Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq

A recently updated bit. [1] Perhaps someone here can better articulate this revelation. It's certainly being seen as the final nail in the coffin for the Iraq war by many. --AWF

The proper military term for a massive armed incursion is "invasion", but proper context is needed. The term Iraq War - April 2003 Invasion is the most precise, best way to title this article. 66.98.130.204 07:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A rather good point I think. It is evident that the present title tends to incite people to think that this article is about the whole affair – diplomatic crisis, military buildup, invasion, occupation – while it is (if I understand correctly) only the "invasion" part of this list. Maybe a short disclaimer would be in order too. Rama 08:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Like the disclaimer at the beginning of the article? pookster11 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's actually a good idea, as it enforces to people that the article only refers to the actual invasion operation itself, up to the end of official combat operations. Swatjester 11:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Iraq War - April 2003 Invasion" is a pretty bad title, since... didn't the invasion begin the preceding month? --Mr. Billion 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Iraq War" should be a disambiguation page that links to articles about the build up (and justifications for) entering the region, the actual invasion to the infamous "mission accomplished" Bush PR event, and another article that covers all the events thereafter. This topic is just to large to be covered adequately in one article with one title, based on POV issues and restrictions on article size. --Howrealisreal 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lining everything up as Iraq War- ____ is an excellent idea and how this should have been arranged from the beginning. Unfortunately almost all of the pages about the Iraq war became a place to debate the issue. If the edit and reorganization happens, you'll have the same problems you had here; some individual thinks that they are getting shut out of the process or their viewpoint isn't seen enough on some unrelated article. pookster11 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I'm ok with this. We should be careful about the term "Iraq War" however, as there is the 1979 conflict, the 1991 conflict, and the present one. Possibly there are more in the past. "Iraq war" works alright today, at least for Americans & Brits, because it's fresh on our mind. Let's be careful to pick something descriptive enough that it holds up internationally and for a longish time. On wikisource, I asked an English friend if the term "American Revolution" translated ... he thought I was referring to the Civil War. So, let's try and be sensitive to that when naming. That said, I don't have a great name for this. Derex 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously as time progresses and events unfold the war will be contextualized into the grand scheme of history. Until that time, unless someone can suggest otherwise, I think the best title is Iraq War. pookster11 03:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

i already suggested otherwise, just below. Derex 10:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

perhaps 2003 Iraq War - April invasion? Derex 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Except we still have the issue that the war began in March... pookster11 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I like pookster's idea of Iraq War- ____. Johntex\^talk 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

oh, right. well just "invasion" then. but my point was to use "2003 Iraq war - whatever" as the template, to disambiguate which Iraq war, per above. Derex 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "War" shouldn't really be capitalized. I would view the phrase "Iraq war" as descriptive, rather than as a proper noun, which is one reason I think a leading "2003" is necessary. Derex 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What if its the title of the article, or the proper name of the event being referenced, for example World War II or the American Civil War or the Greco-Persian Wars? pookster11 03:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, those should be capitalized. iraq war is at present a description, not a proper name. Derex 10:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What would the proper name be then? pookster11 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

/clutches head in agony Derex 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How about Third Gulf War - 2003 Invasion Johntex\^talk 18:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think we should be trying to pick a "name" for this. What's wrong with a description? Derex 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, no one is going to type in "Third Gulf War" into wikipedia. 2003 Invasion of Iraq is more common, yet still has a POV. And there is an Iraq War article, correct? --SeanMcG 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, apparently there is an Iraq War, which the article asserts is a formal name. I have left a note on talk asking for the reference on that claim. Casually googling, it looks to me like the most common in-text usage is with a lowercase "war". To be repetitive, the majority here see no POV in the word invasion. Derex 00:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, if March 2003 is correct, then it's Iraq War - March 2003 Invasion. Clearly, the term "Iraq War" can be used to refer to the current or most recent war in Iraq. Prior wars can be titled 1991 Iraq War, or whatever. What's needed is a semantic consistancy in the titling of articles relating to this over-arching topic, that being, the war in Iraq. And the reasons we call it Iraq War - ___ is that people search wiki the same way they search google - a few key words. The key words here are "Iraq" and "war" 192.168.232.76 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think that Iraq War - ___ 2003 Invasion is an appropriate title. If one is looking for a specifically less inflammatory title, you can use "incursion" instead of "invasion". Tigerhawkvok 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Incursion is different from Invasion. Incursion implies a shorter length of time, by a smaller force for a limited goal. Invasion implies a much wider, larger operation. Secondarily, March was the date of the invasion, not April. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments that some might have forgoten to mentioned is the words the '2003 Invasion of Iraq against the wishes of The United Nations and other countries' which someone took out from the article on John Howard and I am wondering why they done this becausen't wasn;t The UN against the invasion? 2.38am 13/2/2006

The article would be more properly titled as Operation Iraqi Freedom - 2003 Insertion. Insertion meaning the movement of troops into Iraq. As far as the term invasion it is defined as "incursion of an army for conquest or plunder" and I don't believe the US Military has plundered or made a conquest in Iraq. The term invasion is more identifiable with Hitlers control in Europe during World War II, and Saddams actions leading to Opertaion Desert Shield and Storm. After all, have we not trained and armed the New Iraq Military and help them institute a new government? Swelling20 10May2006

I might point out that Hitler trained a French army and various armies in countries that Germany occupied in WW2 as did Napolean (not in WW2 of course), and they also both installed governments in their occupied lands. Nonetheless, we still talk of the invasion of France, although speaking from another POV it should be called the Franco-German armistice. We also talk of the Japanese invasion of Thailand which was also accomplished through the signing of an armistice rather than military action. The action in Iraq is *commonly* referred to as an invasion; I now it has been called such by John Howard. Why we would not call the mass occupation of an entire country by armed force an invasion is beyond me, and by logical extension, the word invasion could not be used for any military action and loses all meaning.

Propanda terms are usually inappropriate for article names unless the focus is on propaganda. Añoranza 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Freedom was not a propaganda term, it was the military operation name. Operations, campaigns, wars, missions etc are all given names they are reffered to as. --Zer0faults 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

However I believe the operation in question ended when official ground resistance ended from SH's military. --Zer0faults 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza, thats the wrong argument to use against calling this Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is no more a propaganda term than Operation Desert Storm. Operation Iraqi Freedom was solely a US operation, the other coalition countries conducted other operations as well. This article includes both OIF, and these others, thus it would be incorrect to call all of them OIF as would be the case if we renamed to that. Rangeley 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry to write this, but I have to admit that I find it increasingly absurd to have a discussion with people who are unable and/or unwilling to follow the most simple reasoning. Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people. As I already told you, Rangeley-no-I-refuse-to-notice-any-of-the-points-that-clearly-disprove-me, campaign names are of course most usually chosen in order to present things in a certain, non-neutral way, and "operation Iraqi Freedom" and "war on terror" are two of the most obvious examples, and this is why they are entirely inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Añoranza 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That does not appear to be Wikipedias policy, just to give you a couple examples. And you do not need to keep up the 'Rangeley-doesnt-read-my-posts' act, because noones falling for it. And just as a side point, Condoleezza Rice's name means 'Sweetness.' Her parents, like many out there, chose a name for their child that was blatently POV, Felicity is a more common one I can think of. Would their name be innapropriate to have at Wikipedia if someone with that name was notable enough? Rangeley 23:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt someone intelligent enough to find the button to edit wikipedia discussions could be stupid enough to argue on your level without bad intentions. For sure wikipedia should be aware that the readers might be mislead by your Foreign Secretary's first name, we should post a warning in that article and put her name in quotation marks. And for sure we should be aware of the zillions of articles that are tagged "part of the Condi campaign" and rename them to "part of a campaign named sweet for propaganda reasons although it is in fact rather bitter." Añoranza 01:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will give you this much, you are quite skilled at the dodge. Rangeley 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture of the arrested Saddam should be removed from this article, as it goes in the time of the following occupation (December 2003).--TheFEARgod 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Saddam SHOULD NOT be removed!!!

IT is history, like it or not... It is a fact and it should be left alone. Its like saying, OMg i do not belive in the holocasut and it should be removed. This artilce is perfectly ok to me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.3.91 (talk • contribs) .

Hussein's capture is outside the scope of the invasion, which ended on May 1, 2003. Discussion of Hussein's capture would go better in History of Iraq (where it appears), or Saddam Hussein (where it also appears). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heptadecagram (talk • contribs) .

