Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Iraq

2007-05-21T19:22:44Z

Pendayho:

[[Image:Iraqiflag.gif|thumbnail|right|250px|The Iraqi Flag.]]

The modern country of '''Iraq''' corresponds with the ancient region of Mesopotamia - known by many as the cradle of civilization - where the first cities and classical civilizations developed in the fertile region between the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates.

The first of these was the Sumerian civilization that arose in southern Mesopotamia around 4,500 BC. The Sumerians grew barley, chickpeas, lentils, millet, wheat, turnips, dates, onions, garlic, lettuce, leeks and mustard and raised cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. The fertility of the flood plains they farmed and their extensive use of irrigation created surplus food which supported the populations of their cities and a system of government - which stored and distributed food and created the first system of laws. In order to administer this the Sumerians developed the earliest known form of writing - cuneiform - much of which survives as they wrote on clay tablets which were dried in the sun and many of which have survived. The Sumerians worshiped many gods. They also built large mud brick pyramids known as ziggurats as funerary monuments to commemorate the dead.

In 2371 BC King Sargon of Akkad established the Assyrian dynasty which conquered the region covered by the modern countries of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Israel. The Assyrian Empire collapsed with the fall of it's capital Nineveh (the modern Iraqi town of Mosul)in 612 BC and it was replaced by the Babylonian Empire - Babylon was one of the greatest cities of the ancient world and home to the legendary [[Hanging Gardens of Babylon]] built by King Nebuchadnezzar the second. Mesopotamian dominance of the region ended when the Persian king Cyrus the Great invaded in 539 BC. It remained part of the Persian Empire until Alexander the Great's conquest in 331 BC. It was ruled by the Hellenic descendants of Alexander's army - the Seleucids - until the Persians regained control, in around 150 BC, and made Mesopotamia part of the Parthian Empire - the only civilization to halt Roman expansionism.

In the 7th Century AD Mesopotamia was incorporated into the vast Muslim Arab empire that covered most of the middle east, north Africa and Spain. In the 8th century the capital of this empire was moved to Baghdad which at a time when Europe was in the dark ages became the greatest center for science and art since the time of the ancient Greeks. It was here that Astronomy and Algebra (both Arab words) were studied and advanced, and many familiar stories were first told, like those of Sinbad the Sailor, Ali Baba and the forty thieves, and the thousand and one Arabian nights. By the twelfth century this great empire was in serious decline due to the Crusades, breakaway Muslim states in north Africa, the Mongols in the east and from its own rebellious mercenary soldiers - the Mamalukes and the Turks. Following the assassination of the last Caliph of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 there were nearly four centuries of conquest and chaos as Mesopotamia was invaded by Seleucids, Turks, Ottomans, Mongols (under Ghengis Khan), Turkoman, Tartars and Kurds.

In the 16th Century Mesopotamia, literally "middle of two rivers" in [[Greek]], became part of the [[Ottoman Empire]].

In the early 20th Century Arab nationalists including Iraqis began rebelling against their Turkish rulers. With the outbreak of the First World War they fought alongside the Allies against the Turks in the hope of gaining their independence. France and Britain would control the Arab lands and Iraq came under the British mandate. When Iraqi tribesmen rebelled against British rule, the rebellion was put down using aerial bombardment - the first time air power had been used in such a way. In 1932 Iraq was granted independence although Britain still exercised considerable control over the country and had retained Kuwait for its oil.

In the years following the second world war Iraq was allied to Britain, the United States and Turkey, and Britain continued to exert considerable influence over the country. In 1958 an "anti-imperialists" military coup overthrew and executed the British-installed royal family. The coup leader Abd al-Quassim banned all political parties and declared that Kuwait was part of Iraq. The Arab League then asked Britain to send troops to Kuwait to prevent an Iraqi invasion of a one of it's member states. The troop deployment prevented a war but al-Quassim responded by allying Iraq with the Soviet Union and communist China. Quassim used money taken from the western owned Iraq Petroleum Company to carry out economic reforms in Iraq. Western governments were becoming concerned Iraq could become the "new Cuba" and in 1963 they supported a pro-western coup that overthrew Quassim. Between 1963 and 1968 there was a period of political instability with several failed governments and attempted coups.

In 1968 the Ba-ath Party seized power in a coup lead by General Bakr. The Ba-ath Party believes in the creation of a single, socialist pan-Arab state that would replace all existing Arab countries. During the cold war it was strongly aligned with the [[Soviet Union]]. In 1970 all foreign businesses including the Iraq Petroleum Company were seized and Iraq declared oil would be used as "a political weapon in the struggle against imperialism and Zionism". In 1979 Saddam Hussein replaced Bakr as president of Iraq. Saddam was a particularly brutal ruthless man, he attempted to assassinate Qassim in 1959, played a major role in 1968 coup and under Bakr he had led the much feared Ba'athist secret police. One of his first acts as President was to call a Ba'ath Party assembly where he declared his main political rivals to be traitors and spies; they were led from the assembly one by one to be tried and executed.

==Absolute rule of Saddam==

Saddam's next major initiative as President of Iraq was to invade [[Iran]] in September 1980, coinciding with the [[Iranian hostage crisis]]. At first, he experienced a high degree of success, overrunning most of [[Khorramsharr]] province, Iran's only [[Arab]]-majority province. His stated war aim was to seize exclusive control of the [[Shatt al-Arab]] waterway
for Iraq.

The war ultimately ground on for eight years, killing over a million people total on both sides. During this time Iraq was taken off the [[United States list of state sponsors of terrorism]], relations with the West were normalized, and various Western countries including the [[United States]] entered into various lucrative deals with Iraq. In the case of the United States this principally consisted of agricultural credits, but other countries liberally supplied Iraq with whatever Saddam believed it needed. The war machine's principal need was cash, and even Iraq's significant oil revenues did not bring in enough, so Saddam borrowed scores of billions of dollars from other Arab countries.

Iran sued for peace following the failure of a [[Kurdish]] rebellion in northern Iraq in the winter of 1988 which Saddam ruthlessly suppressed in the [[Anfal campaign]], turning the chemical weapons he had long used against Iran on his own citizens. Throughout the period of absolute rule a few hundred people every year were executed, frequently by [[torture]], but this was the crescendo of repression as Saddam seemed to be endeavoring to wipe out the Kurds of Iraq. The memory of this repression gave rise to a phrase frequently repeated in the United States following the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when that country was overrun in 2003: "Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction."

Iraq enjoyed technical peace (justice being utterly absent) for only two years, after which Saddam invaded [[Kuwait]], the smallest of Iraq's six neighbors, which was unable to offer significant resistance. There were a mixed bag of motivations, but probably the primary one was the debt Saddam had incurred from other Arab nations of the [[Persian Gulf]] during the war. The debt was so overwhelming that it made the invasion almost rational; Saddam hoped to be able to frighten his local creditors into writing off his debts and pay down his debts to more distant creditors with Kuwait's oil revenues, which have always been somewhat higher than those of Iraq, although it is a much smaller country. Accordingly, Saddam announced that Kuwait would become permanently a province of Iraq.

The United States and particularly [[Great Britain]], whose policy it had always been to protect Kuwait from Iraq, took an exceedingly dim view of these events. British [[Prime Minister]] [[Margaret Thatcher]] persuaded U. S. [[President]] [[George H. W. Bush]] that Saddam's action, despite his previously close relationship with the West, was a violation of the [[Carter Doctrine]], which stated more or less that the U. S. would not allow ownership of Persian Gulf oil fields to be changed by force. The two countries obtained several resolutions from the [[United Nations Security Council]] to the effect that Iraq would have to withdraw and began with their allies, both [[European]], Arab, and across the broader world, a military buildup in preparation to liberate Kuwait. A worldwide economic [[blockade]] was imposed on Iraq in the hopes that this would persuade it to withdraw without bloodshed. The only goods Iraq could legally buy were food and medicine.

