. If I include other sources, can we stick with 'educator criticism'? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 12:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sure looks to me like the NEA's website, and it's rather short on specifics as to why NEA has trouble carrying out its job mandated by law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll include more sources. And that's the whole point. If the law is flawed, then of course they'll be trouble carrying it out. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T16:42:55Z

Czolgolz: New page: It's not just NEA criticism, if you look at the sources. If I include other sources, can we stick with 'educator criticism'? ~~~~

It's not just NEA criticism, if you look at the sources. If I include other sources, can we stick with 'educator criticism'? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 12:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T13:00:29Z

Czolgolz: /* NEA Criticism */ it's not just the nea

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

Also it requires schools to allow displaced students to finish out the school year, which has been lauded by outreach counselors. The law has been claimed to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student by some, but many teachers say that it has failed.

==Educator Criticism==

*The scores of students who move into the district just before the standardized test are counted with the others'. For instance, a school could be penalized if a child of [[illegal immigration|illegal immigrant]]s moved into the district and scored poorly.

*There is little leeway allowed for mentally disabled students, non-native English speakers, students with emotional problems, etc. The test scores are looked at with no interpretive data.

*Not only must the school have high test scores, each racial group must as well. A school could be penalized if their minority students perform poorly, even if they make up a small fraction of the overall school population.

*Teachers must sacrifice class time to prepare students for the test, practice the test, and give the test. Many teachers feel they are 'teaching the test' instead of the curriculum.

*Standardized tests often reflect how well a student can take a standardized test, not their critical thinking or problem solving abilities.

*NCLB hurts dropout prevention. High schools are less likely to encourage low functioning students to stay in school, if their test scores will penalize the district.

*As of 2007, all states have failed to meet the teacher qualification standards outlined in NCLB.

==References==

NEA http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html

Aggie Online http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/22/CityNews/All-Fifty.States.Fail.To.Meet.Guidelines.Of.No.Child.Left.Behind.Act-2012761.shtml

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-05-14T04:30:19Z

Czolgolz: /* Opinion polls */ US opinion polls

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "coalition of the willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

==Background to regime change==

In the post-9/11 analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[Jihad|jihadists]], the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason. <ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found this,
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War <ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] programs which were credited with insuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>

==Arguments for regime change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation from Ba'athist tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. It also found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The survey, published March 19, 2007, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been caught in the middle of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. The 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. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. As the Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

==The Surge==


Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==
As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?" (See the Conservapedia entry "Opinion Poll" <ref> http://www.conservapedia.com/Opinion_poll </ref> for further elaboration on the importance of the phrasing of questions, etc.)

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign assistance is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

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%.

A [[Gallup Poll]] conducted in the same month found 30% of 1,010 adults polled approved of the way [[President Bush]] was handling the Iraq situation, and 67% dissaproved. 3% were unsure. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm</ref>

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many 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.{{fact}}

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime intent===
The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a Chemiclal Weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded Chemical Weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. 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. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "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 to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
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.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref>

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

Coalition Troops

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,300 U.S., and over 270 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 25,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

Enemy Casualties 

Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, has calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

Civilian Casualties

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]

No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T03:38:46Z

Czolgolz: /* References */

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

Also it requires schools to allow displaced students to finish out the school year, which has been lauded by outreach counselors. The law has been claimed to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student by some, but many teachers say that it has failed.

==Criticism==

*The scores of students who move into the district just before the standardized test are counted with the others'. For instance, a school could be penalized if a child of [[illegal immigration|illegal immigrant]]s moved into the district and scored poorly.

*There is little leeway allowed for mentally disabled students, non-native English speakers, students with emotional problems, etc. The test scores are looked at with no interpretive data.

*Not only must the school have high test scores, each racial group must as well. A school could be penalized if their minority students perform poorly, even if they make up a small fraction of the overall school population.

*Teachers must sacrifice class time to prepare students for the test, practice the test, and give the test. Many teachers feel they are 'teaching the test' instead of the curriculum.

*Standardized tests often reflect how well a student can take a standardized test, not their critical thinking or problem solving abilities.

*NCLB hurts dropout prevention. High schools are less likely to encourage low functioning students to stay in school, if their test scores will penalize the district.

*As of 2007, all states have failed to meet the teacher qualification standards outlined in NCLB.

==References==

NEA http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html

Aggie Online http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/22/CityNews/All-Fifty.States.Fail.To.Meet.Guidelines.Of.No.Child.Left.Behind.Act-2012761.shtml

No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T03:38:35Z

Czolgolz:

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

Also it requires schools to allow displaced students to finish out the school year, which has been lauded by outreach counselors. The law has been claimed to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student by some, but many teachers say that it has failed.

==Criticism==

*The scores of students who move into the district just before the standardized test are counted with the others'. For instance, a school could be penalized if a child of [[illegal immigration|illegal immigrant]]s moved into the district and scored poorly.

*There is little leeway allowed for mentally disabled students, non-native English speakers, students with emotional problems, etc. The test scores are looked at with no interpretive data.