It was also a key point of the invasion. It should stay. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

TheFEARgod and Heptadecagram are right, it was after the invasion, so it needs to be removed. Get-back-world-respect 23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I spoke unclearly. His removal was indeed a key point of the motives for the Invasion, but his arrest did not come until well after the Invasion (and instead during the occupation and post-war Iraq). Thus, while it was part of the mission scope, it is not within this article's scope. Liam Bryan 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes...but the mission IS the article. Thus it should stay, right? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the invasion, not what some think was the mission behind it. That depends on opinion anyway. Get-back-world-respect 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this issue. Yes, it did happen after the invasion. But he was the leader of the country before the invasion, and went into hiding sometime during it. And he was captured by the occupying forces. I think some mention should be made of his capture, but be careful to not to parrot the Bush administrations attempt at rewriting history i.e we really went to war to catch this evil man, not his non-existant WMD's. Just a short mention and a link to the relevent article. Imroy 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to that. The picture is unnecessary, but a textual description and link is informative without being distracting. Liam Bryan 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeable as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

While it did happen after the invasion, he was the leader of the country and therefore should be included in its discussion. That's really all there is to it. Tigerhawkvok 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is about the invasion, in which he was not captured. The Iraq war has its own article. I agree with the above users that the picture is not appropriate here. Nameme 02:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it has been the policy of the US government since 1998 that the government of Iraq should be changed. It should be included as a relevant fact. It was bipartisan policy that Saddam had to go as of that year TMLutas 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC) never mind on the above, it was in a later section.

In pre-attack developments, I think it's relevant the 1995 revelation that Iraq had a pretty well developed bioweapon program that had been entirely missed by inspections. It's likely that this episode was a significant reason why later assurances by Blix were taken with a huge grain of salt by the US.

TMLutas 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The details in the first paragraph are a little incorrect. The Special Operations activities took place on 19 Mar - before the air bombardment - plenty of newspaper reports and acknowledgement of this now. Also, in fairness, we should remove reference here to just the Australian SAS as they were "but one" of the many special forces units to cross the border into Iraq on that day (TF20, UK SAS, Australian SAS, US Special Forces etc).203.15.73.3 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Special Operations units had been active in Iraq for at least 5-7 days before the invasion. Hell, I was in just a vanilla recon unit, not special operations or anything, and we were over the border 2 days before the invasion begun. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Like your work. Sorry but the 5-7 days is fiction. None went before the President signed the Executo and I was with JSOTF-W where most of the tier 1's were. In any case the section needs work because the Aussies were not first, and were not alone in crossing - was more of a simultaneous effort. When is it likely to be unlocked again? 203.15.73.3 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, and I know this for a fact, because I helped QRF for 5th group as they went across (5 days early), and I'm pretty sure they were far from the first in country. Secondarily, we'd breached and crossed the berm with 3rd ID more than 2 weeks before. Sorry, but you're wrong. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We could go round the bouoy on this several times I'm sure - I'm just as sure of my statement above (comes from sitting in on a vidcon when CFSOCC and JSOTF cdrs got the go ahead). The key point we both agree on though is: the Aussies were not first (and didn't cross on same day as air war), and therefore this section of the article needs work. Best to just use what is publicly available and printed and perhaps mention that there is "speculation' that SO forces from various countries crossed well ahead of the commencement of the air war. Eg ext source: [2]. How do we get this unprotected again? 203.15.73.3 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what you're talking about with the aussies! I had no idea the article said that. Was wondering what the hell you were talking about, I get it now. I don't know for sure, but I'm preeetty sure the Aussies did not beat us cross the berm. Anyway, I agree with your last paragraph, and I'm willing to go with "speculation", doesn't really bother me none if joe schmo doesn't know what operators were doing over there. As for unprotection: it has to be requested elsewhere, and with the amount of vandalism here I dont see that happening for a while. I'd advise you to register, because once it DOES get unprotected, it might get immediately Semi-protected (prevents unregistered editors, and brand new registered editors from posting) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a little controversy in Australia that the Aussie SASR were in Iraq *before* America had officially asked Australia to participate. I don't know how that panned out exactly, but it could be the source of that statement. aussietiger

This information should be included on the page when it is unprotected.-csloat 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're including that information, make sure he's properly titled as LTG William Odom (U.S. Army, Ret.), or the less official Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William Odom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Antarctic scientists got out of their research stations and proceeded to protest in the bitterly freezing temperatures. But if they participated from within their complexes, well, then I suppose the statement is accurate. However, I doubt this is the case--though I am unsure--and recommend that it be said that protests took place on all "inhabited continents" or the like. --Marsbound2024 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Surprising isn't it? OK, maybe not. There's pictures on BBC, and the full list at List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests. Ojw 20:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus Jan 19th

What the heck! --Marsbound2024 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article on McMurdo Station: "On February 15, 2003, around 50 scientists working at the base joined the international protest against the invasion of Iraq." Fsotrain09 01:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say "jeeezez, how absurdly picky can you possibly get?", but I am glad to see Fsotrain09 actually did his/her homework and checked up on antarctic protests *before* protesting about it and starting a discussion. Hint, hint... Arild 15:37, 10th May 2006 (CET)

Admins please add the template I added on Gulf War and Iran-Iraq War articles. Thank you.--TheFEARgod 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It confuses me that Americans are pissed off that France won't join in this war and use the excuse of 'we sacrificed our soldiers on your beaches in ww2.' France sacrificed its navy and its treasury during the AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WAR in order to save America. So both of your nations are equal I'd say.

France was only interested in fighting in the American War of Independence as an excuse to fight Great Britain and to hopefully end Britain's attempt to create an Empire and to hopefully clear the way for a dominant French Empire.

It is entirely irrelevant what happened decades or centuries ago. The overwhelming majority of the world population was against the war, also in many countries that participated in the coalition. So no need to single out the French or any other country. De mortuis... 00:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The USA wasn't much interested in liberating France in WW2 either. Strange as it may seem, Roosevelt was mainly interested in keeping Stalin fighting on the eastern front, by agreeing to open up a western front. By doing so, he gave up the lives of all those in eastern Europe who, after the war found themselves as part of the Soviet Empire. I find America's reaction to France's opposition to the war really strange too. But I find lots of things about America strange :-s aussietiger

I am not american myself, but the impression seems to be that France is the only country thats being criticized by the americans on this issue. most likely because they were the first to wield the veto card. "freedom fries" anyone?

Perhaps the World would prefer America to return to its Isolationist policy from between the end of the First World War to Pearl Harbour. Perhaps the World would also like the consequences America's refusal to get involved in foreign affairs during this time had upon the World and what ultimately happened because of it. After all September 11th was the Pearl Harbour of the 21st century. America doesn't ask for war, it's thrust upon it.

Educate yourself.

• Operation Gladio
• Bay of Pigs Invasion
• Operation PBSUCCESS
• Operation Ajax
• Operation Power Pack
• Invasion of Grenada
• Operation El Dorado Canyon
• Operation Just Cause
• Chilean coup of 1973 and United States intervention in Chile
• Operation Condor
• Reagan Doctrine
• Battle of Mogadishu
• Mujahideen
• Contras
• Brazilian Military Coup

Your country isn't as peaceful and innocent as you may think. Imroy 05:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should educate yourself in why the United States did what it had to protect Freedom and Democracy. The United States did what it did in those cases you states above under the idea that all peoples around the World should be entitled to Democracy regardless of what dictators, communists, or terrorists may want instead. Would you have prefered the United States not to have done what was needed to protect Freedom and Democracy and for the World to now be dominated by dictatorships and communist regimes with terrorist attacks being used over and over in an attempt to destroy those who seek Freedom and Democracy. But I doubt you would be able to excercise your Freedom of Speech in the way you have in this desired future of the World you hold. Perhaps next time you should list the things dictators, communists, and terrorist have done and just how many millions they have killed such as how many millions dictators such as Stalin killed and how many millions died in their revolutions such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. Also perhaps you would like to explain to the Billions of People around the World today who would give anything to have the United States bring them Freedom and Democracy from whatever oppresions they may be suffering why it is you think they should be denied this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.187.55.154 (talk • contribs).