The sanctions failing to bring about the desired end, the U. S.-led coalition was obliged to begin [[Operation Desert Storm]] on January 17 local time. After almost six weeks of continuous bombing, most Iraqi troops in the Kuwait theatre of operations had deserted. The only offensive they launched managed to take the [[Saudi Arabian]] town of Khafji, but Saddam's attempt to send reinforcements resulted in the destruction of several Iraqi divisions, demonstrating that [[air supremacy]] forced a conventional army to remain essentially immobile and unable to concentrate forces to repel attacks. On February 25, a ground offensive was launched resulting in the destruction of numerous additional divisions and the flight of others back to [[Basra]], the second-largest and southernmost city in Iraq.

For a variety of reasons, principally the belief that the Iraqi army itself would now overthrow Saddam, the first President Bush, advised by [[Dick Cheney]] who was then serving as [[Secretary of Defense]], elected not to advance to [[Baghdad]], Iraq's capital, but to conclude the war through a [[cease-fire]]. Not only the [[Republican Guard]], considered Saddam's most loyal and elite troops, but also the regular army's officer corps, however, was made up principally of [[Sunnis]], who perceived the ensuing simultaneous rebellions by Kurds in the north and [[Shiites]] in the south of Iraq as an existential threat rather than as something which, in a more ethnically homogeneous country, they could have joined. The army therefore remained loyal to Saddam and crushed the Shiite rebellion. The U. S., Britain and France intervened in the north through [[Operation Provide Comfort]], which ended Iraqi control of the three Kurdish majority provinces until 1996, when Saddam was able to exploit a split between the two largest Kurdish [[militias]]. They also established no-fly zones in both the north and the south, not only reserving the right but considering it a duty to shoot down any fixed-wing Iraqi aircraft which might fly over those parts of Iraq.

Following the imposition of this new order, the use of force against Iraq was only sporadic and limited mostly to [[cruise missile]] attacks until [[Operation Desert Fox]] in December 1998, undertaken in retaliation for the ejection of the [[United Nations Special Commission]] sent to dismantle any Iraqi [[weapons of mass destruction]]. At the time, UNSCOM, as it was known, was credited with destroying more such weapons than had been destroyed during the war. Saddam's son-in-law [[Hussein Ali Kamel]] defected to [[Jordan]] in 1995 and claimed that Iraq still possessed substantial stocks of [[nerve gas]] and possibly [[biological weapons]]. The following year, without explanation, Kamel returned to Iraq, where he was killed.

It cannot be said for certain what Saddam possessed in 1995, but the stocks Kamel claimed existed were not found either by UNSCOM or by U. S. forces following the 2003 invasion. All that could be said for sure was that the Iraqis behaved as though they had something to hide, resisting unannounced weapons inspections with all means short of armed force, denying UNSCOM the right to inspect Saddam's various Presidential palaces (mostly built after the war while the sanctions were impoverishing his people), and finally throwing UNSCOM out. If Hussein Kamel were a [[plant]] all along, it would be consistent with Saddam's policy of creating the belief in his opponents that he did possess WMD, as a means of deterring them from attacking.

By 1996, the unrelieved economic blockade of Iraq was severely affecting its ability to purchase food and medicine on the world market, as it like most Arab countries had little besides oil to export. Various claims were made to the effect that Iraq's infant mortality was now the highest in the Arab world or even that hundreds of thousands of people had starved to death. For the purpose of purchasing food and medicine, the United Nations agreed to permit Iraq to resume oil exports in what became known as the oil-for-food program (see below). This is now generally considered a major error by [[conservatives]] which will not be repeated should the current sanctions against [[Iran]] be toughened to what they were against Iraq.

Operation Desert Fox was preceded by the [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998, which passed [[Congress]] with a veto-proof margin just as the [[impeachment]] inquiry against President [[Bill Clinton]] was shifting into high gear. The act could be considered a repudiation of Clinton's policy or lack of a policy toward Iraq up to that point. This made it U. S. policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power, which could be considered a [[declaration of war]]. However, not until March 2003 did Clinton's successor [[George W. Bush]] actually order Saddam and his brutal sons [[Uday and Qusay Hussein]] to step down and flee Iraq on pain of invasion. When Saddam refused, [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] commenced on March 19, 2003; U. S. troops reached Baghdad three weeks later.

==Oil for food scandal==

In 2003 Ba'athist party dictator Saddam Hussein, accused of hiding weapons of mass destruction, was removed from power by a US-led coalition of forces. Saddam had effectively stopped previous attempts at enforcement of UN resolutions by essentially bribing <ref>[http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0125almadalist.htm The Saddam Oil Bribes: The Complete al-Mada List], ''al-Mada'', January 25, 2004.</ref> several Seucrity Council members, namely the Russian Federation and France <ref>Duelfer Report, [http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_da.pdf Regime Finance and Procurement], Vol. 1, p. 55-56. </ref> through the corrupt [[Oil for food]] (OFF) program managed by UN General Secretary [[Kofi Annan]]'s son. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/29/oil.for.food.kojo.annan/index.html Annan 'disappointed' son didn't tell all], CNN, November 30, 2004.</ref>

The Duelfer Report found,
:Iraq pursued its related goals of ending UN sanctions and the UN OFF program by enlisting the help of three permanent UNSC members: Russia, France and China. ... Iraq’s economic “carrots” included offering companies from those countries lucrative oil, reconstruction, agricultural and commercial goods, and weapon systems contracts. ...Saddam’s Regime needed both Moscow’s political clout in the UN and its economic expertise and resources to sustain his Regime from the 1990s until [Operation Iraqi Freedom] (OIF) ... Iraq promised to economically reward Russia’s support by placing it at the head of the list for receiving UN contracts under the UN OFF program....throughout the 1990s, the [Peoples Republic of China] consistently advocated lifting Iraqi sanctions while privately advising Baghdad to strengthen cooperation with the UN.

:In early July 2001, the US and the UK withdrew their joint-proposal to revamp the UN existing sanctions Regime, called “Smart Sanctions,” because of Russian, Chinese, and French opposition. The US/UK proposal attempted to restructure two key elements of the existing sanctions Regime: illicit procurement of weapons and dual-use goods and illicit generation of revenue from Iraqi oil sales outside the UN’s OFF program. In contrast, the Russian draft resolution proposed to reduce the current percentage to the Compensation fund another 5 percent to 20 percent of total value of Iraqi oil exports – and increase the total amount in Iraq’s escrow account to $600 million to pay other expenses ... The UN estimated that each 5 percent reduction in payments to the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) added about $275 million in Iraq’s coffers per each UN OFF six month phase.

:French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts; Russian companies not only wanted to secure (or lock in) oil contracts, but also sought other commercial contracts covering agricultural, electricity, machinery, food, and automobiles and trucks products...France competed with Russian agricultural products for Iraqi contracts....In May 2002, a representative from a French water purification company requested projects for his company in Iraq.

After two years in interrogation, Saddam was hanged by the new Iraqi regime. Iraq is currently plagued by insurgents who are against the new Iraqi government's alliance with the United States, and have reacted violently to Iraq's new government. Their efforts have destabilized the country enough that some consider Iraq to be headed towards civil war.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Middle Eastern Countries]]
[[Category:Asian Countries]]
{{stub}}

Talk:Environmentalist

2007-05-20T16:16:31Z

Pendayho:

Give a pat on the back to whoever changed this article from hateful Environmentalist bashing to something that's certainly more pleasant. Good job.