*Not only must the school have high test scores, each racial group must as well. A school could be penalized if their minority students perform poorly, even if they make up a small fraction of the overall school population.

*Teachers must sacrifice class time to prepare students for the test, practice the test, and give the test. Many teachers feel they are 'teaching the test' instead of the curriculum.

*Standardized tests often reflect how well a student can take a standardized test, not their critical thinking or problem solving abilities.

*NCLB hurts dropout prevention. High schools are less likely to encourage low functioning students to stay in school, if their test scores will penalize the district.

*As of 2007, all states have failed to meet the teacher qualification standards outlined in NCLB.

==References==

NEA http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html
Aggie Online http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/22/CityNews/All-Fifty.States.Fail.To.Meet.Guidelines.Of.No.Child.Left.Behind.Act-2012761.shtml

No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T03:37:53Z

Czolgolz: /* References */

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

Also it requires schools to allow displaced students to finish out the school year, which has been lauded by outreach counselors. The law has been claimed to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student by some, but many teachers say that it has failed.

==Criticism==

*The scores of students who move into the district just before the standardized test are counted with the others'. For instance, a school could be penalized if a child of [[illegal immigration|illegal immigrant]]s moved into the district and scored poorly.

*There is little leeway allowed for mentally disabled students, non-native English speakers, students with emotional problems, etc. The test scores are looked at with no interpretive data.

*Not only must the school have high test scores, each racial group must as well. A school could be penalized if their minority students perform poorly, even if they make up a small fraction of the overall school population.

*Teachers must sacrifice class time to prepare students for the test, practice the test, and give the test. Many teachers feel they are 'teaching the test' instead of the curriculum.

*Standardized tests often reflect how well a student can take a standardized test, not their critical thinking or problem solving abilities.

*NCLB hurts dropout prevention. High schools are less likely to encourage low functioning students to stay in school, if their test scores will penalize the district.

*As of 2007, all states have failed to meet the teacher qualification standards outlined in NCLB.<ref>Aggie Online http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/22/CityNews/All-Fifty.States.Fail.To.Meet.Guidelines.Of.No.Child.Left.Behind.Act-2012761.shtml</ref>

==References==
</references>
NEA http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html

No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T03:37:28Z

Czolgolz: /* Criticism */ more info

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

Also it requires schools to allow displaced students to finish out the school year, which has been lauded by outreach counselors. The law has been claimed to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student by some, but many teachers say that it has failed.

==Criticism==

*The scores of students who move into the district just before the standardized test are counted with the others'. For instance, a school could be penalized if a child of [[illegal immigration|illegal immigrant]]s moved into the district and scored poorly.

*There is little leeway allowed for mentally disabled students, non-native English speakers, students with emotional problems, etc. The test scores are looked at with no interpretive data.

*Not only must the school have high test scores, each racial group must as well. A school could be penalized if their minority students perform poorly, even if they make up a small fraction of the overall school population.

*Teachers must sacrifice class time to prepare students for the test, practice the test, and give the test. Many teachers feel they are 'teaching the test' instead of the curriculum.

*Standardized tests often reflect how well a student can take a standardized test, not their critical thinking or problem solving abilities.

*NCLB hurts dropout prevention. High schools are less likely to encourage low functioning students to stay in school, if their test scores will penalize the district.

*As of 2007, all states have failed to meet the teacher qualification standards outlined in NCLB.<ref>Aggie Online http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/22/CityNews/All-Fifty.States.Fail.To.Meet.Guidelines.Of.No.Child.Left.Behind.Act-2012761.shtml</ref>

==References==

NEA http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html

No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T03:09:53Z

Czolgolz: /* Critisism */ typo

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

Also it requires schools to allow displaced students to finish out the school year, which has been lauded by outreach counselors. The law has been claimed to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student by some, but many teachers say that it has failed.

==Criticism==

*The scores of students who move into the district just before the standardized test are counted with the others'. For instance, a school could be penalized if a child of [[illegal immigration|illegal immigrant]]s moved into the district and scored poorly.

*There is little leeway allowed for mentally disabled students, non-native English speakers, students with emotional problems, etc. The test scores are looked at with no interpretive data.

*Not only must the school have high test scores, each racial group must as well. A school could be penalized if their minority students perform poorly, even if they make up a small fraction of the overall school population.

*Teachers must sacrifice class time to prepare students for the test, practice the test, and give the test. Many teachers feel they are 'teaching the test' instead of the curriculum.

*Standardized tests often reflect how well a student can take a standardized test, not their critical thinking or problem solving abilities.

==References==

NEA http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html

No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T03:09:04Z

Czolgolz: /* Critisism */ sources

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

Also it requires schools to allow displaced students to finish out the school year, which has been lauded by outreach counselors. The law has been claimed to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student by some, but many teachers say that it has failed.

==Critisism==

*The scores of students who move into the district just before the standardized test are counted with the others'. For instance, a school could be penalized if a child of [[illegal immigration|illegal immigrant]]s moved into the district and scored poorly.

*There is little leeway allowed for mentally disabled students, non-native English speakers, students with emotional problems, etc. The test scores are looked at with no interpretive data.