Of course, once countries such as France in WWII or Iraq today are liberated and given back self-government and democracy, they have to fall in line and do exactly what the liberators ask them to do... Pertinent quote: when Churchill was voted out of office immediately after WWII, he apparently stated that was exactly what he had fought for the right of his countrymen to do.--81.178.70.200 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dictators? You want to talk about dictators? Here's three names - Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The U.S helped to install all three of them. Imroy 06:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the US liberated at least 40,000 Iraqi civilians. The place they are now is the most peaceful and free place. Heaven. --202.255.60.27 06:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, anyone interested in editing the encyclopedia article? Discussion forums are available, elsewhere. De mortuis... 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not just American soldiers that want to get out of Iraq, most other nation's troops want to go home as well. It's not because they are cowards, but that as far as they see it, they have done what they set out to do. They were told that they were going to Iraq to remove Sadaam Hussein and find his WMDs. They have removed Saddam Hussein, and there are no WMDs. So now the soldiers feel betrayed and that their opions and needs have been forgotten. I'm sure that they are very pleased to see George 'Dub-Ya' Bush and Tony Blair saying that everthing's great, when in fact the situation is getting worse by the day. Brit in Manchester, England. 'Mission Accomplished'? Bollucks.

New polling information should be incorporated into the article, but I'm not sure where?

• "An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately"
• "89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so."
• “Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war.

Source: [3]--csloat 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the invasion which is in the past. Incorporate brief mentions of said dissatisfaction among the troops in Iraq War, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006, American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq, American government position on invasion of Iraq, after a blurb in those articles point the reader towards Multinational force in Iraq where you should write in detail. Iraq War should have a fair amount about this too. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best, thanks. When did the invasion "end"?--csloat 23:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By most accounts May 2003 [4], ie Mission Accomplished. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "by most accounts", "Mission Accomplished" was a pathetic joke. Nearly five times as many coalition deaths have occurred since May 2003 as those that occurred during the "mission" (not to mention thousands more Iraqi deaths). Shouldn't such information be mentioned on this page? I've not read this page carefully in a long time, but for some reason I recall the section you link to above being more detailed than it is now (and sounding less like a brochure from the State Department). I'm not suggesting the way these pages are organized should be changed, but I do think readers should be made aware that May 2003 is an arbitrary cut off point based on a foolish propaganda stunt that wound up backfiring as the guerrilla war against the occupation started heating up.... --csloat 09:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well actually it was the end of Phase 3 and start of Phase 4 of the OP PLAN made by US CENTCOM. Phase 3 was end of "COMBAT" operations - major offensive manoeuvre forces commenced move home. Just because GWB made a fool of himself in a pilots uniform it doesn't mean the statement is wrong. I think you will find that the mission statement of most forces now read something like ..."assist reconstruction....restore utilities...etc instead of "...destroy enemy on feature XB12345678....capture bridge at FB 32156721...etc" Completely different things if you read and understand your military history.141.168.12.244 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that... I'm saying it's bullshit. The forces have had three years to restore utilities and have not done so yet. Are you really suggesting that our troops are dying in Iraq -- and that we are spending billions by the month -- in order to serve as electricians and plumbers? This is an ongoing occupation. This stage of the occupation is different from the invasion, but if you don't think a war is still going on, have a chat with the families of one of these folks.-csloat 18:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should this poll be any different than the thousands of others that have been taken over the last few years? Should everyone of them be included? When did polls become encyclopedic? It doesn't matter if Soldiers and Marines want to be there or not they will go where they are told and they will accomplish the mission assigned to them. As they have always done. Opinions are not encyclopedic. Ask yourself if 5 years from now this poll will mean anything and will it be relevant in this article? --Looper5920 12:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about being "different", but I think the poll is certainly relevent to the current US presence in Iraq. It's relevent because it's a poll of the guys who are actually there, doing the dirty work and seeing the violence first hand. It's easy to sit back and watch the propaganda on Fox News and other channels telling us how everything's going so well in Iraq (girls can now go to school in Iraq! uh...). But the soldiers are harder to sway since they're actually there. Combine this with a recent survey that found (IIRC) something like 40% or Iraqis thought their life was better under Saddam, and you have a picture of how badly the situation has become. Imroy 13:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the one to say that just because you were there does not mean that your opinion is more right than anyone else that was not there.--Looper5920 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but there are certain aspects of the war that "being there" brings you closer to. But that's really not the issue here anyway. Polls are entirely relevant, obviously right now, but certainly years from now as well, when historians look back on this war. It is particularly relevant what the troops in Iraq think when the Commander in Chief has said that the decision to withdraw should come from "commanders in the field" rather than "politicians in Washington."--csloat 18:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The devil is in the detail: "The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq." 944 interviewed from 160,000 deployed on OIF = about 0.59% and credibility = v doubtful. So I think it should not go into the article on those grounds alone, furthermore this is an article about the invasion not about the follow on so if you really want this poll to be somewhere put it on the Post Invasion Iraq page203.15.73.3 01:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

944 sample size from only 160,000 is a good sample size, statistically speaking. I'm too lazy to do the maths right now, but from memory they poll about 2000 samples to predict an election from an electorate of about 19 million people (Australia). The number you actually need depends on the difference of course. ie, if 99% of people would vote one way, you need a smaller sample to get fairly confident that more than 50% of the whole poulation will... For the record, I don't think the poll should be in the article. It 's not an article about what some soldiers think.

It's a Zogby poll. If you see the methodology indicted in a published source, bring it to our attention. Otherwise I think the assessment of anonymous Wikipedia editors who moonlight as armchair statisticians would be considered original research.--csloat 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and the figure of 944 is taken from the poll (that you linked) hence the quotation marks!!. The 160,000 is in a variety of news sources eg [5]. So if you call doing simple math original research - I'm guilty. Whilst we are pointing at WP Policy pages - perhaps you should try this one: Wikipedia:Civility203.15.73.3 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be uncivil, but Zogby polls are cited by mainstream media all the time and are considered reliable; their methodologies have not, to my knowledge, been questioned. As far as I can tell, they are a well-regarded polling organization. Your "simple math" probably makes sense to you, but if you do the same math for any well-regarded polling you will find it works out similarly. I realize the numbers are public information; the "original research" here is your claim that "credibility = v doubtful," which I believe would be refuted by the pollsters themselves as well as by others who do actual statistical research.-csloat 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page and not the actual article - POV is expected - its how consensus is reached ie. several people sharing a POV. He/she is quite right to put forward their opinion on the research. Your vague argument about NOR would only be valid if the opinion was placed in the article. BTW csloat is as anonymous as 203.15.73.3 - you simply have an anon registration. Me thinks you simply didn't like his/her POV. BTW I agree the poll should be included but only on the post invasion article. Like it or not there were different phases. Australian Forces for example had Operation Falconer for the invasion (lots of offensive ground and air forces) and now for post invasion it is Operation Catalyst [6] (about defensive role - protecting Japanese reconstruction engineers). Krait 07:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with anonymity or with POV -- I don't know what his/her POV is on anything other than the methodology of this poll, and I didn't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with remaining anonymous. My point was that nitpicks about the methodology of a Zogby poll don't invalidate it (as you seem to agree). Sorry to cause trouble - I didn't mean to be snide at all, but I really don't see that sort of point as a meaningful response to this poll (it's a complaint that could be levelled at any poll; there is nothing wrong statistically with Zogby's sample that I am aware of). Anyway, I have added this information to one of the post-invasion pages as was suggested here; my other point above was that this article should have some information about the fact that the break between stages here is based primarily on propaganda, but I suppose that information is in the Mission Accomplished article already. Perhaps I was just in a surly mood, my apologies....--csloat 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

none neccessary - good result for all I believe. Krait 09:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I added terrorism and sectarian violence to the section about what resulted from the war but someone removed it. Why? Especially the latter article should be noted here given that it is kind of the continuation of the violence in Iraq that started with the invasion. Nameme 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about the sectarian violence part, not about the terrorism part. Terrorism is too general to be listed as a result of the invasion. It would be like putting Death there. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "Islamist suicide terrorism"? Specific enough? "killings by al-Qaeda and their allies"? "Suicide attacks"? Come on, "terrorism" is specific enough that we know what it means in this context. There was no Iraqi terrorism prior to March 2003; there never was an Iraqi suicide bomber prior to then, and there was no significant al-Qaeda activity in Iraq prior to then. Now there is tons of it. The word "terrorism" is not vague in this context, I don't think.--csloat 07:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think it should be noted that there are attacks on civilians. If we just put "insurgency" the readers will think violence is only directed at the occupying forces. Nameme 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this section is lacking NPOV? There was propoganda on both sides I believe. Krait 09:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