Give some justification as to why claim is appropriate. Alot of people that call themselves environmentalists do seek to protect the environment. Claim gives the impression of people saying one theing and doing something else.
-Gasmonkey

:''from the'' [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tov_namerica.php ATTAC REPORT]:

[[Greenpeace]] Founding/Supervisory Organizations:
*Red China
*Soviet intelligence apparatus ([[KGB]]/FSB)
*[[World Peace Council]] (WPC)
Supporting Organizations:
*[[Red Army Fraction]] (RAF)
*[[Earth First]]! (EF!)
*[[Institute for Policy Studies]] (IPS)

Greenpeace

Type of Organization: Semi-violent/protest-organizing

Location: United States, Canada, various European nations, Soviet Russia, Red China, & others

Ideological cover: Environmentalist

Activities: Political & legal activism; provocation & incitement to violence; political & logistical support for [[terrorism]]

Target countries: United States, Canada, Western European nations, & others

Status: Confirmed active

Assisted Organizations:
*Earth First! (EF!)
*[[Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy]] (SANE)
*[[Sea Shepherd Conservation Society]] (SSCS)

Derivative/Controlled Organizations:
*[[Earth Liberation Front]] (ELF)
*Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS)
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm an environmentalist and I don't belong to Greenpeace. Great job at generalizing there cheif. Just because ONE group of a FEW environmentaly minded people at some times go too far and commit crimes you generalize that to all environmetalists? Seriously, congrats on that. Are you a Christian? Well, then you are proably an Aryan skinhead too by your logic. After all, they claim to be Christians too.
:I'm a corncerned environmentalist about the environment, too. That's why I thought my lagunage was pretty good.. What we are discussing here is organizations claiming to be environmentalist, which may have other agendas. I'm sure we can get some gound language rounded out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The ATTAC guys also claim that the PLO is behind 9/11 [http://www.attacreport.com/index.htm]. I'd be wary of giving them any credence. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 23:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Be wary of them? that's not anti-Semitic comment, is it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

if you claim to be an environmentalist and do something else then u aren't really an environmentalist.
if I claimed to be a republican but voted for and believed in democratic veiws would I still be a republican?--[[User:Benburned|Benburned]] 00:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:A person can be 40% environmentalist with 60% dedicated to another agenda. Likewise it's not uncommon at all for crossover votes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==The religuion of nature==
American, you were on to something, and it's even poetic, but it gets a little sarcastic at the end. I'll try and save what I can. This part,

:'' There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution ''

can be backed up with scripture, Genesis "because thou hast sinned, cursed is the ground for thy sake". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Worship of Gaia?==
Where is the sourced information for this section? The only source in it is a link to some speech Michael Crichton made. How is he an expert on any of this? Please clarify, or let's get rid of it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

No kidding, it's almost incoherent. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 16:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Tis hilarious. Especially the Al Gore picture. I'm going to find me some other 'hilarious' pictures to plaster all over the site. Should be some good George Bush ones. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

:: And let us not forget about how mockery is a tool exclusive to the liberal repetoire. Oh and it's good to see how it all got put back with no attempt at an explination. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Mockery? It is all very well cited, and only encapuslated. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well cited? I like ATTAC: (I quote directly) which describes itself as 'A Hasidic Analysis of World War III'. The link up, which draws lines from Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, to 'revolutionary communist terror cells', has had me laugh quite a bit. It's almost as good as [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory this]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

::: My mockery comment was more directed at the purposeful choice of pictures of liberals that make them look either 1) goofy or 2) sinister. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT
:::: Shall I replace it with [[Image:Al_gore.jpg]] this? I'm not sure having a picture of Al Gore serves any purpose beyond that which I would be loath to accuse RobS of. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
::::: To be honest, I have no idea why this article even needs a picture of Gore other than that he's a noted environmentalist. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: And furthermore, can you explain what any of that has to do with environmentalists? It seems to me if you want to write about Gaia worshipers that should be moved to a different topic. You seem to be looking for the most ridiculous information you can find and trying to stereotype all environmentalists as nut jobs. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
‎::Gaia+environmentalist brings up 115,000 Google hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist%2BGaia&btnG=Google+Search] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::pie+enviromentalist brings up 174,000 Google hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+pie&btnG=Google+Search]Perhaps we should include a section on how enviromentalists like pie?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 19:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Mattee brings up a good point, I'm not sure how Google hits validates an argument. If you want to have an article about Gaia worshipers, I don't have any problem with that. But as it appears in this article, you are mischaracterizing all environmentalists as being part of some new age religion. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Environmentalist + Jesus brings up 317,000 Google hits more that 2 times as many as Gaia+environmentalist.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Environmentalist + Conservative - 654,000 hits, therefore all environmentalists are conservative. Wuh? RobS, you're going to need some better proof. Anyway, 67900 of your sample above are about Lovelock, so it's not exactly compelling. All I can say is - search engines do nothing to prove/disprove hypotheses. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

RobS, why was that edit reverted? You were given ample time to respond here, but you didn't. In 24 hours, I'm going to revert if you haven't explained why here. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?] 14:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT) Note the timestamp.
:It's all on the discussion page, right here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Read the people questioning whether we need a picture of Gore at all. I'd rather not attribute you with the motives I think you're trying to push with that picture. Oh, and do you want me to write that section about the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+conservative&btnG=Search conservative] environmentalists who like [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+pie&btnG=Google+Search pie]? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
:So what. Quayle misspelled potato, but never ran as his parties nominee for President. On the otherhand, Gore is a larger historic figure, and we have sourcing defining exactly what he stands for, represents, and believes in. This is much more relevent than a simple common mistake someone who served in the same office, yet his opponents are intent upon never forgetting (read the Conservapedia article on [[Dan Quayle]], it was created precisely for this reason. No mention whatsoever of any accomplishments that lead him to that office). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: What does that have to do with whether Gore needs a picture? There are (three) pictures on [[Al Gore]], not one of them very flattering, though that doesn't matter. You haven't really answered my question. Here some issues -

*The Google thing means absolutely nothing - but since that seems to be let go, I'll do the same.
*An environmentalist ''is'' someone who is concerned about the environment. It's boolean logic. If you aren't concerned about it, then you're not an environmentalist.
*Why the picture? Are you trying to suggest with it that Gore's praying to some environmentalist god? If not, then what's wrong with any other picture?

Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
:Go fix the Quayle article and we'll talk about fixing an article that is not in the [[Al Gore]] mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:: What do you want me to do? Anyway, we're discussing '''this''' article, here, and how we should improve it - so answer the question. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
:::Ok, I suppose we can articulate more about Gaia, neo-paganism, and eco-feminists, and how they have infiltrated the environmental movement. But all that still needs to be kept separate from the various environmental organizations with links to foreign intelligence sources and terrorism. And the environmental organizations on the [[domestic terrorism]] watchlist might have to be separate from that (maybe not). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Pop stars opinions==

Why are pop stars' opinions removed when they make good points and included when they make dumb points (like here)? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 12:16, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Gay wrongs

2007-05-20T16:14:34Z

Pendayho:

Gay WRONGS?!?!?!? What the hell is the matter with you people? Sheeeesh. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:07, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Gay wrongs]] are what [[Gay rights]] seek to justify. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, but it's not exactly an encyclopedia term, is it? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 12:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Che Guevara

2007-05-20T00:52:19Z

Pendayho:

[[Image:Che-Guevara-Poster.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Ernesto "Che" Guevara''' (1928-1967) was an [[Argentina|Argentine]]-born [[Marxist]] who was involved in [[guerilla warfare]] in a number of countries on behalf of [[Communist]] causes.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18363</ref> He was a major player in the [[Cuba]]n revolution that led to [[Fidel Castro]] seizing power.