*Not only must the school have high test scores, each racial group must as well. A school could be penalized if their minority students perform poorly, even if they make up a small fraction of the overall school population.

*Teachers must sacrifice class time to prepare students for the test, practice the test, and give the test. Many teachers feel they are 'teaching the test' instead of the curriculum.

*Standardized tests often reflect how well a student can take a standardized test, not their critical thinking or problem solving abilities.

==References==

NEA http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html

No Child Left Behind

2007-05-14T03:06:57Z

Czolgolz: critisism...I'll add sources in a second

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

Also it requires schools to allow displaced students to finish out the school year, which has been lauded by outreach counselors. The law has been claimed to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student by some, but many teachers say that it has failed.

==Critisism==

*The scores of students who move into the district just before the standardized test are counted with the others'. For instance, a school could be penalized if a child of [[illegal immigrant]]s moved into the district and scored poorly.

*There is little leeway allowed for mentally disabled students, non-native English speakers, students with emotional problems, etc. The test scores are looked at with no interpretive data.

*Not only must the school have high test scores, each racial group must as well. A school could be penalized if their minority students perform poorly, even if they make up a small fraction of the overall school population.

*Teachers must sacrifice class time to prepare students for the test, practice the test, and give the test. Many teachers feel they are 'teaching the test' instead of the curriculum.

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-14T02:59:29Z

Czolgolz:

Wow, great topic. Do we all get to creat a 1-2-3-4-5 ... 19-20 list? I'll try. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solutions by God/Jesus discussion ==

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. Human 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was Jesus. Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Good one - touché. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. Human 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I did. Jesus is God. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello over here, PJR. I was curious if you would briefly synopsize Jesus' solutions to 1 through 4 on my list? Thanks! [[User:Human|Human]] 12:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:# Overpopulation is not a problem. The problem is a lack of food production in some countries, due to corrupt governments and worldviews that don't encourage productive effort. Believing in the God of truth would get rid of corruption, and believing in the God that tells us that we should do a fair day's work would increase productive effort.
:Would it bring water to the desert, cure plant blight, bring rain to the drought areas and dryness to the floods? Starvation isn't always the result of corruption and laziness. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:# Believing in the Prince of Peace (Jesus) and following God's instruction to love one another, and to love our enemies (not that we'd have any left) would stop people starting wars with each other.
:# Preventable diseases exist because of people's lifestyles, whether they be immoral ones or related to my comments in point 1. Leading moral lives as God expects would therefore eliminate preventable diseases.
:# God has given us the use of this planet, but it is still His and He expects us to look after it. If we did that, we would not waste or otherwise abuse natural resources.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for humoring me, I appreciate your taking the trouble to clarify the answers. And the discussion continues... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:# There is a limit to food production (and living space): one planet can only support a certain maximum population, and we're approaching that limit.
:# If everyone believed in one ideology there would be peace, for a while... conflict is part of human nature, history teaches us that the only way to unite humanity is to give them a common enemy.
:# People get sick because there are viruses and bacteria around, don't forget genetic mutations: a person doesn't choose to get leukemia or Parkinson.
:# Damn right, that's why your point about overpopulation is wrong.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# Yes, there is a limit, but I dispute that we are getting close to that limit. Population densities are ''far'' higher in some places than others, and food production is ''far'' higher in some places than others, indicating that there is still plenty of room for growth. (I realise that not all places will sustain the same population or food production, but I still believe that there is plenty of room for growth).
::# Conflict is a part of a person's ''fallen'' nature, i.e. after rejecting God. If we all accepted and obeyed God, it would not be an issue. You are judging how a particular ideology would work by ascribing to it a characteristic of different ideologies.
::# Yes, it wouldn't eliminate all disease. But human's point was ''preventable'' disease, and it was that which I was addressing.
::# God has also told us to "be fruitful and multiply", meaning increase the population. So clearly that can't be something contrary to point 1.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc. ==

I moved this from the article page with the permission of the two main "discussers". [[User:Human|Human]] 17:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 10 May 2007

::Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:
{{cquote|2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.}}

Signing... [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
:::Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:40, 10 May 2007

:::: Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
:::: As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery].
:::: The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
:::: The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:25, 10 May 2007

:I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
: I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all ''incorrect''; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
: Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
::Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
::Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
:: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:10, 10 May 2007

::: I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
::: Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
::: I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
::If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
::Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:47, 11 May 2007

:::While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
::: Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
::: I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have ''never'' been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.

:I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:19, 11 May 2007

::I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against ''its'' ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.
::I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007

:I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God ''as described in the Bible'' are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is ''no'' proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
:You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe ''you'' don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

::::God was the ultimate author, but not a dictator (in the sense of dictation), so He got the human authors to write what He wanted written, and He ensured that they were accurate, but they wrote it in their own styles and their own words.
::::How can it diverge further from the truth with each translation? That strongly suggests that it has gone through multiple steps of translation, such as A-B-C-D-E... I've often had bibliosceptics say similar things to me. The opposite is true, however. Modern translations are "single-step" translations, i.e. from the original languages directly into English. Sure, this has happened multiple time, but what that means is that the translation has gone A-B once, A-B again, A-B again, and so on. Each time it is translated, it is from the original languages, just as you do with your personal reading.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.