True. Wiki bias. Few editos speak arab. Would be great to read the arab featured article. Maybe we can get a translator at meta, I'll ask. Nameme 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This photo won the world press award: [7] Any chance to get it? Or similar ones? Nameme 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the talk page of Iraq war in order to see a translation of the featured Arabic version of this article. Thanks to Eagle^amn! AlIAS 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC) TwoThirty notes the following on his talk page: The important differences between the Arabic article and the English article are:

• The Arabic article has a section about the legality of the war
• A list of nations that supported the Iraq war (percentage of support was sometimes included)
• A reference to opposition to the war (Three is a picture of protestors in London)
• Reasons given by the American government for the war.
• Reasons given by protestors for the war. AlIAS 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is lacking in some good information in several areas (see above comment and arabic language article). In addition there seems to be some 'unqualified' statements, such as "Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence caused from a mostly Sunni Muslim insurgency, and by terrorism of the Al-Qaeda militant network.". This statement, for example, could use some npov phrases like 'is alledgedly caused by' and etc. Sicarii 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As I'm arabian , I can say that the article mostly are acceptable and neutral ... but it really lacks what mentioned above about the previous debate about the legality of the War ... considering the Oil as the important reason of this war is frequently mentioned not only by arab journalists but also by european ... if u return to the logos carried by European Protests b4 the war , you can find many statments like : No War for the Oil . --Chaos 10:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV(Sunni vs. Shia)

I think that this paragraph is POV:

Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find Weapons of Mass Destruction [7][8]. Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence caused from a mostly Sunni Muslim insurgency.

I think it is POV to say who "caused" the violence. The violence is identified as an insurgency. In order for there to be an insurgency, there has to be someone they are plotting an insurgency against. Who are they plotting an insurgency against? And why are they plotting it? And wouldn't it be fair to say, then, that the invading group is partly responsible for the violence caused by their Sunni's attempted insurgency against them? Shouldn't it read something like, "Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence as a result of a continued power struggle between the Sunni Muslims and the US and US appointed Iraqi government"? Andrew Parodi 05:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: The US military response to the attempted insurgency has been to use violence. Perhaps the most NPOV way to state it is to just clip it with: "Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew Parodi (talk • contribs).

There are two kinds of violence, insurgents who target the occupants, and terrorists, who also target civilians. Terrorists are not mostly Sunnis. De mortuis... 11:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Sunnis are attacking Shites. It's a civil war. These are not "terrorists". There are no "terrorists" in a civil war. The terrorists in Iraq came from Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, through iraq's now insecure borders, and are therefore neither Sunnis nor Shites. And they are training, for the most part. I haven't heard any reports of them attacking civilians. That's not what terrorists do. Terrorists don't go around randomly shooting people. That would be a serial killer or a mob or in any case some sort of criminal. A terrorist implies coordinted large-scale international efforts. Terrorists don't engage in scattered random acts of domestic violence. They engage in coordinated acts of large-scale international violence. The violence in Iraq, by definition, is a civil war, not terrorism. Kevin Baas^talk 16:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists terrorize the civilian population, that is what is happening in Iraq. It does not have to be on an international scale, otherwise the IRA or ETA would not be terrorists. As I wrote and as you agree, the terrorists are not mostly Sunnis. De mortuis... 17:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunnis and Shites are fighting inside Iraq. Shites's soldiers in the war are "police" and so forth. Sunnis and Shites are fighting. Sunnies are not killing sunnies. however, they are killing shites. shites are not killing shites, however, they are killing sunnis. it is a civil war. There are two clear sides fighting each other. Kevin Baas^talk 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I's not a civil war in the Western sense. Extremist Muslims have for many years, in many locations around the world, been hostile and violent to each other between sects. The fratricide among Muslims in Iraq right now, is part sect-driven but this in-fighting is also being driven by insurgents who wish to fan the flames of discord and chaos. The situation in Iraq is more complex than what you say. Merecat 03:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the terrorists ask for the civilians' ethnicity passports before they bomb them. Targeting civilians is terrorism, even if directed at a certain group - the IRA also targeted Protestants and it still was no civil war. De mortuis... 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the preamble we read "... mostly Sunni Muslim insurgency." I do not see any source referenced about this claim and generally consider such one without being backed by facts as POV. If it was me, I would put the insurgency facts in a section and mention just the insurgency, leaving the reader to make up his/her mind. Of course, the selection and ordering of the facts in the section also should conform the NPOV. -- Goldie (tell me) 07:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no single side being "good guys" and the other being the "bad guys". The Shia-dominated "police" is also responsible for the violence and harsh treatment [8] [9]. It is never that simple, and blaming someone is a blatant POV. -- Goldie (tell me) 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is empirical evidence as to who is drive the conflict, we can cite that. We are not however, supposed to offer professional estimations of our own. The conflict there is complex. We must be careful to cite notable experts as published by reliable sources. Merecat 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV(edits)

Any further reason why this article is tagged NPOV? I am more then willing to do any needed research to quickly remove this tag. What was the original complaints for this, the line stated above seems to be long gone. --Zer0faults 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just starting to slog my way through this and only had to go to sentence 5 and 6 to find something that is an NPOV problem. The sixth sentence "Bush repeatedly asserted that these weapons posed a grave and imminent threat to the United States and its allies. [2][3]" is especially egregious because the external links contradict instead of reinforcing the point. Neither speech uses the word imminent and the 2nd is quite clear that the danger was gathering and that we should act prior to it becoming imminent because of the uncertainty factor of all intelligence assessments. The actual term favored by the administration was "gathering" not imminent and we shouldn't be stuffing words in their mouths. That's the very essence of NPOV.TMLutas 23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the term "imminent" is used because of it's use in law regarding self defense. This war was ostensibly fought in self-defense, and that presumes that there is an "immanent threat", that is, a threat that is "instant and overwhelming, providing no choice of means, nor moment for deliberation." either there was an immanent threat, or the iraq war was a war of aggression. you can't get around it legally, and causi belli for war is a legal matter, esp. given the treaties that have been entered into under the authority of the u.s. Kevin Baas^talk 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, actually, an "immanent threat" would be a threat that emanates from everywhere simultaneously. ;) Seriously, the word imminent was used to distinguish a preemptive war from a preventive war; the former can be considered necessary if distasteful (strike first when a threat is imminent) while the latter is unnecessary and possibly aggressive (strike first to "prevent" a later harm down the road). This war was technically the latter, but the perception of an imminent threat means that many people felt it was the former.--csloat 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's the latter than it was not a war of self defense and was not a legal war. The president has asserted again and again that the war was legal. Kevin Baas^talk 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that all depends on your view of the first war and the paper trail. For instance one basic arguement is that the first war never ended, the US signed a cease fire agreement with Iraq and so can start up the war if the cease fire is broken, which it was. The other view is that the earlier resolutions by the UN called for all member states to use force if they were broken, such as UNSC Res 668 I believe. That view takes the position that UNSC Res 1441 was just a last chance and even that came with a 30 day deadline from November 8th? so that means by December 8th Iraq had to comply, they obviously didnt because in February of the next year they found long range ballistic missles. This was also the case as to why HJ Res 114 mentions UNSC Res 678 specifically cause it calls for "member states to use all necessary means to enforce" UNSC resolution 660.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zer0faults (talk • contribs).