Guevara was in his time known as a charismatic leader and his image is still used as an iconic one which adorns millions of t-shirts as well as a whole raft of paraphernalia. It is for this reason Intelligence analysts in recent decades have refrained from recommending killing terrorist leaders so as to avoid creating the image of a [[martyr]]. [[Yasser Arafat]] and [[Osama bin Laden]] are two of the most prominent examples of this policy of not creating living legends in death by executing a terrorist leader.{{fact}}

Che Guevara T-shirts have become a [[best-seller]] in North American and European college campuses.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Guevara, Che}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Marxists]]

Talk:West Virginia

2007-05-20T00:50:42Z

Pendayho: New page: I'm pretty sure Nevada became a state because of the civil war, but i'm holding a baby and can't really type. ~~~~

I'm pretty sure Nevada became a state because of the civil war, but i'm holding a baby and can't really type. [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 20:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Che Guevara

2007-05-19T21:55:08Z

Pendayho:

Cut from intro:

:There has been no evidence to support the claims that he was plotting but some conservatives have suspected him of planning terrorism against the United States. He was shot in Bolivia by the Bolivian Special Forces in 1967. These Bolivian soldiers were trained, equipped and guided by U.S. Green Beret and CIA operatives.

What is the point of this? US bad, Che good, or what?

This man murdered hundreds of Cuban civilians who opposed the murderous despotic reign of Castro. The paragraph above sounds like a whitewash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Another cut:

:He is also the voice of the conscience of [[Eva Peron]] in [[Andrew Lloyd Weber|Andrew Lloyd Weber's]] ''[[Evita]]''. In the cinematic version of the musical, "Che" is played by [[Antonio Banderas]], and Evita by [[Madonna]].

Wikipedia's article also has problems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ouch! It's totally true. Watch Evita. But it's not strictly important. Unless you love the musical like I do.-'''AmesG'''<su[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:''Evita''!? We're gonna use the Screen Writers Guild now as sources? Might as well fold shop and all of us move back to Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Wait, who's following the policy with Osama? Isn't the US government going hell for leather to try to kill Osama? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 13:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nope. And never did. Studying the legend of Che, you now understand '''''why''''' it was never a priority to kill bin Laden. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So stated US goals of killing him are lies? Or are you interpreting past the text? Because I thought you were a literalist type of character.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Since Guevara's killing in 1967 it has been debated among Intelligence analysts and policymakers the merits of killing a terrorist leader only to have him idolized in death as a maryr to a cause. After 1975, by Executive Order, such assassinations now are explicitly forbidden without Presidential authorization. In Israel, matters are handled somewhat differently, in that these sorts of decisions are Cabinet decisions, and not the responsibility of one man like under US law (see ''By Way of Deception'' by Victor Ostrovsky [http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Victor-Ostrovsky/dp/0971759502]). Arafat, for example, while condemned to death ''in absentia'' by the Israeli cabinet, nonetheless a death warant was never issued by the Prime Minister for his arrest and/or execution, and this is because of pressure from the US State Department not to make a Che Guevara type martyr out of him. Similiarly with bin Laden. Killing him serves no purpose now. It does not undo the events of 9/11 or bring 3000 back from the grave. It probably would elevate him in death to something larger than he ever was in life. So he can be made more of an example as a coward, living in hiding in caves, a hunted man for the rest of his life, which serves more to deter any future bin Laden wanna be's than making a martyr out of him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So is that your position as to why the US hasn't caught him yet? Then why did they catch Saddam? Was that a "mistake," because your policy seems to suggest that dangers to society are better alive than dead no matter what.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent parallel; Saddam too, like bin Ladan, was made an example of, living in a hole as a hunted man. And when he was caught, it wasn't the US that executed him. There is no doubt that if bin Laden is caught, he will be tried to. But killing him out in the jungle for revenge purposes, or of fear that he might lead a mass movement again, is not a likely scenario. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Er, killing him in out in the jungle? Where, exactly, do you think he is? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:55, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==Image==

...but apparently you are here to push forward your silly "anti-Che" agenda. The t-shirt pic is completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia entry. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:RobS, I tried to post on your talk page but it was blocked with a spam protection filter. Please read my comments and respond. Cheers [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Living legends==

Are you honest to God saying that the US is deliberately leaving Osama alive so he doesn't become an martyr? That's rich. [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Che Guevara

2007-05-19T21:52:15Z

Pendayho:

[[Image:Square-large-lousy.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Ernesto "Che" Guevara''' (1928-1967) was an [[Argentina|Argentine]]-born [[Marxist]] who was involved in [[guerilla warfare]] in a number of countries on behalf of [[Communist]] causes.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18363</ref> He was a major player in the [[Cuba]]n revolution that led to [[Fidel Castro]] seizing power.

Guevara was in his time known as a charismatic leader and his image is still used as an iconic one which adorns millions of t-shirts as well as a whole raft of paraphernalia. It is for this reason Intelligence analysts in recent decades have refrained from recommending killing terrorist leaders so as to avoid creating the image of a [[martyr]]. [[Yasser Arafat]] and [[Osama bin Laden]] are two of the most prominent examples of this policy of not creating living legends in death by executing a terrorist leader.{{fact}}

Che Guevara T-shirts have become a [[best-seller]] in North American and European college campuses.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Guevara, Che}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Marxists]]

Talk:Che Guevara

2007-05-19T21:51:57Z

Pendayho:

Cut from intro:

:There has been no evidence to support the claims that he was plotting but some conservatives have suspected him of planning terrorism against the United States. He was shot in Bolivia by the Bolivian Special Forces in 1967. These Bolivian soldiers were trained, equipped and guided by U.S. Green Beret and CIA operatives.

What is the point of this? US bad, Che good, or what?

This man murdered hundreds of Cuban civilians who opposed the murderous despotic reign of Castro. The paragraph above sounds like a whitewash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Another cut:

:He is also the voice of the conscience of [[Eva Peron]] in [[Andrew Lloyd Weber|Andrew Lloyd Weber's]] ''[[Evita]]''. In the cinematic version of the musical, "Che" is played by [[Antonio Banderas]], and Evita by [[Madonna]].

Wikipedia's article also has problems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ouch! It's totally true. Watch Evita. But it's not strictly important. Unless you love the musical like I do.-'''AmesG'''<su[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:''Evita''!? We're gonna use the Screen Writers Guild now as sources? Might as well fold shop and all of us move back to Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Wait, who's following the policy with Osama? Isn't the US government going hell for leather to try to kill Osama? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 13:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nope. And never did. Studying the legend of Che, you now understand '''''why''''' it was never a priority to kill bin Laden. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So stated US goals of killing him are lies? Or are you interpreting past the text? Because I thought you were a literalist type of character.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Since Guevara's killing in 1967 it has been debated among Intelligence analysts and policymakers the merits of killing a terrorist leader only to have him idolized in death as a maryr to a cause. After 1975, by Executive Order, such assassinations now are explicitly forbidden without Presidential authorization. In Israel, matters are handled somewhat differently, in that these sorts of decisions are Cabinet decisions, and not the responsibility of one man like under US law (see ''By Way of Deception'' by Victor Ostrovsky [http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Victor-Ostrovsky/dp/0971759502]). Arafat, for example, while condemned to death ''in absentia'' by the Israeli cabinet, nonetheless a death warant was never issued by the Prime Minister for his arrest and/or execution, and this is because of pressure from the US State Department not to make a Che Guevara type martyr out of him. Similiarly with bin Laden. Killing him serves no purpose now. It does not undo the events of 9/11 or bring 3000 back from the grave. It probably would elevate him in death to something larger than he ever was in life. So he can be made more of an example as a coward, living in hiding in caves, a hunted man for the rest of his life, which serves more to deter any future bin Laden wanna be's than making a martyr out of him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So is that your position as to why the US hasn't caught him yet? Then why did they catch Saddam? Was that a "mistake," because your policy seems to suggest that dangers to society are better alive than dead no matter what.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent parallel; Saddam too, like bin Ladan, was made an example of, living in a hole as a hunted man. And when he was caught, it wasn't the US that executed him. There is no doubt that if bin Laden is caught, he will be tried to. But killing him out in the jungle for revenge purposes, or of fear that he might lead a mass movement again, is not a likely scenario. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Image==

...but apparently you are here to push forward your silly "anti-Che" agenda. The t-shirt pic is completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia entry. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:RobS, I tried to post on your talk page but it was blocked with a spam protection filter. Please read my comments and respond. Cheers [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Living legends==

Are you honest to God saying that the US is deliberately leaving Osama alive so he doesn't become an martyr? That's rich. [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Insecticide

2007-05-19T19:59:01Z

Pendayho: /* DDT */ cancer

An '''insecticide''' is a [[chemical]] used in insect control, agriculture, and medicine. Relatively few deaths have occurred among workers handling poisonous agricultural products or insecticides.{{fact}} Those that have occurred can be traced to disregard of safety directions found on product labels.{{fact}} There are many types of insecticides on the market today.