:::So you are saying that loads of people cannot be wrong? over 1 million people voted Hitler into power in 1933 and they turned out to have made a bad choice. As well as this Islam is one of the most widespread religions in the world, alongside christianity, millions of people belive Islam and thousands of them are quite intelligent. So why are its claims any less valid? There are historical inaccuracies. Noah's arc. There is no evidence at all for the world wide flood yet people still believe it. And the 6000 year old creation. Again all the evidence points to the fact that the world is 4.3 billion years old and that the universe has been in existence for 13 billion years. That doesn't mean it is complete and certain fact but it is far far far more likely than the creation theories.

:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007

:::: So much of what you have written is nothing more than anti-creationist and anti-biblical rhetoric. As far as evolution being falsifiable is concerned, I've rejected that notion [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Is creationism falsifiable?|here]].
:::: Other than that, you've offered no evidence that it is the very strong theory that you claim.
:::: No, I'm not saying that loads of people cannot be wrong. I'm saying that with so many claiming a particular point of view, you need to do more than just dismiss all those people; you need to actually offer some good evidence or logic to support your claim.
:::: You claim that there is no evidence for a global flood, but you offer no explanation of what sort of evidence one should find if it were true, so your claim is hollow. Just for starters, a global flood would result in massive amounts of sediment, which would turn to rock. Most of the rock on the Earth's surface is sedimentary. There's prima facie evidence right there. And it is simply not true that ''all'' the evidence points to the world being 4.3 billion years old, etc. If you believe that, you clearly have not read some of the evidence that creationists have offered, which means that you are criticising and dismissing an idea that you obviously know next to nothing about.
:::: The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2007-05-14T02:56:42Z

Czolgolz: /* Not an oxymoron, etc. */ I'm not vandalizing, rm accidentally repeated comment

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=Discussion=
A few problems with this. It's not exclusive to men, and Bush has pretty much given up on the Constitutional amendment. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*There are a ''lot'' of problems with this, which I've just tried to fix. The previous article seemed to be mixing up legal marriage and religious marriage. It implied that the President can amend the Constitution. etc. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Isn't this already kinda covered at [[Homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage]]? Maybe we should import content from that section and then link from there to a fleshed-out article here, or flesh out the section there with whatever may come up here. In either way, some kind of synchronization would be of benefit in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

'''Hey Colin''' what was wrong with Ed poor's version? --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:For starters, this sentence was in the first paragraph: "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"." (no citation) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, I protected my first page. I am now a total Wikipedia pariah, since I used editorial power to 'win' an edit war. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If someone can provide a citation for "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"," I will relent on reverting this back. Do note that I was originally reverting to Aschlafly's version, now I am reverting to a modified Ed Poor version (Aschlafly's first paragraph, the rest Ed's). [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I had alrady removed the refrence to their intent. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:It still included "very few want to marry each other" which is either a lie or an uncited fact, neither of which are allowed on Conservapedia. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, lets remove that sentence altogether. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's also "has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality," which is opinion. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What was wrong with the sentence I added to the 1st paragraph? It was hardly bad enough for the rollback button. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:The rollback button is easier to use, my apologies. I doubt the truth of that sentence, but if that is the case, then surely a citation for it won't be hard to find. If you can't find one, I have no problem saying, "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)." This sentence isn't biased, doesn't have as much of a need for a citation (if one at all) and includes more viewpoints than the earlier sentence. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That sentence is fine except for one thing which I fixed. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

Colin's version: accurate and uncontroversial. Ed's version: contentious. Therefore, the current version should remain until this issue is resolved. As sysops, we should be setting an example and sorting this out through discussion. Are we agreed? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Tsumetai and have reverted all but one of my changes. I think I was too 'bold' here. Thanks for everyone's mild response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Agree re: 'contentious', 'until resolved' & esp. 'setting an example', that is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I was only referring to the one paragraph, but OK. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
==Let us parley==
Okay...instead of the edit war-ette, let us hash it out here.
I don't have an ax to grind here so you can count me as a neutral "referee" (bribes <nowiki>and plastic</nowiki>accepted).[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marriage as a right ==

*"Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)."

This is complex. It entails the idea that (1) marriage is a right and (2) homosexuals should have '[[equal rights]]'. It involves the idea that (3) the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.

