Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Sandbagger

2007-03-30T04:10:35Z

Sandbagger:

Are you going to be productive? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

No idea. You'd better ban me NOW, just to be on the safe side. Less users means less work for the mods, after all! --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 02:31, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:I am just curious. I don't want to ban you. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you gotta ban him now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:What brought that on? It better not be because of [[Operation Yellow Elephant]]!--[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 00:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T04:05:35Z

Sandbagger: /* Weapons of Mass Destruction */

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) began when 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> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with President Bush stating various objectives - one of which was deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and also to bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction]] WMD programs.

Notwithstanding Geroge Bush's May 1, 2003 claim of "Mission Accomplished," the war is currently ongoing, and since that claim was made has lasted longer than America's involvement in the Second World War. A number debates surround the war including topics such as disengagement of American forces and the role of nations in the region, and whether sufficient stores of WMD's have been found to justify the invasion. The [[Bush Administration]] argues that the war is crucial to the larger U.S.-led [[War on Terrorism]]. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for perceived the administration for percieved blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

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

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

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

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

==The Surge==
[[Image:Cuncil.jpg|right|thumb|Iraqi governing council as of July 15, 2003]]
Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighbouring 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 defence” 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.

==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?"

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 spiralling 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 occupation 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==

Before the war, the [[United Nations]] inspection team led by [[Hans Blix]] came under widespread mockery for their failure to find Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.<ref>[http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm]</ref>

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, despite the US Armed Forces having free run of the palce for three years, 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 Advisor 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. The utter failure of US spy satellites trained on Iraq to notice this indicates it must have been done by ninjas.

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. "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all." Another dozen were found later in June and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> Again, finding WMD, whether usable or not, constitutes finding WMD and refutes those who say there never were any in Iraq. "Partly usable" means it kills only half the intended amount of people? So that means the public may safely ignore any threat these weapons could have posed?

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.

===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."

===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>

==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 numbers are highly debated, however, and other sources put the cost around $9 Billion.<ref>[http://costofwar.com/numbers.html Iraq War Cost Calculator Notes]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.

[[Category:Wars]]

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T03:55:44Z

Sandbagger: /* End of first phase */

== 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)

== WMD ==

''Only about one-third of 36 million pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared. [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/scope.html]'''

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

==Psychic predictions==
This statement,

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

even being cited to the New York Times means nothing. Coulda Woulda Shoulda is not news, neither are psychic predictors of facts that never happened. I seriously think this kinda junk needs to be kept out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:LOL! Do you even understand how casualty studies are conducted, or how the math behind them functions? These aren't "psychic predictors of facts that never happened". There's massive amounts of mathematics and science behind these studies; you can't publish something like that in a peer-reviewed journal like the Lancet without meeting rigorous scientific requirements to ensure reliable results. The study itself is available in PDF format if you Google it, so yuou can read it and take a look at the math behind it for yourself. Perhaps that will help allay your confusion.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (PST)
:Here is a link to the study on the Lancet's website: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf If anybody has any questions about the methodology or mathematics involved, feel free to ask me and I will try to help you understand. I look forward to putting the Lancet study back into this article, because I see no serious reason to exclude it.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 19:18, 14 March 2007 (PST)
::(Edit conflict:I'll read the rest) Yes, I understand. For example, Saddam only killed 250,000 over thirty years; so using the mathematical model we would have to divide 250,000 human lives by 30 and then add back the average for three years (2003 - 2006). Makes perfect logical and scientific sense. It doesn't preclude the possibility that Saddam may have awoke one morning and decided to go on a pogrom and slaughter 650,000 people in the space of three years, thus upsetting the model. Nor does it consider that Saddam may have met an early demise and Uday or Qusay could have likewise gone on such a pogrom.

::Point here is, this is junk science, beginning with the conclusion that if not for the Bush- Cheney-Rusmfeld cabal, 650,000 Iraqi's would be alive, i.e. laying the responsibility for murderers and terrorists at the US Admins feet (and yes, all that garbage previously was in the intro to this article before it was fixed with facts).