==Safety==
Early symptoms and signs of organic phosphate poisoning include headache, dizziness, blurred vision, weakness, chest discomfort and nervousness, a little later - nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, sweating, tears, salivation, slow pulse, muscular tremors and possibly convulsions. This group of insecticides enters the body through ingestion (swallowing), inhalation (breathing), and absorption (through the skin). Symptoms and signs of carbamate poisoning include constriction of pupils, salivation, profuse sweating, fatigue, muscular incoordination, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and chest tightness. This group of insecticides can enter the body through ingestion (swallowing), inhalation (breathing), and absorption (through the skin). One of the most common signs of synthetic pyrethroid poisoning is a stuffy, runny nose and scratchy throat from inhalation of partly purified pyrethrum extract. Asthmatic wheezing may occur in susceptible individuals. Sudden bronchospasm, swelling of oral and laryngeal mucous membranes, and shock (anaphylaxis) have been reported after pyrethrum inhalation. Delayed appearance of breathing difficulty, cough and fever, with patchy lung infiltrates on x-ray suggest hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Nervous irritability, tremors, and inability to coordinate muscular movements have occurred rarely in persons who have had massive inhalation exposure to pyrethrins.

==Incesticides in Agriculture==
Incesticides have been used since the inception of the [[Green Revolution]] in agriculture. Years of research and testing have resulted in a number of safe agricultural practices. Farmers should remember to destroy their crop remains following last harvest as well as to control weed hosts in unused fields, along field edges, and in the production fields. It is a good practice to rotate vegetable crops with cover crops or other crops that are not susceptible to the same pests. Fallowing and clean cultivation reduces many pests in fields not being used. Flooding with water where mosquitoes are not an issue may be done for 6 to 8 weeks once a year and can reduce many pests. These measures might be considered where sod or crop growth is not needed to reduce plant bed erosion and sand blasting.

==DDT==
A proven anti-mosquito agent that was able to eradicate [[malaria]] in America and elsewhere was attacked by [[Rachel Carson]] and the environmentalist movement, due to a possible link to cancer. Millions of people (some estimate over 300 million) have died as a result of US environmental prohibitions on DDT.<ref>http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/nr_051401.html</ref> Now, the head of the World Bank, prominent [[neo-conservative]] [[Paul Wolfowitz]], has embraced the life-saving use of DDT. <ref>http://www.fightingmalaria.org</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

Guy Fawkes

2007-05-19T19:58:07Z

Pendayho:

'''Guy Fawkes''' was born on April 13, 1570 in Stonegate, York. He was an English soldier who had fought as a mercenary for the Spanish and part of the [[Roman Catholic]] [[terrorist]] group who tried to act on the [[Gunpowder Plot]] on November 5th. The plot was to assassinate the [[Protestant]] rulers of [[England]], including King James I and the whole of [[Parliament]], by blowing up the Palace of Westminster during the opening session of [[Parliament]] in 1605. This would have created a power vacuum, supposedly allowing the Catholic Church to seize power. Fawkes was caught before he could put this plan into action. He was interrogated through [[torture]]. Normally torture would have been forbidden, but James I decided that the country was at war and therefore torture was acceptable.{{fact}} Fawkes was ultimately was put to death along with his co-conspirators for treason and attempted murder. He died on January 31, 1606, by being hanged, drawn and quartered.

His death is celebrated in England every year on [[Guy Fawkes Day]], 5th November with fireworks and bonfires, it is commonly known as "Bonfire Night"

:''Remember, remember, the fifth of November Gunpowder, treason and plot...''

[[Category:Terrorists|Fawkes, Guy]]

Talk:Attorney General's list

2007-05-19T19:55:44Z

Pendayho: New page: There's some really painful grammar is this article. ~~~~

There's some really painful grammar is this article. [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 15:55, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Felipe Calderon

2007-05-19T05:04:13Z

Pendayho:

'''Felipe Calderón''' is the [[conservative]] president of [[Mexico]]. He had a surprising win over the leftist [[Lopez Obrador]], whom some journalist linked to old [[Communist]], [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]], in the 2006 elections in Mexico. He is also known in Mexico as "El hijo desobediente".

Felipe Calderón will keep the successful free-trade policies that Mexico had adopted since the 1980s, but especially embraced in the presidency of [[Vicente Fox]].{{fact}} He is currently fighting a war against drug traffickers, is [[pro-life]], and he is a supporter of [[George W. Bush]] in Latin America.

== See also ==

*[[Vicente Fox]]
*[[Manuel Espino]]

[[Category:Mexican Presidents|Calderon, Felipe]]
[[Category:Biography]]
[[Category:Political people]]

Columbine High School Massacre

2007-05-19T03:13:51Z

Pendayho:

[[Image:Columbine.jpg|right|thumb|Grieving Columbine students]]
'''Columbine massacre ''' refers to a massacre by two students, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris,<ref>The official report omits how one of the students had been taken off powerful mind-altering medication, which can lead to dangerous conduct.[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/SUSPECTS_TEXT.htm]</ref> of 12 students and a coach at Columbine High School in Littleton, [[Colorado]] on April 20, 1999.

The killers were anti-religion, anti-establishment, antisocial, anti-gun control, and anti-sports; they sought out as victims [[Christianity|Christians]], [[Americans]], and popular athletes. The killers planned their attack beforehand and investigators later found descriptions in their notes about their intentions to kill.

Politicians cited the massacre in their demands for greater [[gun control]], and congressional [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] held highly publicized hearings to pass gun control legislation. But gun control became an issue that hurt Democratic presidential candidate [[Al Gore]] in 2000, causing him to lose the election by losing the traditionally Democratic state of West Virginia, where the right to bear arms is valued.{{fact}} Since the 2000 election there have not been any significant political demands for gun control. [[Liberal]] [[Socialism|socialist]] filmmaker [[Michael Moore]] used the incident as the backdrop for an anti-gun rights documentary, ''Bowling For Columbine''.
[[Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg|right|thumb|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the massacre, caught on Columbine High School's security cameras in the cafeteria shortly before committing suicide.]]
A moving photo gallery of the young students is available online.<ref>http://www.acolumbinesite.com/victim/memoriam.html</ref> Also online is the much-criticized official report of the massacre.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/TOC.htm</ref>

In 2005, Daniel Ledonne of Alamosa, Colorado, created a much-criticized video game called ''Super Columbine Massacre RPG!''' which simulates the school shootings took place at Columbine.<ref>http://live.canoe.ca/TheShow/Archives/2006/09/14/1839452.html</ref>
== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:School violence]]

Talk:Baldomero Ortoneda

2007-05-18T23:17:08Z

Pendayho: New page: Did he establish a control? Did he read through an equal number of non-communist sources published at the same time? How did he define 'philisophical understanding'? ~~~~

Did he establish a control? Did he read through an equal number of non-communist sources published at the same time? How did he define 'philisophical understanding'? [[User:Pendayho|Pendejo]] 19:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Alan Turing

2007-05-18T23:04:38Z

Pendayho: /* References */ ref

[[Image:Ture.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Alan Turing''' (1912 - 1954) was a British mathematician considered to be the founder of modern [[computer]] science and [[cryptography]].<ref>Http://www.turing.org.uk/bio</ref>

In the 1930s Turing proposed the concept of a "Universal [[Turing Machine]]". Turing had, first, proposed that the operations needed to calculate any formula could be broken down into a base set of instructions(or primitive recursive functions) that could in principle be followed by a machine: the "Turing Machine". Once fully formalized the calculations needed to derive the instructions themselves were capable of being run by a Turing Machine. The looped [[logic]] allowed the conception of a Turing Machine that could create its own instruction and, in principle, run a huge variety of calculations. Turing then used the concept of Universal Turing Machine to prove the undecidability of the [[halting problem]].