Maybe we should lay all cards on the table. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one. Yes, the Old Testament considers it an abomination, but the old testament also says quite a few other things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today. Moreover, the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity as only the New Testament really matters. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You are wrong here, see the passage from the book of Romans, that i quoted below. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The passage from Romans indicates that homosexuality MIGHT be a consequence of idolatry and THAT a God goven consequence.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::lol, now we must add the view that (4) 'only the New Testament really matters' to the list. How tall will this [[house of cards]] become? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not saying "only it matters," but clearly many of the Old Testament laws were deemed unnecessary; I mean, you don't keep kosher do you? And who's to say which laws can be dropped and which must be kept? (obviously I can see the need to keep the 10 commandments, as they even help live a Christ-like life) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Colin: you're not old enough to remember but years ago many states had what were called "blue laws" that made it illegal for business to be conducted on Sunday, (you could OPEN your place if business, that was okay, but you couldn't make any transactions). The effect was that people would do all of their shopping on Saturday. You couldn't get GASOLINE on Sunday! 1 out of ten stations were open. Nevermind "homosexuals" they didn't even get close to being mentioned when you could talk about "Sabbath breakers" all day. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Oh, but I am old enough to remember said blue laws, and to an extent some blue laws are still in place where I live. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh yeah, I failed to recall you live in the "land that time forgot". [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:::::::Hahaha, yeah, that's rural Tennessee. :-P [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Personally i don't beleive that '''''anything''''' from the old testament is nulified unless it is nulified explicitly in the new testament, e.g. the eating of unclean animals-- I love bacon :) -- The new testament does seem pretty hostile to homosexuality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:So no polyester/cotton blend shirts for you, eh?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Who says so?==
:Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin). <ref>leviticus 20:13</ref>

*The reference (to Leviticus) would certainly support a statement that "Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts." And, yes, a suitable New Testament reference would broaden this. I don't remember the passage in Romans offhand.

**Romans 1:24-28
::<blockquote>
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that thier bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do these things which are not proper,
</blockquote>
::so yes, the bible is clear on this. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't want to get into a game of "dueling Scriptures" but if a passage starts out with a "therefore" it ought to include what the "therefore" is there for. Hence:
:::Romans Chapter 1: 21-23(RSV). 21: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

:::This would indicate, that the sin of homosexuality is begotten from the parent sin of idolatry.
:::So the Bible is "clear" about idolatry being '''''bad''''', (look what it's gets you!), but not all homosexuals are idolaters, are they? [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
*The reference certainly does not state that giving equal legal rights to male couples has any affect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony.

*The reference does not support the statement that "some argue" this. Probably some do, but it is important to have a good reference here, because without it the reader can't tell ''why'' "some" would say this, or what their argument for such a position is.

Something like this can certainly go in the article, but not as a weaseled "some argue" that does not give any traceable link to ''who'' makes this argument and ''what'' their argument would be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather not see this sentence or anything similar to it even in the article, but I felt this was the best version to convey the particular sentiment. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, I'd '''rather''' not see it in the article myself, but that's a different issue... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith that we should avoid weasel-worded statemints. Traceable links are useful and often essential.

I agree with Colin that we must not lie! Uncited facts can be a problem, but anything that's true should be pretty easy to find a citation for.
::(Unsigned comments by [[User:Ed Poor]])

What needs to be shown is that this is a) a reasonably widely-held position, and b) what the stated basis of that position is. Should it go in the article just because BenjaminS and his brother hold this position? Or is it a formal position taken in a paper published by some organization like (say) Focus on the Family? Or is there a Gallup poll showing that the majority of Americans hold this position? It matters. And, frankly, as should be clear, I think this sort of material should go in the article ''after'' it's supported, not before. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)



=References=

<references/>

== In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals. vs Poll data ==

: In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals.
Poll data can be found at [http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html]
{|border=1
! 
!Legal
!Illegal
!Amend Constitution
!Leave to the States
|-
|All
|41%
|55
|38
|58
|-
|Men
|38
|59
|39
|58
|-
|Women
|45
|51
|38
|59
|-
|18-29
|55
|42
|32
|67
|-
|65+
|21
|75
|44
|50
|-
|Democrats
|50
|46
|35
|61
|-
|Independents
|47
|50
|38
|60
|-
|Republicans
|24
|72
|43
|52
|-
|Liberal
|69
|27
|28
|67
|-
|Moderate
|44
|52
|30
|68
|-
|Conservative
|20
|77
|55
|42
|-
|Evangelical
|17
|81
|58
|38
|-
|Non-evangelical
|42
|55
|30
|67
|-
|No religion
|66
|26
|19
|78
|-
|East
|48
|46
|36
|63
|-
|Midwest
|40
|56
|42
|53
|-
|South
|35
|63
|42
|55
|-
|West
|49
|48
|30
|66
|-
|Married
|35
|61
|41
|55
|-
|Not Married
|49
|48
|36
|62
|}

Outside of the Liberal and Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections, support is fairly much split down the middle (do realize the large overlap between the Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections). I find the original claim faulty - most of the support is not from the liberals (though they support it the most). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not an oxymoron, etc. ==

I changed:
:'''Same-sex marriage''' is an oxymoronic phrase that depicts two people of the same sex attempting to gain the same legal status afforded to men and women.
to
:A '''same-sex marriage''' is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that has the same legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman. Some regard the phrase as self-contradictory because they do not regard it as a true marriage.

It's not an oxymoron, because it's not a figure of speech made for rhetorical emphasis. In recent years a form of humor has arisen which consists of describing a phrase as an "oxymoron," causing the hearer to do a double-take as he gets the comic interpretation, e.g. "Government organization--that's an oxymoron." But this is not yet accepted as a real meaning for the word, although in a few years it may be. "Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron" could be a joke, but it is not a proper statement either of a fact or of an opinion.