::This is History 101, "If Rommel had 4 more divisions, we'd all be speaking German today". But Rommel didn't have 4 more divisions, and we're not speaking German today. It's the simple difference between historical facts, and speculation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And the historical fact is that there are a LOT of dead Iraqis, and since the USA is currently occupying the country, _we're_ Responsible. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By the sounds of it, neither of you is acknowledging that you understand the difference between casualty studies - which are considered reliable because they're applied with sound mathematical techniques - and baseless speculation. I mean, you're taking a peer-reviewed study and trying to discredit it on the grounds that you don't think science itself is reliable. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me. I mean there are reasons to attack the Lancet's methodology in Iraq - merging certain sample zones, for example - but dismissing it as "junk science" is simply ignorant.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:39, 14 March 2007 (PST)

::Scrap: So the coalition is repsonsible for the death by "violence", as the study refers to it, and murderers and terrorist who commited those acts are not held responsible? And there are several other moral issues that can be discussed regarding this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Accidents: While I have yet to get into the details of "method" comparing "casualty rates" prior to March of 2003, by what method were "casualty rates" by "violence", i.e. those murdered by the regime over previous years considered the "norm", or basis of this study? But this is definitely '''not the starting point''' for reviewing this Study, and I shall outline the proper method of review if editors wish to waste their time any further with this stuff. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RobS, I appreciate the fact that even though I provided a direct link to the .pdf of the study itself, you were too lazy to read it and answer your own questions. It explains that - and this is a direct quote - "pre-invasion mortality rates were 5.5 per 1000 people per year". There's also a graph, on the third page, exploring death rates under the pre-war sanctions are as well as under the post-war occupation era. Further, seeing as you obviously haven't read it, I can't help but wonder on what grounds you're even disagreeing with the study. Here's a guess: your partisan bias implores you to disagree with the study's results, because they don't make your current position on the issue look very good. If that's the case, I'd suggest you re-evaluate your own critical thinking abilities and challenge your own preconceptions for the sake of intellectual honesty.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 13:26, 15 March 2007 (PST)
::::Accidents, Thank you. Please, cease with the personal attacks. Indeed I have invested time in the Lancet study as you call it. It has several ''primea facia'' difficulties. I do not think we are ready to discuss methods or conclusions. Perhaps, since you may feel strongly about this, begin with properly qualifying the report as to why anyone should pay anymore attention to it than has already been given. Discussing method now is useless. Please qualify the source properly. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Criticisms==

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

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

== Not-so-current affairs ==

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

== Should Civilian Opinion Surveys be included here? ==

Firstly they're going to be unreliable given the volitile circumstances over there, the language barrier, and the likelihood that they're going to be that truthful if they have a negative opinion of the US Occupation. Secondly, its pretty ridiculous to argue that one poll where Iraqi's say they support the insurgency is invalid because of methods that the another poll seems to adopt, which finds the opposite conclusion, but is submitted without quantification. Either way, they are opinions about opinions and hardly reflect the strict standards for fact that I'm sure the Conservapedia strives for.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree with this, and particularly if the so-called opinion survey's are non-indigenious, i.e.can be shown to have any relationship at all with the well known Western media opinion surveys's or other manufacturors of "public opinion." Western opinion surveyor's understand Western media and marketing, not Iraqi demographics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

:Another fear is this might make ABC News polls look good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

"Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war] The numbers are highly debated, however, and other sources put the cost around $9 Billion.[http://costofwar.com/numbers.html Iraq War Cost Calculator Notes]"

From the second referenced page, I cannot find anything that suggests that the cost is $9 billion. Instead, I find pages that point to the total war allocations being $510 billion through fiscal 07 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf], and $318 billion for Iraq through fiscal 06 [http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3601&from_page=../index.cfm]. The first referenced page suggests that care of the wounded from Iraq over the next decade will be $2.5 ''trillion''. I would suggest that people double check their information for the facts here. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is a good observation. There is a difference between "cost" and "allocations"; out of pocket "costs" now vs Iraq's ability to hold a large balance of payments surplus, provide needed oil reserves to world markets, and pay for its own security in the future without being a threat to it's neighbors or dependent on international humanitarian aid programs is not considered or calculated in any of these formulas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== 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)

==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)

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T03:36:36Z

Sandbagger: /* No Casus Belli? */

Vast right-wing conspiracy

2007-03-29T06:20:55Z

Sandbagger:

The '''Vast Right-wing Conspiracy''' is a concept illuminated by then [[First Lady]] [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] on January 27, 1998.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/hillary012898.htm "First Lady Launches Counterattack"] David Maraniss, ''Washington Post'', 28 January 1998 </ref> Originally, the "conspiracy" was allegedly a coalition of right-wing financiers, journalists, and politicians, funded by [[Richard Mellon Scaife]], who colluded in an effort to inhibit the ability of her husband, President [[Bill Clinton]], to govern effectively. The "conspiracy" concept has evolved in meaning to include any concerted efforts to inhibit Democratic or progressive politics.