During [[World War II]] Turing was assigned to the military code breaking unit at Bletchley Park. Working on the decoding of the German's [[Enigma machine]] and, later, "Ultra" codes the group came to place increasing reliance on the formalization of computational procedures. The combination of this formalization of the work they were doing and Turing's earlier concept of the Universal Turing Machine lead to his proposal of creating an actual, rather than theoretical, electronic Universal Turing Machine: the first electronic computer. Turing and his colleagues played a significant role in the Allied victory in WW2, allowing Allied forces access to German communication networks throughout much of the war.

In his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (Mind 49: 433-460) Turing proposed a test (apparently heavily influenced by [[Logical Positivism]]) for establishing whether a computer could think.

Turing was arrested in 1952 for [[homosexuality]] and subsequently lost his security clearance. He was allowed to stay out of prison by agreeing to be injected with female hormones (which would supposedly descrease his sex drive). He later confided to a friend that the hormones caused him to grow breasts.<ref>''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004</ref> This may have contributed to his suicide by [[cyanide]] poisoning in 1954.<ref>http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/index.html</ref>
==References==
Online biography: http://www.turing.org.uk/bio/

Computing Machinery and Intelligence: http://cogprints.org/499/00/turing.html

''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Turing, Alan}}
[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Alan Turing

2007-05-18T23:02:18Z

Pendayho: turing's death

[[Image:Ture.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Alan Turing''' (1912 - 1954) was a British mathematician considered to be the founder of modern [[computer]] science and [[cryptography]].<ref>Http://www.turing.org.uk/bio</ref>

In the 1930s Turing proposed the concept of a "Universal [[Turing Machine]]". Turing had, first, proposed that the operations needed to calculate any formula could be broken down into a base set of instructions(or primitive recursive functions) that could in principle be followed by a machine: the "Turing Machine". Once fully formalized the calculations needed to derive the instructions themselves were capable of being run by a Turing Machine. The looped [[logic]] allowed the conception of a Turing Machine that could create its own instruction and, in principle, run a huge variety of calculations. Turing then used the concept of Universal Turing Machine to prove the undecidability of the [[halting problem]].

During [[World War II]] Turing was assigned to the military code breaking unit at Bletchley Park. Working on the decoding of the German's [[Enigma machine]] and, later, "Ultra" codes the group came to place increasing reliance on the formalization of computational procedures. The combination of this formalization of the work they were doing and Turing's earlier concept of the Universal Turing Machine lead to his proposal of creating an actual, rather than theoretical, electronic Universal Turing Machine: the first electronic computer. Turing and his colleagues played a significant role in the Allied victory in WW2, allowing Allied forces access to German communication networks throughout much of the war.

In his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (Mind 49: 433-460) Turing proposed a test (apparently heavily influenced by [[Logical Positivism]]) for establishing whether a computer could think.

Turing was arrested in 1952 for [[homosexuality]] and subsequently lost his security clearance. He was allowed to stay out of prison by agreeing to be injected with female hormones (which would supposedly descrease his sex drive). He later confided to a friend that the hormones caused him to grow breasts.<ref>''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004</ref> This may have contributed to his suicide by [[cyanide]] poisoning in 1954.<ref>http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/index.html</ref>
==References==
Online biography: http://www.turing.org.uk/bio/

Computing Machinery and Intelligence: http://cogprints.org/499/00/turing.html

{{DEFAULTSORT:Turing, Alan}}
[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Michael Dukakis

2007-05-18T22:56:43Z

Pendayho:

'''Michael Dukakis''' ran for president in 1988 as a [[Democrat]] who lost to [[Dan Quayle]] and [[George H.W. Bush]] His running mate was [[Lloyd Benson]], who later became [[Secretary of Treasury]] under President [[Bill Clinton]].

[[Category:Political people|Dukakis, Michael]]

Caspian Sea

2007-05-18T22:55:24Z

Pendayho:

[[Image:Caspiansea.jpg|right|thumb|NASA image of the Caspian Sea]]
The largest [[freshwater]] [[lake]] in the [[world]]. Located on the north edge of the [[Middle East]], between [[Europe]] and [[Asia]], with an area of 149,200 square miles. As the Volga and Ural empty into the Caspian. The northern upper-levels of the Caspian are fresh water. The Shi'ites at the southern border decline to use modern sanitation and thus pump raw sewege into the lake.{{fact}}

[[Category:Seas]]

United Arab Emirates

2007-05-18T22:54:17Z

Pendayho:

The '''United Arab Emirates''' (usually called the '''UAE''', or simply the '''Emirates''') is a small country in the [[Middle East]], bordering [[Oman]] and [[Saudi Arabia]]. The country is made up of seven ''Emirates'': [[Abu Dhabi]], [[Ajmān]], [[Dubai]], [[Fujairah]], [[Ras al-Khaimah]], [[Sharjah]], and [[Umm al-Quwain]]. The capital is Abu Dhabi. The UAE (mostly Dubai) is usually considered the most "western-friendly" of the Arab nations.{{fact}}

==Information==
*'''President: '''Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan
*'''Language: '''[[Arabic]]
*'''Government Type:''' Federal Constitutional monarchy
*'''Currency: '''Dirham
*'''Population: '''4,496,000 (ranked 116th)
*'''Population Density: '''54 /km², 139 /sq mi
*'''Area: '''83,600 km², 32,278 sq mi
*'''Independence: '''December 2, 1971
*'''Motto: '''''God, Nation, Royal Family''
*'''Anthem: '''''Ishy Bilady''

==History==
Prior to 1971, the United Arab Emirates were known as the '''Trucial States''' or '''Trucial Oman''', due to the fact that the territory had formerly been administered by [[England|Britain]]-friendly Sheikhs.

''Under Construction''

[[Category:Asian Countries]]
[[Category:Middle Eastern Countries]]

Qatar

2007-05-18T22:53:29Z

Pendayho:

Qatar is a [[sheikdom]] on a [[peninsula]] on the west coast of the [[Persian Gulf]], population (1982) of 250,000. The official language is [[Arabic]] and the capital is [[Doha]].

The country became a [[British]] [[Protectorate]] in 1916 and enjoyed British rule until 1971, when it was granted status as a sovereign independent state.

The chief source of revenue is oil. [[Per capita income]] is the seventh highest in the world, behind [[Denmark]] and ahead of the [[United States]].{{fact}}

Qatar is home to the [[Al Jazeera]] news network.

User talk:SharonS

2007-05-18T00:25:47Z

Pendayho:

Welcome to SharonS's talk page. Please enter any messages you have for me below.'''

'''Archives:''' [[User talk:SharonS/Archive1|1]]

== Geometry terms ==

Hi there, I just noticed you have been playing with the geometry term list things, but I'm not sure where you are going with it.

Can I suggest that (like the other "term lists") they simply be removed? Categories are a much better way to group subjects on a wiki, since they are automatic. I did something like that to, I think, a musical instrument list that started from the "index" page. Example: say someone writes a nice article on a new geometry term. They would have to know, somehow, to add it to the term list. But any editor is likely to add <nowiki>[[category:geometry]]</nowiki>, which automatically adds it to the nicely alphabetized category page, and creates a link to that page as well.

The term lists may have served a function in the early days of the site, but are a redundant workaround when categories are available.