Seconding, "attempting to gain the same legal status" is inaccurate, because same-sex marriage is a reality in several countries and one state of the United States, and these couples do have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex. (And couples joined in civil unions in states that have them have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex.)

To suggest that, from a ''legal'' point of view, same-sex marriages do not yet exist is to deny a plain reality. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:The word "marriage" means a man & woman. There is no other meaning to the word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

And yet millions of people feel otherwise. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Jamestown, Virginia

2007-05-13T13:27:28Z

Czolgolz: /* Economics of Jamestown */

'''Jamestown''', [[Virginia]] was the first permanent [[England|English]] settlement in [[America]]. The first persons landed on May 14, 1607, one year before the establishment of the City of [[Quebec]] in [[Canada]]. About 104 persons were sent by the [[London Company]] to leave in three ships, the Sarah Constant, Godspeed, and Discovery. They came to Virginia to establish a trading post and to search for gold and silver. After five months at sea,the pioneers sighted land at the entrance to the [[Chesapeake Bay]] on April 26, 1607. They sailed about 32 miles up the [[James River]],and then chose a little peninsula as the site for their settlement. They named both the river and the settlement after [[James I|King James the First]] of England.

==Economics of Jamestown==

Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little he worked. This economic system was a complete failure as no one had any incentive to do any work.{{fact}} In September 1608, John Smith was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: "don't work, don't eat!" Under this new system, food production increased and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.

But Jamestown settlers were there to find fortune, and there was not any gold or silver. [[Native American|American Indians]] had discovered tobacco and [[Europe]]ans were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman John Rolfe, who married the Indian Pocahontas in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to [[Europe]]. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called "cash crop" became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers.

Despite profiting from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had other difficulties. It had made peace with Indian Chief Powhatan, whose daughter Pocahontas married settler John Rolfe. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of a total of only 1200.

But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. But Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West [[Africa]] beginning in 1619 to work the crops.

==Poles in Jamestown==

According to Narod Polski, the publication of PRCUA (Polish Roman Catholic Union of America), a year after the settlement of Jamestown, six [[Poland|Polish]] setters arrived. They were Zbigniew Stefanski, a glass expert, Jan Bogdan, a tar and ship building expert, Jan Mata, a soapmaker, Michael Lowicki, a nobleman and workers Stanislaus Sadowski and Karol Zrenica.

The colony was intended to be guided by the Church of England but the Poles were Roman Catholic. Each settler was required to attend Anglican services or be punished. However, because of the skills and work ethic of the Poles, they were exempt.

[[Category:US Towns and Cities]]

Polar Bear

2007-05-13T13:21:49Z

Czolgolz:

[[Image:polarbear4.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A polar bear.]]

The '''Polar Bear''' (''Ursus Maritimus'') is a large species of [[bear]] found in the Arctic and are noted for their white fur. They are capable of surviving extreme cold, as well as sea ice, snow and frozen land.

They have thick blubber to keep warm and white fur for camouflage. Polar bears [[hibernate]] through much of the winter, usually in an excavated snow den. Their normal diet consists mainly of [[seal]]s, though in Canada they have been observed to take prey as small as [[lemming]]s.

They are one of the only natural predators of humans. For this reason they are greatly feared by arctic travelers.

The current world population is estimated at around 20-25,000 {{fact}}

Polar bears also starred in a series of [[Coca-cola]] advertisements that ran during the 1990s. These were not actual polar bears, but were computerized.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bears]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

2007-05-13T13:20:53Z

Czolgolz:

Liberals say that the United Nations' climate panel is "authoritative", but they never say what the basis of this "authority" is. They merely repeat their claim like the Nazi [[big lie]] technique. If you say something often enough, people eventually stop questioning it. {{fact}}

*The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's most authoritative voice on the science of climate change, has stated unequivocally that global warming is happening and that human activity is the main driver. [http://www.naturecanada.ca/climate_change.asp]

This claim, from Nature Canada, simply '''asserts''' that the IPCC is authoritative. We are to assume that since the UN has high ideals, it must be objective when it comes to scientific matters - as objective as it is when it comes to [[human rights]] issues. Clearly, this is misguided at best, and more likely a deliberate deception.{{fact}}

The UN is not neutral or impartial on anything. It takes whatever position its member states vote to take. Its positions either reflect a majority vote or a carefully crafted political compromise.{{fact}}

Just because a majority of government representatives assert something is so, does not make it so. They do not ask the scientists whose work they assess and summarize, to indicate whether they agree with the Summary for Policymakers. Indeed, twice now, the IPCC has released this political summary ''before'' releasing the scientific report it supposedly summarizes!{{fact}}

Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

2007-05-13T13:20:31Z

Czolgolz: New page: Wow! This is about the most biased article I've read on here. I'd try to change it, but I'd just get blocked. ~~~~

Wow! This is about the most biased article I've read on here. I'd try to change it, but I'd just get blocked. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cindy Sheehan