A popular stance among Bush supporters, but most legal scholars disagree, among which a certain K. Anan. Evidently, the legality is in dispute. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The legality of which? I gave two seperate views, 1) that the war never ended, 2) Iraq surpassed its time afforded by UNSC Res 1441. --Zer0faults 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Legality of the invasion period! Neither argument is valid according to legal experts. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please cite a few sources for both, thank you --Zer0faults 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[10][11][12] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The first was written before Saddam failed to comply with the Resolution and before France said they would not vote for further resolutions, violating the terms of the Resolution itself. Also the UN failed to meet after 30 days as well. Your second link from truthout.org, a historically bias site, doesnt even talk about the Iraq War and instead is a article about Bush and war crimes, the 3rd article has at its heading "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War" Do I have to really comment on its bias? Its also not a document related to the discussion as it attempts to say Bush should be put on trial for various US crimes and war crimes etc. So you gave me one article written after the passing of one resolution but before its time ran out, and two things about Bush being tried for war crimes. I would reccomend you find better sources as obviously bias organizations as sources may be seen as POV pushing instead of factual representation of information. --Zer0faults 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

TMLutas, whether "gathering" and "urgent" and "immediate" are synonymous with "imminent" in this sense is, of course, a semantic debate which could go around in circles forever. However, there is no need in this case because the administration did in fact describe the 'Iraq threat' as "imminent" on more than one occasion; Scott McClellan did so on 02/10/03, Ari Fleischer on 05/07/03, Dan Bartlet on 01/26/03, and Donald Rumsfeld on 09/18/02 and 11/14/02. Ergo, no not particularly 'POV'. --CBDunkerson 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the second was not what I intended. The actual article I have to look for. As to the 2 others, they both discuss the legality of the invasion. I fail to see why the date makes any difference in analyzing. The first article discusses clearly the arguments you advance, and it clearly dismisses them as incorrect. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How does this relate to the above topic anyway? are you stating you feel the first paragraph is POV or NPOV? --Zer0faults 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The legality of the war was discussed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

The tag was added but no mention was made as to why the user thought the article was POV. After reading the article, the scales seem to sway from side to side but no one side is heavier than the other. I looked into the reverts over the "war on terror" issue and it seems the argument is more of an issue of facts and misunderstanding than a issue of POV. The user fighting to censor the wording from the article seemed to have a strong biasness about not having the war on terror wording included in the article by going to extremes of using a sock puppet. The users who voted to leave the "war on terrorism" info on the page make very logical but simple arguments.

For example: Mmx1's states, "The 'War on Terrorism' was launched by the United States, and claims the War on Iraq is a part of it. Regardless of your opinions on the matter, it doesn't change the fact that the main protagonist in the war considers it a campaign of the 'War on Terror'." The statement is a very simple fact that the United States political heads consider it part of the "war on terror" [13]campaign and wikipedians do not decide if the US is wrong in doing so. No other implications are made and is a completely NPOV.

On the other hand, a rebuttal by user Hermitage states: "This is a weak argument. Every war has at least two sides. In this case, one side is the US and its allies (UK, South Korea, etc.), and the other side is a guerilla insurgency. First of all, I'm not even sure that all of the coalition partners would agree..."

Without the need to go any further, it is obvious that Hermitage has POV as the user is going straight into a counter strike without completely understanding Mmx1 statement, showing editing with emotion and a refusal to open his/her mind to the discussion. Hermitage missed the fact that Mmx1 is basically stating that an entity started a campaign and then performed the work in the name of that campaign and that’s it. If the table was turned, the result would be the same. An entity (Iraq) started a campaign (war on world domination) and then attacked a country (USA). Iraq's campaign would be "called war on world domination" and the attack on the USA would have been part of the campaign. The rest of the ensuing arguments are reiterations of the above statements with the NPOV editors trying in vain to show they do not have POV.

Considering the overall magnitude of the event and the huge amount of biased emotions on both sides of the war/invasion, this article is going to be tagged as POV constantly. As of right now, however, the article seems evenly balanced. Some of the facts and statements may need citing (or removed if sources cant be found), but that doesn’t make it POV, it only means more research needs to be done by NPOV editors and changed accordingly. I'm going to remove the tag since no argument as been issued as to why it was originally added and because sources have been provided linking the use of the words to describe a campaign called "war on terror" with the Iraq invasion.I already forgot 14:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=11552

Should this be mentionned? According to this article, Turkey invaded iraq early in the invasion to prevent a stream of kurds fleeing north iraq.

Evilbu 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/Iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles4/slow.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2874635.stm

Those are some of my sources. I understand if you relocate it but it should be included. Evilbu 12:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the Kurdish problem lasting decades, and the unrejectable fact that Turkey did invaded the Iraqi soil both before and during the war, I cannot understand the rationale not to mention Turkey's involvement. Logistical assustance is one thing, troops counting tens of thousands is another one. It was actually a second front on land (and was not that late as the Normandy one). -- Goldie (tell me) 07:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well i think it shouldn't be mentioned unless more sources are found regarding the subject. Because I found the article quite inaccurate since America wanted Turkey to "enter" the war. I found a sentence that contradicts this fact.

The following information is related to parts of the article, but I am not sure if it fits here: Insurgencies, frequent terrorist attacks and sectarian violence lead to harsh criticism of US Iraq policy. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. After the Al Askari shrine bombing in February 2006 the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad warned that sectarian violence spread might lead to a civil war in post-invasion Iraq and possibly even the neighbouring countries. [19] De mortuis... 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed an article at 2003 invasion of Iraq/temp, which I presume is a stalled attempt to rewrite this page. It's not been touched for a month and a half. If it's not going anywhere, could someone familiar with the page merge it in and redirect, or flag it for deletion? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the opposition is to mentioning failure of cooperation as a causus belli. It was a major part of the pre-war debate. You want the speeches, [20] May 18,

{Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men. }

France, Russia and Germany, hoping to derail the war, begged Iraq to comply with inspectors: [[21]]

They weren't begging him to give up drones, but they were begging him to cooperate with inspectors, indicating they felt that step would remove impetus for the war.

--Mmx1 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The only person doing Any begging over the airwaves that March was Hans Blix. [22] He's stilly pretty peeved about it after the fact too. [23] They did cooperate which is why Bush stresses that the inspectors have been deceived, Not shut out. In fact the Bush administration Never contested Blix's assessment that they needed "months". [24] They simply ignored it then they said the inspectors have been duped and theres no doubt he has WMDs so we're going in. [25] In the March 17 and 19 speeches the word "cooperate" is never even used. The Bush administration didn't push the case that Iraq isn't cooperating because thats in direct contradiction with what the inspectors are saying. He simply says the inspectors are being deceived and that:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

He even goes on to admit that he has failed to receive international support:

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." [26]

However, earlier on in the Iraq disarmament crisis on September 12, 2002 Bush Did state "cooperation" as a push to action:

"In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take." [27]

On October 7, 2002 he even goes so far as to explain what he means by cooperation:

"Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions." [28]

And exactly what Bush demanded, Bush got: Iraq cooperated with the inspections, and Blix said that, and Bush never contested it. This is why Bush drops all the talk about cooperation and instead switches to deception and further pumps up the supposed WMD threat. See the difference between Bush talking about the possibility of Iraq having WMDs in his September 12 speech and then talking about the Certainty of Iraq possessing WMDs in his March speeches. Iraq met Bush's demands regarding cooperation so Bush made more demands and then just flat out said the inspectors were duped. And thats why saying "cooperation" as a casus belli is weasely. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Iraq under Saddam, was frequently locking its firing RADAR on our "no-fly zone" enforcement aircraft. This single fact alone establishes hostile intent and non-compliance with the 1991 terms of cessation. The arguments against Bush such as the one shown above, are basically straw-dog arguments. Here are the facts 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait, 2) Iraq never fully ceased hotile activity, 3) even on this point alone, USA had 100% full legal right to invade. Merecat 03:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify "our" no-fly zone? Iraq invasion to Kuwait is a fact but this "hostile activity" was willingness to control their own country on the end. I would be really interested to see the international treaty which is declaring this "100% full legal right" - AFAIK it was U.S. imposing no-fly zone over Iraqi soil, and not Iraq imposing a no-gly zone over U.S. soil. Could you allow me to point that the Anglo-American focus without citing the sources does not help to achieve good neutral article. -- Goldie (tell me) 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that by locking their firing radar on U.S. and British aircraft that were, in fact, invading Iraqi airspace and dropping bombs on Iraqi soil, Iraq was establishing "hostile intent" thereby permitting a U.S. invasion, is absurd for a number of reasons. (1) The Iraqis had no realistic chance of shooting down a plane; (2) The US and British planes had no right to be there in the first place, as the UN Resolution which was used to justify the no-fly zones says nothing which authorizes the use of military force (it doesn't even say anthing about zones Iraqi planes can't fly in); (3) Even if one accepts the very questionable notion that the US and Britain had the right to fly those missions over Iraq, Iraq making preparations to fire on those aircraft still doesn't give the US and Britain the right to invade. Only the Security Council can decide on the use of force in this case, as the US and Britain were not themselves under attack. If they were concerned about their pilots being fired on, they could have simply stopped flying over Iraqi airspace. Most importantly, for the purposes of this article, Bush never made this argument in the UN. As for Kuwait, if the Kuwaits felt they were in danger of being reinvaded they could have come to the UN and requested intervention. They did not. The article has it right: the official reason given for the invasion by the US was that Iraq was supposedly hiding a WMD program. Brian Tvedt 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

this article is middle-school quality, it focuses almost entirely on past issues, somewhat connected to the followup to the invasion. someone should redo the article and actually discuss the invasion of iraq and its aftermath.apparently there was not an actual shooting war, just diatribes lobbed back and forth at the un general assembly and silly council. {unsigned|68.1.44.149}

I agree it needs more coverage of the war itself, but calling it middle school quality is hyperbole. The pre-war debate was easy to source and a HOT topic of POV debate, hence the attention. Now that we have emerging journalistic sources, the combat phase should be updated. --Mmx1 04:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is impossible to write at this moment in time. Until jingoists are laughed out of all intellectual mediums there will be rabid backlash.