Just a thought. Oh, and PS, hope you're having a lovely Sunday! [[User:Human|Human]] 21:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the categories are a great idea. I keep forgetting to put them on the pages I edit! I think the indexes are necessary for some of the very broad subjects (such as the history terms). These indexes are geared towards students and are intended to help them in their studies by outlining the most important facts they need to know. Having all the terms in one category is pretty overwhelming, and the alphabetical indexes help to divide the terms into smaller chunks. Also, the Indexes are much more accessible for students who don't know much about Wikis and how to use the categories, since they are right on the side bar. I personally prefer the categories, but think we should keep the indexes for the time being. Thanks, ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 21:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I will do that next time. Is there anything else I should know?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Thank you. I will try my best.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==Forged Signature==

I was moving another user's comments from my user page to my talk page. That's all. [[User:Pendayho|Pendejo]] 20:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-05-16T02:41:54Z

Pendayho: /* Opinion polls */

== 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.

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

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

== Cost of war = $9B? ==

"Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.[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)
::We've had this discussion. (A) Flawed method; the statisitcal "norm" uses the basis pre-war Iraq under Saddam. [[Ramsey Clark]] reports 1,000,000 million dead prior to 2003, and [[Hillary Clinton]] attests Saddam is the cause of (whatever the "norm" regards as a basis) those deaths. (B) It is little more than terrorist propaganda, attempting to blame GW Bush & Co. for deaths caused by anti-democratic terrorists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:54, 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)

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

== 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)

Adolf Schicklgruber

2007-05-16T02:07:08Z

Pendayho: New page: '''Adolf Schicklgruber''' (1889-1945) was an Austrian soldier and anti-Communist crusader. Schicklgruber was wounded during the First World War. During the 1920's and 30'...

'''Adolf Schicklgruber''' (1889-1945) was an [[Austria|Austrian]] soldier and anti-[[Communist]] crusader. Schicklgruber was wounded during the First World War. During the 1920's and 30's, Schicklgruber rallied against Russian territorial ambitions in Easter Europe. Schicklgruber apparently died in the closing days of World War II, though circumstances of his death were never disclosed.

==References==

Bullock, A. ''Hitler: A Study in Tyranny'' New York: Penguin Books, 1962.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-05-12T13:44:27Z

Pendayho: /* Costs */

'''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)

==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 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.

==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-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>

==Public Opinion==

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>

==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]]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2007-05-12T13:31:06Z

Pendayho: /* Opposition to Gay Rights */

The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. It denies or dismisses the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts. "Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof." [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html]

It seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).
The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right'': rather, it seeks to convince the public that it is not ''wrong'' enough to regulate, criminalize, or stigmatize.

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html|Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality]Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people agree homosexuality is immoral, sinful, distasteful, degrading, or less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also do not think that we should lose rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional marriage in order to promote acceptance of homosexual behavior.{{fact}}

Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws:

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==

A [[Newsweek]] poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military ([[margin of error]], plus or minus 3%).

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or [[civil unions]]. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref>

==History==
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of [[Harry Hay]]'s writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref>Accuracy in Media, [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ ''Red Roots Of Gay Movement''], Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of [[pedophile]]s. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The [[Human Rights Campaign]] and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html, arguing that Hollywood movies sometimes show homosexual men or boys taking a harmless "Cupid" role to help solidify a budding heterosexual relationship.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*A gay rights perspective, the Human Rights Campaign, www.hrc.org
*An anti-gay rights perspective, Accuracy in Media, [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ ''Red Roots Of Gay Movement''], Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003.
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2007-05-12T13:25:32Z

Pendayho: /* Opposition to Gay Rights */

The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. It denies or dismisses the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts. "Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof." [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html]

It seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).
The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right'': rather, it seeks to convince the public that it is not ''wrong'' enough to regulate, criminalize, or stigmatize.

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html|Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality]Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people agree homosexuality is immoral, sinful, distasteful, degrading, or less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also do not think that we should lose rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional marriage in order to promote acceptance of homosexual behavior.{{fact}}

Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws:

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

==History==
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of [[Harry Hay]]'s writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref>Accuracy in Media, [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ ''Red Roots Of Gay Movement''], Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of [[pedophile]]s. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The [[Human Rights Campaign]] and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html, arguing that Hollywood movies sometimes show homosexual men or boys taking a harmless "Cupid" role to help solidify a budding heterosexual relationship.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*A gay rights perspective, the Human Rights Campaign, www.hrc.org
*An anti-gay rights perspective, Accuracy in Media, [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ ''Red Roots Of Gay Movement''], Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003.
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay]

King of the Hill

2007-05-12T02:07:00Z

Pendayho: rm pov

'''King of the Hill''' is an animated show on Fox starting in 1997 and now passing 200 episodes. It was recently renewed for a 12th season. Created by the man who brought America Beavis and Butthead, the show has taken a surprisingly different turn than expected. A Texan family with a lot of tongue in cheek humor, the show actually presents good [[family values]] from a family with deep roots. Hank Hill, the father of the Hill family, seems to always do what is right despite the circumstances or ramifications.

Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-11T20:48:10Z

Pendayho:

{{Unofficial}}

Restoring USA image in the world, a common liberal talking point. They have determined that America, with it unilateral approach on Iraq has damaged our image. False. The image has been damaged for some time now. First, is was a coalition of the willing, not the USA alone. Second, now that the Europeans have chimed into the Iraq debate as America wrong, liberals see it as the whole world hates America now. Before 9/11, extremists plotted to kill Americans. Why? We are the richest nation on Earth, do you think others hate us for that? Many nations are appalled at our pornagraphic industry that we export to them, can that be a part of it? Our support of Israel? We give women equal rights and a voice, many women in the world can't even leave their house alone or without a veil or go to school. My belief, and I am always correct, that liberals have found a hammer to hit conservatives with because the Europeans dislike our capitalism, and we are against socialism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Update, Europe heading toward pro-American leaders. Victory in Germany by Merkel replacing anti-American Schroeder. Now victory in France replacing Chirac. Coupled with victory by Harper in Canada, it now seems we have support of major nations that took a direct stand against the USA foreign policy. Restoring the USA image in the world has worked itself out without the Democrats help.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

You're convinced the Dems hate America, aren't you, JP? At any rate, Blair's out in the UK...so much for Bush's buddy there. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 16:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Strategic Defense Initiative

2007-05-11T20:16:15Z

Pendayho: /* Criticisms */

[[Image:Sdilogo.png|200px|right|thumb]]
The Strategic Defense Initiative or SDI, which is also commonly called Star Wars (at first by detractors), was a proposal by U.S. President [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1983 to build a ground based and space based system to protect the U.S. from nuclear ballistic missiles. The system was never fully set up, but the research from this paved the way for the anti-ballistic missile systems of today{{fact}}. It is believed that the Soviet's response necessitated by SDI helped drive their financial and political downfall.

==Goals of SDI==
The basic goal of SDI was to intercept and destroy incoming nuclear ballistic missiles to prevent detonation over the U.S. In some scenarios, not all warheads would be intercepted, but enough would be to render [[Mutually Assured Destruction|mutually assured destruction]] moot. In the scenario of "partial protection", the U.S. would be immune from complete destruction, which would deter the USSR from launching a first strike. See [[Game Theory]] and [[Mutually Assured Destruction]].

==Components of SDI==
There are a limited number of ways to prevent a ballistic missile from detonating over one's territory. A brief primer on nuclear attack will help explain the problems to be solved.
===The Problems===
Missiles with nuclear payloads are launched in two primary ways: as ground based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and as shorter range missiles, such as submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs).