The validity of the "conspiracy" remains a matter of some debate. Indeed, the term has been embraced by some on the right as a means of mocking the left in general and Senator Clinton in specific. <ref>http://www.vastrightwingconspiracy.com/</ref> An actual Vast Right-wing Conspiracy is as unlikely as an actual [[homosexual agenda]].

<references/>

Illuminati

2007-03-28T06:56:23Z

Sandbagger:

The '''Illuminati''' are believed to be a subversive organization, allegedly founded in [[Bavaria]], [[Germany]] by [[Adam Weishaupt]] in the 1700s. Their goal was believed to be to take over [[Europe]] (and the rest of the world) and establish a [[one-world government]], while abolishing organized [[religion]]. The Illuminati were said to have been officially disbanded in 1785 by the government of [[Bavaria]], and there is little evidence that they have survived into the modern day. The name means "Enlightened Ones", and refers to their belief in super-human knowledge which makes them better-suited to rule the world than the "Normals". {{fact}}

Conspiracy theorists think the [[Eye in the Pyramid]], which appears on the back of the US one-[[Dollar]] bill, is a symbol of [[Freemasonry]] (which in fact never appears in masonic symbolism) or the Illuminati, meaning the [[Founding Fathers]] were Illuminati operatives or sympathizers. However, amongst them only [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[John Hancock]], [[John Paul Jones]], and [[George Washington]] were freemasons<ref>[http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html] THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES</ref> (Franklin was also a member of the [[Lunar Society]]). The Eye in the Pyramid has no documented use in freemasonry or the Bavarian Illuminati.

== References ==

<references/>

==Links==
*[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/anti-masonry02.html Official Lodge website debunking freemasonry claims]
*[http://www.lilithgallery.com/fantasy/topsecret/forbidden/passageway/illuminati.html A Site Claiming to be the Secret Recruitment Website for the Illuminati]

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-28T06:49:59Z

Sandbagger: No Casus Belli?

The Pentagon

2007-03-28T06:47:36Z

Sandbagger:

'''The Pentagon''' is a five-sided military compound and headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. It is located just north of Washington, D.C. and is home to the offices of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

At the center of the compound is a snack shop called the Ground Zero Cafe which sells sandwiches and coffee.

Both [[occultists]] and [[Fundamentalists]] have regarded it with suspicion for its [[Pentagram|unusual shape]]. <ref>[http://thebravenewworldorder.blogspot.com/2006/09/pentagon-attack-and-other-isis-sirius.html The Pentagon "Attack" and Other Isis (Sirius) Rituals]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

User talk:Sandbagger

2007-03-28T06:31:00Z

Sandbagger:

Talk:Church of the SubGenius

2007-03-28T06:30:09Z

Sandbagger:

Is this an important article? I'm inclined to delete it.
:It's not as widely known as the main joke religion, [[Pastafarianism]]. Delete this page, keep [[Pastafarianism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good idea. If there's one thing an '''encyclopedia''' shouldn't have, it's small, unimportant articles about trivia. Conservapedia should have three articles, total: one for the [[Bible]], one for [[George W.Bush]], and one for [[Why Liberals are Evil]]!
::(How do you do a "sarcasm" tag in WikiCode, anyway?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 02:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:How about a merge to [[Parody religion]]s?