The Wiktionary article 2003 Invasion of Iraq is likely to be deleted shortly, and I do not know where (or if) you folks over here want these translations, but rather than lose them I am passing them over to you to do with as you please.

• Danish: da:Golfkrigen 2003
• Dutch: nl:Golfoorlog van 2003
• French: fr:guerre opposant l'Irak aux États-Unis
• German: de:Dritte Golfkrieg
• Hebrew: he:מלחמת עיראק
• Japanese: ja:イラク戦争 (Iraku senzou)
• Low Saxon: nds:Situatschoon in'n Irak
• Romanian: ro:Invazia Irakului din 2003
• Spanish: es:Invasión de Iraq de 2003
• Welsh: cy:Rhyfel Irac Dau

(all translations by User:Tedius Zanarukando) - TheDaveRoss 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the links for the languages to avoid redirects and disambiguation pages. I checked all the wiktionaries and the articles have been deleted from all of them (if they ever existed), so I made the links go to the foreign languages WP articles instead. In the process, I couldn't help but notice that apparently NPOV doesn't apply to fr:, not even in the naming of articles... Tomer^talk 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

At any given time, what the president/administration says is the USA's position, is the USA position. Anyone trying to say this is not so, is wrong. Merecat 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"USA's official position" is ok with me. Merecat 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's okay w/me, too. Kevin Baas^talk 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"That the Bush Administration had little or no tangible evidence of a threat."
Where is the source on this, or any information that can be found reguarding this issue? I think there should be more information expanded on why there was no tangible evidence of a threat. As far as I can tell, it is pretty empty. Although Iraq_War-_Rationale Does talk about how there were no links to Al-Qaeda, if thats what was being refered to. KungPaoChicken 07:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Prior to the invasion, US intelligence showed that the presence of WMD or link to AQ was unlikely. The currrent debate is whether Bush was aware of this. Nomen Nescio 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone really,i mean REALLY EVER believe that Bush is giving one bit of thought to WMDs?A reminder:Petroleum prices are 500% in IRAQ now.Even Republicans should be knowing it.for honesty's sake,admit it.Please.--CAN T 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But I thought the chant was "No blood for oil"? If we went to war to steal oil, why aren't we stealing it? Oh yeah, no one talks about that anymore, now it's all "'Bush lied about WMD". Merecat 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's always been the mainstream criticism, merecat. even before we went to war. Kevin Baas^talk 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And just because the President failed doesn't mean the goal wasn't at least in part, oil.--Jsn4 09:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some discussion on the proper extent of the intro? --Mmx1 03:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The World War II intro talks about events happening After the war officially ended, don't see why it would be inappropriate in this article. And I certainly don't think it's "poisoning the well" to give a brief mention of how the cassus belli of the war resolved. Better than leaving the reader guessing at least. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagee. This is a politically charged topic. I'd just as soon put "The Iraqis are now freer than they have ever been" at the end of the intro, but that doesn't belong there either. This is not about the war, it's about the 2003 invasion. The logical ending point of the invasion was the capture of Saddam. Merecat 20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate parts to the removed sections. The lack of WMD is not a result of the war but a questioning of the rationale and belongs in the body. The ongoing sectarian violence I can see going either way. --Mmx1 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The military aftermath of the invasion is of course an appropriate topic for the introduction. The political aftermath (elections, for example) is also a reasonable topic to insert in that section, although claims about how much "freer" the Iraqis are obviously don't belong here.--csloat 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's true and verifiable....why not a statement about the first free elections? --Mmx1 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"The lack of WMD is not a result of the war but a questioning of the rationale and belongs in the body." Since the fib about WMD is what got this war started it surely belongs in the intro. The why of this war is the most important thing to discuss. Nomen Nescio 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Says you. Does the allegations of foreknowledge of Pearl belong in the Intro of WWII? --Mmx1 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro currently ends on too negative of a tone. The fact that freedom is increasing and democratic elections have been held, must be mentioned. Also, "plagued by" is too POV. Neutral wording must be used. Merecat 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly your idea of freedom is not shared by others. The US influencing who can be President does not sound like a democracy. Further, even with every democratic principle in place, I would hazard to guess that since the country is on the brink (or already past) of civil war, stating that the current situation is an improvement is open for debate. Nomen Nescio 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My assessment that freedom has increased in Iraq post Saddam, is not unique to me. Merecat 16:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvement is a judgement and misplaced in an encyclopedia. De mortuis... 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that freedom has increased in Iraq post Saddam. A little too much. Kevin Baas^talk 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's get some other heads on this. Hermitage has been removing the "partof: War on Terrorism" from this and the Iraq War article. The "War on Terrorism" was launched by the United States, and claims the War on Iraq is a part of it. Regardless of your opinions on the matter, it doesn't change the fact that the main protagonist in the war considers it a campaign of the "War on Terror." --Mmx1 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a weak argument. Every war has at least two sides. In this case, one side is the US and its allies (UK, South Korea, etc.), and the other side is a guerilla insurgency. First of all, I'm not even sure that all of the coalition partners would agree that the Iraq war is "part of the war on terror", but whether they do or not, I highly doubt that the insurgency would agree. If not, then the statement that the Iraq war is "part of the war on terror" is not a factual statement supported by consensus, but rather a POV statement that implicitly identifies the author of the article with one particular side of the war. Encyclopdias are not supposed to take sides. --Hermitage 01:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not simply a statement. It is a matter of public policy in teh united states-- i.e. it is law. Since 9-11 the us has passed laws defining terrorism and crimes that constitute terrorism. It has adopted numerous resolutions reagrding the war on terrorism. At the very least, it is one of the policies of the Bush adminiastration, announced in October of 2001 and has been operative for 5 years. Censorship will not make the policy not exist. However it will make any discussion of what that policy is and what consequences it has had disappear from wikipedia. If you dont like the war on terror policy, discuss it dont ban discussion of it!Mrdthree 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that terrorists are most definately being fought against now makes this an absolute part of the War on Terrorism. Rangeley 02:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely... Which side do you mean? aussietiger 10:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is about the invasion, not the terrorism that was made possible by the invasion. There was no such terrorism in or from Iraq before the invasion. De mortuis... 04:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not it's inclusion in the "War on Terror" is political or not, whether or not terrorists are actually being fought, whether or not the war/invasion/occupation is legitimate, the War on Terror and activities in Iraq are intimately linked militarily. From that standpoint, yes, it is part of the larger operation, and it should be considered part of the larger campaign, whether or not that campaign has a definite goal, or if its name is a euphemism is another matter entirely. --Nobunaga24 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Iraq had no connection to terrorism prior to this invasion, it is highly inappropriate to adopt the talking points of this administration. We know there was no link to terrorism, we know there were no WMD (the official position of the administration) so on what grounds is this part of the war on terror, except as form of manipulating public opninion through a form of doublespeak/newspeak? No factual basis exists for using this misnomer, only political arguments are advanced. By that same token the invasion of Iran is part of the war on terrorism. Iran supports Hezbollah, Iran is about to share technology with terrorists (where have we heard this before?) so as part of fighting terrorism the US has to invade Iran. Nomen Nescio 09:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone is getting hung up on the "official" name. The point is the operations, militarily and politically, are intertwined. If it was called "The Global War on Islam," or "The War for Global Domination," then I don't think the edit war (of which I'm not a part) would be happening. It's obvious the name is chosen for political reasons, and by and large a euphemism, but I don't think that is the scope of this article. The overarching military operation is called the Global War on Terror, whatever its real goals, and Iraq is part of it. Whether there are really terrorists there or not, or if it's a diversion from the "real" war on terror is another matter. --Nobunaga24 11:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Does that justify us renaming 9-11 The Road to Tyranny to 9-11 A load of Bullshit or Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation Take the Oil because we decide that it's a more accurate title? GWOT is a unified military campaign by the United States of which the War on Iraq is a part. The instigator of this campaign has asserted this link and militarily the two are intertwined. Feel free to criticize the title (as the wiki article does) but that does not justify renaming historical titles because of your disagreement. --Mmx1 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So, since the President asserted Iraq was invaded because SH did not let the weapon inspectors in, we should accept that because that is the official position this administration voiced? Clearly, what you are saying is that we should no longer look at facts, but let misrepresentation of historical facts be part of Wikipedia, because ...., why exactly?