2007-05-13T04:20:37Z

Czolgolz:

can you at least leave the part about exploitng her sons death for '''Political gain'''? (no doubt she has)[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:That's right she carried this boy to term, birthed him, raised him up all the while looking for some way to "cash in" on his eventual demise. Have you no shame, sir?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::perhaps a better question would be if she has any shame. she has been heavily criticised for many things. You dont hear about this from the liberal media. Perhaps you should do some research. (I plan to add these later)[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

by the way, did not you hear that her own relatives released a statement saying that she was exloiting her sons death. when she said that her immediate family supported her, her husband divorced her. I am not putting these facts in the article yet because i am looking for a good source. apparently, i have some shame. please dont insult me.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Get a cite (or cites) and we'll examine the veracity of the claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Is it proper to include David Duke's support? The KKK supported Bush for president, but that doesn't mean he supports them. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 00:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The Alamo

2007-05-13T04:18:50Z

Czolgolz:

During the [[Texas War of Independence]], General Santa Anna's 3,000 Mexicans attacked 189 Texans at San Antonio on February 24, 1836. Within 13 days, nearly all the Texans were dead, including [[Davy Crockett]], [[William Travis]] and [[Jim Bowie]]. The only ones who survived were Susanna Dickenson, her baby, and Travis' [[slave]].{{fact}} The massacre at the Alamo was memorialized in the cry, "Remember the Alamo!"

The Texas Declaration of Independence declared:

:General Antonio Lopez Santa Ana ... having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers, as the cruel alternative, either abandon our homes ... or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny ... He denies us the right of worshiping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience.

[[Mexican History]]
[[Category:Mexican History]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-04T18:20:07Z

Czolgolz:

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The [[Deceit]] article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that [[Mockery]] is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to '''be'''.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete [[Homosexuality]], [[Heterosexuality]], [[Procreation]], [[Fornication]], and [[Bisexuality]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to [[Bisexuality]] ; ) [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That wasn't me, it was [[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] ;-). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

And there goes Fornication! Two down, three to go. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 17:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I dunno...seems a whole lot lot of discussion (and articles) that say liberals believe this, and they are stupid for doing so. Let's face it, a lot of times political discussion disolves into personal name calling. In your article you generalize about liberals, but take this into consideration: the liberals on here who don't break commandments, contribute to articles, show intelligence, and help make this a better site probably aren't noticed (or at least singled out as liberals). It's easy to take the lowest common denominator and say it's representative of the whole. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 14:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sir... ==

Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?

The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.

If this site attracts ridicule, then you must ''at least consider the possibility'' that this is because it ''deserves'' it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary<ref>''kuhn-'''trair'''-ee'' - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary</ref> zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.

<references/>

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Keith Ellison

2007-05-04T17:08:11Z

Czolgolz:

[[Image:Ghfigkm67.jpg|right|thumb|Keith Ellison]]
[[Democratic Party|Democrat]] '''Keith Ellison''' is the first [[Muslim]] to serve in the United States Congress. He represents the 5th Congressional District of [[Minnesota]]. Born in [[Detroit]], [[Michigan]], he converted to [[Islam]] while in college. Ellison is quite controversial due to past statements made about [[Jews]] and white people, and his ties with the radical [[Nation of Islam]].{{fact}}

It is traditional for newly-sworn members of the [[House_of_Representatives|House of Representatives]] to repeat their oaths with their hand on a [[Bible]] for photographers<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/206/story_20604_1.html</ref>. When Ellison was ceremonially "sworn-in," he used a [[Quran]] that once belonged to [[Thomas Jefferson]].<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MEPKIG0&show_article=1</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
http://ellison.house.gov/

[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:US Representative]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-05-04T13:35:57Z

Czolgolz: /* Casualties */

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "coalition of the willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

==Background to regime change==

In the post-9/11 analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[Jihad|jihadists]], the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason. <ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Santions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Afairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirtieen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', refering to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found this,
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War <ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] programs which were credited with insuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millenium changed, Saddams top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Stategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>

==Arguments for regime change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

==Liberation from Ba'athist tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. It also found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The survey, published March 19, 2007, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been caught in the middle of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. The 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. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. As the Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

==The Surge==
[[Image:Cuncil.jpg|right|thumb|Iraqi governing council as of July 15, 2003]]
Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not suprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==
As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?" (See the Conservapedia entry "Opinion Poll" <ref> http://www.conservapedia.com/Opinion_poll </ref> for further elaboration on the importance of the phrasing of questions, etc.)

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign assistance is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many 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.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-milimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime intent===
The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a Chemiclal Weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded Chemical Weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. 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. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "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 to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
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.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref>

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

Coalition Troops

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,300 U.S., and over 270 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 25,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

Enemy Casualties 

Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, has calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

Civilian Casualties

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]

Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?