Hey, there's thousands of us worldwide! If you delete us, we'll only come back stronger! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 19:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

War on Terrorism

2007-03-28T06:23:20Z

Sandbagger:

The '''War on [[Terrorism]]''' is a collective term used to refer to several military operations with the stated goal of "ending international terrorism". This is obvious hyperbole, as Terrorism is a technique, not a nation that can be bombed into submission.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-27T01:56:45Z

Sandbagger:

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, began when 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> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the objective of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and also bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]]. The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as disengagement of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that the war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]]. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for perceived blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

===Causus Belli===
The primary reason given for the invasion of Iraq was [[preemptive self-defense]] against [[Saddam Hussein]]'s [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]]<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html] President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat </ref>. A secondary reason was to [[liberate]] the Iraqi people and establish [[Democracy]]. A third reason was to secure Iraq's [[Oil]] supply was in non-hostile hands, but that was rarely stated directly.

===Iraqi Liberation===
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>

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

==The Surge==

Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighbouring 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 defence” 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.

==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?"

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 spiralling 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 occupation 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 Advisor 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. "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all." Another dozen were found later in June and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> Again, finding WMD, whether usable or not, constitutes finding WMD and refutes those who say there never were any in Iraq. "Partly usable" means it kills only half the intended amount of people? So that means the public may safely ignore any threat these weapons could have posed?

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.

===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."

===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>

==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 numbers are highly debated, however, and other sources put the cost around $9 Billion.<ref>[http://costofwar.com/numbers.html Iraq War Cost Calculator Notes]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.

[[Category:Wars]]

Elephant in the room

2007-03-11T20:26:11Z

Sandbagger:

'''The Elephant in the Livingroom''' is a colloquial way of referring to a large, obvious problem which, for some reason, nobody is willing to deal with or acknowledge directly.

Talk:Iraq

2007-03-11T20:24:52Z

Sandbagger:

For sure, Iraq just exists since its invasion by the USA in 2003... If I remember well my lessons, this land has seen much more history than lots of others. Isn't it the place were the first civilizations appeared. Oups, this is not believeable...

If you want to expand on this, go ahead. Iraq is the [[elephant in the livingroom]] of the current political landscape, so I'm not surprised nobody wants to touch this listing. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-11T20:22:56Z

Sandbagger:

=Sources=
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Stephen Colbert

2007-03-11T20:18:52Z

Sandbagger:

'''Stephen Colbert''' is a writer and actor. In his Comedy Central show, "The Colbert Report" (pronounced cole-BEAR re-POR) he satirizes conservative political pundits like [[Bill O'Reilly]]. He plays the role of a right-wing extremist to express his opinion on conservative ideals. Colbert is also a Sunday school teacher.

Colbert coined the word "[[truthiness]]" to refer to the quality possessed by statements which, though factually false, are repeated by supporters who feel in their hearts that they ''ought'' to be true, and regard it as quibbling to object to their falsehood.

Colbert has poked fun at [[Wikipedia]] and its apparent democratization of truth; he has coined the word "Wikiality" (as opposed to "reality,") and caused trouble for Wikipedia by suggesting that his listeners alter articles. In August of 2006, he encouraged users to state that the population of African [[elephants]] had tripled in the last decade. Colbert's point was that no matter how many people alter a Wikipedia page to say this, it is still not true. Wikipedia responded quickly by reverting and protecting pages.

Adam

2007-03-11T20:17:40Z

Sandbagger: Alel, not 'Able'

According to ''Genesis'', Adam (Hebrew '''אָדָם''')was the first human being on the planet. The Lord made him out of His own image and loved him even after he disobeyed Him. His wife was named [[Eve]].

Adam lived for 930 years.<ref>''Genesis'' 5:5</ref> The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve had two children called [[Cain]] and [[Abel]]. According to Jewish tradition they had 56 children, but this is not mentioned in the Bible. Christians consider Adam and Eve to be the Mother and Father of the human race, and on that basis they would've had to have had a daughter for Cain or Abel to marry so as to ensure that the human race was true to God's command to be fruitful and to muliply throughout the earth.<ref>''Genesis'' 1:28</ref> This was not bad or sinful because this was the pre-Flood world. Mutations had not yet begun to degrade the human genetic code from God's perfect Creation.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp "Cain's wife—who was she?"], Answers In Genesis</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible character]]

WMD

2007-03-11T20:14:39Z

Sandbagger: Added a few links.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) refers to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons so powerful that they can kill many thousands or even millions of people. The term was most commonly used as a justification for the [[American]] [[Iraq War|invasion]] of [[Iraq]] in 2003 and the overthrow of [[Saddam Hussein]], who the United States Government [[Colin Powell|claimed]] was building WMDs, an obvious threat to national security. This claim is now widely disputed, because the US currently has [[Gay Marriage|priorities]] other than finding the WMDs.