Furthermore, I am not suggesting renaming it, but simply delete the erroneous claim this war is part of the war on terror. Since, SH had nothing to do with 9-11 I fail to see why we should adopt this manipulation of information. Nomen Nescio 15:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly reject the positions being advanced by Nescio. This category is indeed one that applies to this article. Any sugestion to the contrary is not supportable. Merecat 15:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, elaborate. What terrorist threat had to be dealt with in Iraq? In the absence of terrorists, invading Iraq can hardly be part of fighting terrorism. Nomen Nescio 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, whether we as editors accept something as true, is not what gives it currency with the public. This usage definately falls within the framework of the usage of the term. Stop making fights all the time. You keep pushing a two part POV of a) there is no "war on terror" and b) USA is legally "wrong" for taking military action. Please stop it. It's like listening to a broken record. Merecat 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

According to National Review Online "Iraq Is the War on Terror" Merecat 19:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sixteen Words, Again" Merecat 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You misinterpret my words.

• I do not deny there is a war on terror. What I object to is the claim that the invasion had anything to do with fighting terrorism. Which you know is entirely incompatible with the facts. Whether this makes the invasion illegal is not part of what I am saying here, so please don't comment on what I might say on other pages. Clearly we are supposed to report spin, even when it already is accepted as a falsehood.
• As to what we as editors are supposed to do. Are you suggesting that since Saddam Hussein says he was only protecting the Iraqi people, we should present that explanation verbatim without noting that his words are incorrect and he, in effect, was violating human rights? Nomen Nescio 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest Nescio, the truth is piling up and it does not support your anti-USA world view on this topic:

"As journalists, scholars, and analysts pore over more of the intelligence haul seized when U.S. forces toppled the Iraqi regime, the case for removing an America-hating terror-monger responsible for the brutal torture and murder of — literally — tens of thousands of people looks better and better." [29]

Merecat 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Iraq had ties to terror, this has been proven. Saddam gave monetary support to families of suicide bombers as incentive, as just one instance. What you are thinking of is ties to Al Qaeda, which are debatable. Saddam supported terrorism, but regardless of this, a given reason was to fight terror, and further, terrorists are being fought today. It is an interesting POV to say its not part of the War on Terror, but it is as logical as someone who is opposed to the Vietnam war to say it wasnt part of the Cold War. Rangeley 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I should put in my two cents on this issue. For one thing, we should work on the basis of facts not soapboxing as some people (from both sides of the argument) have been doing. I think that this should not be part of the "War on Terrorism" series on the basis that "War on Terrorism" implies that Iraq is linked to the Al-Queda led attacks on 9/11. Did Hussein's Iraq finance Palestinian suicide bomber's families as Rangley asserts above? Yes. Does that mean they supported "terrorism" defined as the use of attacks on a civilian population to advance a political goal? Yes. Does that make attacking Iraq part of the "War on Terrorism"? No. By this logic various U.S actions that have nothing to do with what we refer to as the "War on Terrorism" can be put into that category. Take military aid to Colombia, that could be defined as the "War on Terrorism" by this logic. The FARC, ELN, and AUC are all on the U.S list of terrorist organizations...so should Colombia be added to the "War on Terrorism" series? No, because it has nothing to do with Al-Queda/9-11.--Jersey Devil 02:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, as far as I'm aware, the Pentagon does consider some of its activities in Colombia as part of the War on Terror. The Philippines, too. It's not limited to the Middle East. --Nobunaga24 02:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what a self-fulfilling prophecy looks like.[30] Again it is the cause of terrorism, not fighting it. Nomen Nescio 12:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, we are not here to argue about which came 1st, the chicken or the egg. We are here to compile information along the lines that those in the public know of it. Regardless of whether the term War on Terror originated as propaganda or not, it's in use and it's a valid category. Merecat 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Which war was started first, the war on terrorism or iraq? and was the casus belli of the iraq war terrorism? the answer to the last question is clearly no: the casus belli was self-defence. self-defence is just that, it is not a "war on" something. either the administration fought the war to save america from the horrendous dangers of saddam-hussien al-qaeda's conspiratorial intercontinential ballistic missiles of mass blowing-everything-up which they could have fired at any second and we don't know oh sh!t, or they were fighting a "war on" something. it can't be both. and it was clearly the first - at least that is the administration's position. (for example, read the AUMF) Kevin Baas^talk 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, your argument here, though perhaps well reasoned, is original research. Public history of that term supports it as a category for this article. You can argue against that all you want, but it won't fly. Merecat 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think if the US government calls it part of the war on terror it should be mentioned. I however do not think any government should be allowed to dictate encyclopedias with its propaganda terms. Saddam Hussein for sure called it something else, however, no one would even think of creating a category for his propaganda terms or use it as a title for an infobox. De mortuis... 04:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Saddam, being deposed, is not moving the public debate anymore. However, this category is not exclusive. If you can cite another legitimate one, we can also include that. Merecat 05:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that the Iraq war is "part of the war on terror" is definitely a POV statement. It's a matter of opinion that can't be proven or verified. Thus, it has no place in an encyclopedia caption. Better would be to put a section about that in the article body. Something like "...The Bush administration and its supporters claim that the invasion of Iraq is a part of a larger "war on terror". However, critics contend that..." To put it in a caption implies that it is universally true, when in fact it is quite debatable. Don't state controversial premises as fact in captions. --Hermitage 08:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen, Hermitage. I second that. Definitely POV, and if anything it should go into the body of the article as a "claim" by the Bush administration.

Just because there are terrorist acts going on means nothing - by that rationale, any war fought my the US could BECOME part of the war on terror, and we could invade any country, detroy its military, and when its people in desperation turn to terrorist acts, we declare that we are fighting the "war on terror" there - and voila, the war is now legitimate, even if it wasn't at the start. Very clever, but it has no place in a wikipedia caption.

--Borisknezevic 10:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Part Deux

I am sorry, Hermitage and Boris, but NPOV does not mean the truth has to be abandoned when someone disagrees. For instance, some people still beleive the world is flat. But they are wrong, and we do not need to accomodate their oppinion in the Earth article. The idea that the world is round fits all criteria of a fact. It has been proven through experiments, it has been proven through flight, and finally through space. These are the applicable criteria for that case.

Now, wars are admittedly different. You cannot do a scientific test, however a criteria exists for determining what the war is a part of. Each war is different. In order for something to be considered part of World War Two, a key criteria is that it is fought between the Axis, and Allied powers. The Cold War is quite similar. In order for conflicts to be considered part of the Cold War, the combattants had to be US/Capitalist alligned vs Soviet/Communist alligned. Through this, such conflicts as the Vietnam War, Korean War, and various other minor conflicts are considered part of the Cold War even though the two Super Powers never faced each other directly. The Cold War was filled with proxy wars, and these proxy wars are considered part of the cold war.

The War on Terror is not much different. The criteria for the war on terror must be understood. It has been said both "The War on Terror begins with Al Qaeda, but does not end there." And that any regime supporting terror is considered the same as the terrorists themselves. Perhaps the name has confused you, but it is no more an endorsement of the conflict than calling the Cold war the Cold war is. The War on Terror happens to be the name of this conflict. If you consider every part of the War on Terror worth fighting, than you are absolutely ok to feel that way. If you feel that not every part of the War on Terror is worth fighting, you are absolutely ok to feel that way. If you feel no part of the War on Terror is worth fighting, you are absolutely ok to feel that way. But just like with the vietnam war - despite it not having support its still part of the Cold War - your oppinion on this part of the War on Terror holds no bearing on whether or not we can name it correctly.