*'''ICBMs''' are launched from the ground, travel into space, and return with the assistance of gravity. Most contain "multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles" or MIRVs. This means that a single ICBM can cause many nuclear warheads to detonate over multiple targets. Problems involved include detecting the launch, and deciding on what level to intercept the target. If the target is disabled before deployment of MIRVs, this obviously solves many problems. Once MIRVs are deployed, many more targets must be eliminated. Destroying an ICBM before it enters space is essentially impossible. Interception in space requires a pre-placed infrastructure. Interception after MIRV deployment involves ground-based systems.
*SLBMs and SLCMs present serious difficulties. SLBMs have a shorter time available to intercept, as they can be launched nearer to target. SLCMs are basically a first-strike weapon, travel short distances quickly and close to the ground.

===The Solutions===
====Ground-based systems====
[[Image:SDI.jpg|thumb|right|100px|Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT)]]
Ground-based systems must be able to detect a rapidly-approaching ballistic object, and destroy or divert that object well enough to avoid catastrophic damage to the target.

====Space-based systems====
Space-based systems generally aim to destroy a ballistic missile at the height of its trajectory.

==Criticisms==
There are many critiques of the original program, one of the most infamous being that of the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]]. Many criticisms did, however, come from the more neutral scientific and military community.{{fact}}
[[Category:Military]]

Enlightenment

2007-05-11T20:15:48Z

Pendayho:

The '''Enlightenment''' was a philosophical movement in the 1700s that emphasized an intellectual approach rejecting traditional social, political and (sometimes) religious views. The Enlightenment held that view that humans were essentially good and that reason was the best way to discover truth.

Philosophers in the Enlightenment felt that breakthroughs in science, such as news in the late 1600s of [[Isaac Newton]]’s discoveries, could be duplicated in other fields through a systematic and logical approach. However, [[Newton]]'s breakthroughs were inspired by his Christian faith,{{fact}} while some of the Enlightenment thinkers rejected and even criticized Christianity. There were Enlightenment philosophers in England, France and even the American colonies. There were stunning new works in classical music, and the arts flourished in what is known as the neo-classical period.

[[Category:History]]

Talk:Environmentalist

2007-05-11T20:11:01Z

Pendayho: /* Worship of Gaia? */

Conservapedia talk:Deletion

2007-05-11T19:36:58Z

Pendayho:

Since [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]] seem to make up rules as they go along [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=136691] a policy that has some reasonable checks on deletions, except where there is a rule violation is a bit pointless because an editor can never know what a particular [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop's]] rules are. Conservapedia really only has one rule found [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|here]].
:''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
Put in lay language that means
:''Sysops may do whatever they want, everyone else has to do what they are told.''
If a [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop]] feels something is inappropriate they should just take what ever action they deem necessary. If a [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop]] was not capable of doing this in the best interests of Conservapedia they wouldn't be a [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop]]. If it ain't broke why fix it? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Ha! Articles here are not only deleted, but the contributer is banned (along with their ISP) with no explanation, no warning, and no recourse! On wiki, you can simply revert an edit, and don't have to worry about getting banned because a SYSOP DIDN'T LIKE YOUR NAME. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 15:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Google

2007-05-11T18:05:48Z

Pendayho: /* PageRank Algorithm */

'''Google''' is a company whose primary business is [[internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]]. The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the homemade [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] is suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
[[Image:Google2.gif|thumb|right|300px| Google's logo on [[Earth day]], 22 [[April]] [[2007]].]]
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==PageRank Algorithm==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is its '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to its constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page to form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, searching "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democratic]] Party supporters in late 2003,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable Failure' links to Bush]</ref> as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*''''"Great President"''': returns the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidential election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky" for this term directs you to a fake Google page (in reality, it is an [[AlbinoBlackSheep]].com page, styled to look exactly like a Google page. Found [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html here]) giving no matches, and asking if meant "French military defeats?".
*'''"Weapons of Mass Destruction"''' would bring up a similiar page with the error message 'not found.'

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]

Conservative Democrat

2007-05-11T18:03:31Z

Pendayho:

A '''Conservative Democrat''' is a member of the [[Democratic Party]] in the United States who holds [[conservative]] views on social or economic issues. Despite that party's longstanding reputation as a [[liberal]] political party, the Democratic Party has always had a conservative wing. Most recently they were successful in the 2006 midterm elections when several conservative Democrats won election to the House and Senate.

Conservative Democrats today are organized into the [[Blue Dog]] caucus in the House. Previously they were known by other names including "boll weevil Democrats" during the 1980s, when a large number of conservative Democrats voted with Reagan on fiscal and social policy.

The American South had a long tradition of electing conservative Democrats to office, including in Presidential elections until they broke from the Democrats in 1964 to vote for [[Barry Goldwater]], the Republican nominee. From 1948 to the 1970s an even more conservative wing of the party, mostly from the South, was called "Dixiecrats". The Dixiecrat wing of the party has been essentially defunct since the 1970s and many of them, such as [[Strom Thurmond]] and [[Jesse Helms]], were early converts to the [[Republican Party]], foreshadowing a long trend of conservatives leaving the Democrats and joining the Republicans that continued through the 1980s and 1990s.

Today there are several caucuses of people with conservative views in the Democratic Party. These conservative Democrats often find themselves at odds with the liberal majority of their party. The Blue Dog caucus in the House was organized in 1994 by conservative Democrats who believed the liberal wing of the party had "choked blue" conservative voices in the party. There is also a [[pro-life]] caucus within the Democrats called [[Democrats for Life of America]] currently led by [[Nat Hentoff]], a pro-[[Second Amendment]] caucus called [[Amendment II Democrats]] which supports [[gun rights]], and even a minority-held position within the [[environmentalist]] and [[organzed labor]] movements opposed to further [[immigration]] into the United States on environmental or job protection grounds, although it should be noted that these voices have been all but shut out by the current leadership of those movements.{{fact}}

The [[Democratic Leadership Caucus]] is sometimes also called "conservative" but it holds liberal views on social issues and includes such liberal luminaries as [[Bill Clinton]], [[Bill Richardson]], and [[Hillary Clinton]] among its supporters so it cannot be truly considered a conservative caucus in the party.

[[Zell Miller]] is a conservative Democrat who wrote a book, ''A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat'', about his differences with the current party leadership.

College Republican National Committee

2007-05-11T17:34:01Z

Pendayho:

The College Republican National Committee is a nationwide political organization on college campuses dedicated to helping elect [[Republicans]] at all levels of government, and organizing young people to promote and educate others about the Republican Party's platform and goals. It was founded in 1892, making it the oldest surviving youth political organization in the United States,{{fact}} and many members of the College Republicans go on to positions of leadership in the Republican Party.

Africa

2007-05-11T13:39:51Z

Pendayho:

[[Image:Africa98.jpg|right|thumb|Political Map of Africa]]

'''Africa''' is the continent south of [[Europe]] and southwest of [[Asia]].
To minimize armed conflict, Europeans held the [[Berlin Conference]] in 1884-1885 in order to decide how best to colonize Africa. Ethnic and cultural differences within Africa were ignored, and lines of demarcation were drawn to aid the European nations in this effort. All of Africa except for Ethiopia (which resisted Italian control in 1896) and Liberia were divided and colonized by the European nations.

European imperialism on the African continent had both good and bad effects. On the good side, the Europeans brought advances in technology, built hospitals, and improved the infrastructure, such as railroads, telephones, telegraphs, sanitation and other public works. This improved trade and communications, and reduced disease. Europeans also built schools, but used them to teach European language and culture rather than respecting local traditions. Literacy did improve as a result, however. On the bad side, the Europeans displaced Africans from their individual farms and shifted them into working for European businesses. Africans lost control of their land and saw a reduction in their own food crops. Europeans also completely disrupted African cultural groups and village life, resulting in arbitrary geographical boundaries that continue to cause war and strife to this day.

Africa is considered to be where humanity began for both evolutionists and creationists. Based on geography described in the [[Book of Genesis]], the [[Garden of Eden]] was presumably located in [[Ethiopia]], and modern evolutionary science puts ''Homo sapiens'' as originating somewhere in Africa.{{fact}}

[[Category:Continents]]