Libertarianism

2007-03-11T20:11:42Z

Sandbagger:

'''Libertarianism''' is a political philosophy emphasizing ''liberty'' and ''property''. A libertarian believes in eliminating most laws concerning moral behavior, including laws against abortion, drug use, same-sex marriage, anticompetitive conduct, trade, and limits on immigration; and in enforcing laws concerning private use of private property. Libertarians tend to attracted to the logical simplicity of the ideas, which, like most [[utopian]] systems such as [[anarchism]] and [[communism]], tend to assume human beings are vastly more honest and rational than most of them act on a daily basis.

There are more libertarians than members of the [[Libertarian Party]]. Libertarians tend to use the word "libertarian" (small "l") to refer to the philosophy, and "Libertarian" (capital "L") to refer to the party.

Libertarianism is not the same as conservatism, although some conservatives have adoped libertarian financial rhetoric. Libertarians tend to view liberalism as a philosophy advocating less government interference in private morality and more government control of business, and view conservatism as a philosophy advocating more government interference in private morality and less government control of business, while they view libertarianism as advocating less government control, period. Neither the [[Democrat]] nor the [[Republican]] [[parties]] are particularly well aligned with libertarian thought. The Republican party, in particular, although adopting libertarian rhetoric of small government in the [[Reagan]] years (leading to the popular adage "a Libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs"), has been active in destroying liberty in the United States, implementing [[big government]] policies antithetical to the libertarian ideals. As an example, libertarians are in general opposed to the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], which increases government power and removes protections on the liberty and privacy of Americans in the interests of enhancing security, while conservatives in general support the USA PATRIOT Act, since security is seen as being more important than personal liberty and privacy.

While all libertarians agree in general on the principles of the desirability of maximizing individual liberty and avoiding excessive government intereference with the operation of the free market, individual libertarians have opinions that differ wildly within these general principles.

== Notable Libertarians ==

The novelist [[Ayn Rand]] advocated a philosophy of ''Objectivism'', embodying some libertarian thought, although differing from libertarianism in many ways. Some of her novels, such as ''Atlas Shrugged'', have become icons of the libertarian movement.

[[Robert A. Heinlein]], Science fiction author.

[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Nazi

2007-03-11T20:06:40Z

Sandbagger:

surely the nazi's morality, or lack thereof shouldn't be a matter of comment for an encyclopedia?
[[lil_cain|lil_cain]] 20:30 10 March 2007 (GMT)

PF Fox-- Uh huh. And the people calling the Nazis "Conservatives" or "Right Wing" were all LIBERALS! They're just trying to make REAL Conservatives look bad by comparison. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

2007-03-11T19:58:36Z

Sandbagger:

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earths' temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations.

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, insteasd of hitch-hiking everywhere like the [[hippie]] he is. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than some boring, obscure climatologist with no experience at public speaking who we can ignore conveniently?
Furthermore, Gore exhaled molecules of [[Carbon Dioxide]] while lecturing on tour, proving that he is a hypocrite who can be ignored without loss.

== The scam and liberal bias ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, since the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]] will only provide grants for pro-Global Warming research.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Note that this does not apply to climatologists employed by oil companies, (the main source of the dissenting viewpoint), who are supporting [[capitalism]], making them unimpeachably objective and accurate.

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many experts call global warming a big scam to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears to be a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others, unless we want to take actions to avoid it devastating the planet we live on. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, unless you accept the notion that massive disruption of existing climate patterns can lead to colder weather occurring. (For example, if warming seawater disrupts the [[Gulf Stream]], Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, when we didn't have world-wide records, weather satallites or supercomputers, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these so called web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies. Thank heaven nothing like that could happen on Conservapedia!

==References==
<references/>

Contras

2007-03-11T19:47:32Z

Sandbagger:

The Contras were the anti-[[communist]] party of [[Nicaragua]] in the 1980s. The [[United States of America|United States]] covertly supported the Contras, leading to the [[Iran-Contra Scandal]].