2007-05-04T13:27:15Z

Czolgolz: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

If you start with any of these, you are likely to move on to harder stuff. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:Please define "likely" and your evidence that it is true. I drink and have never used either marijuana or nicotine. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 18:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle! An' the next thing ya know, your son is playin' for money in a pinch-back suit. And list'nin to some big out-a-town Jasper hearin' him tell about horse-race gamblin'. One fine night, they leave the pool hall, headin' for the dance at the Arm'ry! Libertine men and scarlet women, and ragtime, shameless music that'll grab your son and your daughter with the arms of a jungle animal instinct: mass-steria!
::—Meredith Willson, "Trouble," from ''The Music Man''
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

At one time in my life, I thought marijuana was great, why the hell is illegal? I thought that it was much better to smoke pot than drink alcohol (nobody beat their wife from smokin pot). I figured out later in life that the people I grew up with who smoked, no longer found the buzz suffucient, experimented with stronger drugs then they all ended up with coke problems, crack, ultimately strung out on prescription drugs like oxycotin. Weed: gateway drug? you bet it is. Alcohol is a gateway to insanity. Nicotine is a gateway to a painful decline of health and ultimately ones death.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Marihuana, yes, but only because it is illegal. Yes for the same reason to a lesser extent for the ethyl an the other leaf (illegal for under-21 and under-18). Why? Well, to quote an old friend, it gets you used to meeting seedy types in suspect environments and transacting clandestine deals. If it was legal, no one using it would learn how to buy illegal drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:So if Marijuana were legalized, would it help prevent people from going on to harder drugs? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

There is no evidence for this. That's all a bunch of moralistic hooey. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:''Experts Discount Marijuana as Big Factor in Crime but Drive on It Will Be Pressed.'' Studies by the Committee on the Marijuana problem in the City of New York, appointed by Mayor La Guardia in January, 1939, have led the committee to the conclusion that ... "juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice o smoking marijuana." Further findings are ... that its use "does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocain[sic] addiction" and that "the publicity concerning the catastropic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded."
::—''New York Times,'' January 12, 1945, p. 22
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith: most people drink alcohol (some more than others) and most of them probably started in their teens, yet most people do not became heavy drug users as they get older, it's as simple as that.

:I think you mistook what I was saying. I didn't write the sentence that opened the section, Ed Poor did. I did indeed post a quotation from a news story about a 1945 mayor commision that concluded that the use of marijuana did not lead to the use of heroin or "cocain." In terms of which side I'm on, all I can say is that I haven't seen any convincing reason for treating alcohol and marijuana as being in ''different categories'' in terms of the law or public policy. Nicotine is interesting because it is probably more damaging to health and more addictive than either alcohol or marijuana, but does not cause intoxication, so nicotine users pose less of a risk to others... there's no issue of "driving while smoking." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As for Marijuana, how many of today's businesspeople, doctors, scientists, etc have smoked some while they were in college?
I don't claim to know the exact percentage, but I think that proves a point.
:::[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::::Add "ex-Presidents of the United States" to the list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Add current Presidents to this list. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:33, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I smoked marijuna every week for three years, but never tried anything harder. Since I moved back to the US in 2001, I haven't touched it. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:My various addictions, habits, and chemical/herbal recreations over the decades have never shown any correlations. And none of the good stuff (like single malt) led to nasty white powder problems. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana is, but alcohol and tobacco aren't ==
No, I don't happen to believe this is true, but of course this ''is'' the conventional wisdom, and an often-cited rationale for treating marijuana in a different way, in the law and as a matter of public policy, from alcohol and tobacco. Hey, Ed, exactly what were you up to when you put all three of them together? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Definitely ==

Debate:Define Civil War

2007-05-04T03:24:38Z

Czolgolz:

Again, liberals have skewered another meaning, this time civil war. Iraq is a low level civil war, they claim. I didn't know there were so many levels of civil war. 25,000 Al Qaeda bandits try to provoke Sunnis and Shiites to fight each other. Out 24 million citizens, how many people are fighting for one side or another? possibly 1%? Then 240k people are fighting each other in a low level civil war?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

1% is enough for a war (in most countries the military comprises less than 1% of the total population): it means 1 out of every 50 males is fighting, which probably means something like 1 out of every 30 able bodied males: so chances are every Iraqi knows at least 1 person who's fighting for some faction.

If this is not a civil war, then what is it?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

It's a war on terror with no defined armies, only groups of competing militias. Porous borders with enemy nations surrounding on all sides, providing proxy support. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Civil wars can be of varying intensity and size. The United States' Civil War completely dwarfed in size and area and casualty counts most civil wars of the 20th Century...like El Salvador's for example. But just because El Salvador's was small and limited doesn't mean it wasn't a civil war. Iraq falls into that category, with the added pressure of a failing government. If the al-Maliki government collapses, then you'll have a failed state. Which is the only thing that could be worse than what we have right now in Iraq.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

"No defined armies"?

1. U.S. military

2. British military

3. Coalition peacekeeping forces

4. Iraqi military

5. Al Quieda

6. Al Sadr's Shiitte militia

7. Sunni death squads

8. Shiite death squads

...

Some of these are not traditional armies, but neither are the various rebel factions fighting civil wars in Africa and Latin America.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Not to mention foreign fighters, and common criminals. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)