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-03-11T19:42:04Z

Sandbagger:

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-03-11T19:16:20Z

Sandbagger:

User talk:Clintonista

2007-03-11T19:09:39Z

Sandbagger:

I think your name may violate the unwritten "no obscenity or blasphemy in names" rule. :) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:09, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:MountainDew

2007-03-11T19:03:42Z

Sandbagger: /* The liberal media's already beating up on Gingrich! */

Question: What did I do wrong in the entry for God? It is a fact that all three of those religions worship the same god. They worship different prophets(Islam has Mohammed, Christianity has Jesus and Judaism believes that the son of god hasn't arrived yet), but they do all believe in the same god.

Sorry if this is in the wrong spot, I just didn't know how to send you a message.

Due to your excellent contributions to Conservapedia, you have been made a SYSOP. With these new privileges, you can block any troublesome users by clicking the block button next to their username. You can also revert vandalism using the method described [[Help talk:Contents|here]]. Please block users guilty of minor vandalism for a short period of time, such as a week or two. Obscenity and Offensive edits are reason for an infinite block without warning. Congratulations on becoming a SYSOP! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Your welcome! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the welcome. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 01:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)
== Explaining reversions ==

When reverting as you did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=17371&oldid=17364 here], it is generally helpful to explain why you choose to revert. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:17, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I'll do that in the future. The user in question was obviously trying to be snarky, but that's nothing I couldn't have specified. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: It didn't strike me as snarky. It seemed to me to be highly reasonable especially since there issues when we use the term "creationist" precisely what we mean, whether YEC or some other form. This is discussed briefly at [[creationism]]. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense to say someone was in a category when everyone in their time period was in that category. It would be like labeling Julius Caesar pagan. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I would dispute whether everybody was a creationist in 1841, but I don't think this is really worth arguing over, so if you wish to revert it back, feel free. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Good entry! ==

Nice entry on Henry David Thoreau! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:16, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I hope to expand on it eventually. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:32, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Tournament Chess Player ==

That's impressive that you're a tournament chess player! I liked chess but was never very good at it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I never actually started taking the game seriously until high school. It just became an addiction for me. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Koronus==
Don't worry I unblocked him to tweak his block. I found an obscene deleted article floating around . He is now blocked for 1 year. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Edit reverted as vandalism. ==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Unicorn&diff=20130&oldid=20129] it was added by [[User:Conservative]] so I presume it was meant to be serious. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I think that at the very least, there shouldn't be a statement that implies that the existence of unicorns is definite. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Staying up Late==

Does Jesus know you are staying up late on a Friday night standing guard over Conservapedia? Shouldn't you be out attempting to be fruitful and multiply?

== Delete and block ==

Please delete Mecha Jesus again and block the user in question. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Cheesy potatoes ==

I think it was a little trigger-happy of you to delete the article without saying anything in the discussion taking place at [[Talk:Cheesy potatoes]]. It's not too late to discuss it there now. I'm not suggesting you undelete it, but I think the creator of the article should be given a chance to explain.

Entirely guesswork on my part, but I think it was a good-faith if frivolous contribution by a youngish person. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P. P. S. At Wikipedia I don't believe this would have been a valid "speedy deletion" (one performed by a sysop without discussion). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Making conservatives look bad? ==

How am i making conservatives look bad? Scooter Libby is a pariah although liberals don't want to admit it... I thought this site was about the truth--[[User:PatRobertson2008|PatRobertson2008]] 20:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== The liberal media's already beating up on Gingrich! ==

Poor guy! They were making him look bad in 1995 and it's back again! We need to have his reponse here! I don't want a closet liberal like Giuilani or Mitt Romney to become president!--[[User:PatRobertson2008|PatRobertson2008]] 20:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

You'd rather have an admitted adulterer and hypocrite? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Good block and revert ==

Excellent block and rollback, and locking of the Bush page. Very well done! As you did, when it is an obscenity then simply put on an infinite block. We don't want that block ever expiring. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. You're absolutely right about being suspicious based on the user id (or screen name). It's amazing how 95% of the time the user id is an obvious giveaway to the bad intentions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-03-11T18:38:42Z

Sandbagger: /* Nation building */

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Henry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the anti-American notion that leaders and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in armed conflict for their country.

==Lacking Substance==
This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)