There is no legitimate reason to not have the name displayed, only political views that are not welcome. It would be POV for someone to put up "The most vital part of the War on Terror" and it would be POV to put up "Allegedly part of the War on Terror." And it is definately POV to make an exception for this war, while the standard set by other war articles is quite clear. Do not respond with a debate against the justifications for war, or anything political, because whether or not the Iraq War is legal, justified, or necessary has as much effect on its naming as it did with the Vietnam War - None. Rangeley 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's something crucial you are missing. It is precisely the fact that the war on terror as you define it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any particular organization, or goes well beyond as you put it. Thus it is nothing like the Cold War, or the Korean war, or any other such war between two discernible sides. Phrased the way you see it, it is a purely one-sided phenomenon - a mantra of rhetoric invoked for political convenience when fighting ANY conflict. Or a war on an inanimate object - such as drugs, for that matter. That is a much better comparison, by the way - for the war on drugs, like the 'war on terror' in your formulation, is pure rhetoric. Anyone who deals drugs is the enemy. Anyone who deals in terrorism is the enemy. Thus political violence - i.e. terrorism - in that iteration is never legitimate, even if done as a form of resistance to injustice, occupation, apartheid, racism, oppression, etc. Mind you, some of the US's key allies in the so-called war on terrorism are oppressive, undemocratic, militaristic regimes such as Pakistan. Interesting, huh?

But even the Bush administration I have to say would not take the view you have of it. Perhaps you should take a look at the Wikipedia article on War on Terrorism. Terms that stand out:

"international terrorism"

'"state-sponsored terrorism"

'"global" struggle against violent extremism"

The insurgency in Iraq as we all seem to agree is complex, but to the extent that it is a local movement of resistance to the occupation, it is neither international, state-sponsored, nor global, nor for that matter 'extremist' - but nevertheless terrorist through and through. Got it?

It would be one thing to state in the body of the article that the Bush Administration claimed Iraq had links to terrorism and that it is part of the war on terror, etc. But by putting it in the caption box, Wikipedia is endorsing the rhetoric. By the same token, the US could invade any country in the world as part of the War on Drugs - which could literally be ANY country if you think about it, just as any country would give rise to terrorist resistance if occupied - and legitimtize the occupation on Wikipedia by putting it in the "War on Drugs" box.

--Borisknezevic 00:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Rangeley on this point. Merecat 18:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with this definition is that it applies to everything. You can intervene in any conflict, at any location in the world, say the magic word "terrorism," and presto, another war is part of the war on terrorism. If the US were to invade Spain (fighting ETA) this would be allowed as being part of the that war. If the US were to invade Iran, again it is legitimized with the magic wand. This view of course, is not what wikipedia should be promoting. Nomen Nescio 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well guess what Nescio, I am not Bush and I am not USA gov., so I am not the "You" in your reply. And you know what, if the USA formally declared military action against ETA and called it part of the War on Terror it would be. Same with Iran. Unfortunately for you Nescio, this is called "driving the debate" and the USA is doing just that with this naming convention. Whether you agree with the USA on this point or not, that is what's happening and no amount of denying that will change the underlying fact, which is: A large military power does indeed set the vernacular for those conflicts it engages in. It might not be just, but it is what occurs. Please stop fighting the obvious. Wikipeida does not promote or unpromote anything. You are seeking "unpromotion" of this fact and that's POV. Please stop. Merecat 19:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt apply to everything, it applies to all conflicts that fit the criteria. If Hitler decided to invade Brazil, this would be considered part of WW2. If Stalin decided to invade Morrocco to replace its regime with a communist state, this would be part of the cold war. If the United States went to war with Iran, a known terrorist state, with the purposes of eliminating the regime, this would be part of the war on terror. While two of these will never happen, and we can hope the last is not going to, these are the labels the conflicts would receive. Labeling them correctly is not in any way legitimizing the conflict, but it is instead presenting facts as they are. How you interpret the facts is totally up to you. Rangeley 21:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Good that you bring up the Cold war as an example. This term is universally used by all sides, even in other languages, and thus can be used in an encyclopedia without comment. The "War on terror" is a US propaganda term that is not used in other countries as much and for sure not in other languages. So it must not be used as a caption title in an encyclopedia but rather be mentioned as what it is: a US propaganda term. De mortuis... 22:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

De mortuis..., do you even know anything about history? For example, in the USA, the term The Civil War is well known and well understood. However, there are a sufficent number of loons out there who refuse to refer to it by anything other than The War between the states. For that reason, there exists a redirect to guide them to American Civil War. Frankly, you are doing the exact same thing: You are hypothicating against the validity of the term War on Terror from an irrational perspective. Of course the name is propaganda. So were the terms New Deal and War on Poverty. Are you going to tell me that the National Industrial Recovery Act was not part of the "New Deal" simply because those terms were "propaganda"? Stop being so obtuse. This line of dead-end argumentation is beginning to grate on me. Please stop. And before you again leap in with wrong arguments, what about the term Iron Curtain? The West invented it, the West used it and certainly the Russians did not like it. But no one in their right mind would say it's not viable terminology. Merecat 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, but there is still a difference in the degree of consensus that a particular term is suitable. The number of people who use the terms "war of northern aggression", etc. to describe the civil war are few enough that the term "civil war" is not significantly controversial. Ditto the New Deal. However, the number of people who dissent from the statement that the war in Iraq is "part of the war on terror" is very large. The debate over the name "New Deal" has been put to rest a long time ago, but the debate over the term "war on terror" is very much ongoing. Thus, encyclopedias must not take sides in that debate until it is settled. --Hermitage 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you have confused the issues. What merecat was just talking about is the validity of the term, War on Terror, for the purposes of naming the conflict. While some disagree with it, it is nonetheless (currently) the most widely accepted name in the English language for this term. Just like we call the Vietnam War the Vietnam War, despite other languages (notably Vietnamese, who call it the American War) not necessarilly calling it the same. This is the English encyclopedia, and we use english names here. For instance, the article about the nation of Germany is located at the english name at the country, not the name they call themselves. As most people in the English language call it Germany rather than Deutschland, the article is named accordingly. Likewise, most people call it the War on Terror in the English language, and it is named thusly. But whether or not you rename the conflict the War Against Militant Islam, or the War Waged by Neocons, the Iraq War and subsequently this article will be part of it as it fits the criteria of this war. Rangeley 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hermitage, you need to step back from this and recognize what you are saying, which basically is this: Wikipedia cannot use any term unless and until there is only an insignificant minority objecting to it. Do you realize how absurd that is? If that were the WP naming convention policy, then each and every controversial term, category or article name would have to be held in abeyance from use until this alluded-to threshold is met. Under such a scenario, nothing controversial could ever be written about, because a small band of zealots could everything hostage. You can't use this word, you can't have that category. Hermitage, if the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, then what's it part of? Did the invasion happen independently of USA policy? Are you saying the USA has no name for it's current military operations - those which it asserts are related to terror? The "No!" crowd here says "no" to the term, but do they offer that the USA is using an alternative term? Of course not, because the War on Terror is the currently used term. By the way, with the logic that some here offer, any Stalinist apologist in the 1950's could have easily said "No!" to the term the Iron Curtain. In fact, I am virtually certain that the Communist Russians of that era refused to even recognize the term Berlin Wall. You can be sure that according to them, it was a "safety barrier" to keep out "disease infested Capitalists" or something else. By the way, did the Japanese and the Germans call WWII "WWII" while it was ongoing, yes or no? The answer is no, and you know it. Suffice it to say, since there is no alternative or supplemental category name being offered and since the complaints against War on Terror do not merit its removal, it must be left intact. Now, will the "No!" crowd on this, please give it a rest? Merecat 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good observation: "if the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, then what's it part of?" To answer that question, it would make it a war of aggression, and thereby a war crime. Sufficient reason to propose the adoption of euphemistic language.

As to the war on terror. Since terrorism is a catch-all phrase, it opens up the possibility that every intervention can be seen as part of the war on terrorism. Members of this administration have admitted that in the hypothetical situation that a granny in Switserland gives money to a organisation helping refugees can become a terrorist suspect. The rationale is that when the organisation is said to be helping terrorism, anybody helping that organisation is considered a terrorist. Even if this old lady is unaware of all this and is not in anyway willing to support terrorism she still is seen as a terrorist. And invading Switserland to arrest her becomes part of the war on terrorism, as it was in the case of OBL and Afghanistan. Further, since terrorism is present in many countries (although not AQ related, but mostly local groups) this now means that if the US were to invade these countries (again, even if there is no AQ link) the mentioning of the word terrorism would by your logic mean that that too is part of the war on terror. This effectively means that anything the Bush administration considers terrorism (which is alot) ipso facto becomes part of this war, claiming no limit (in time or location) to this war. It is not part of Wikipedia policy to promote political manipulation. Nomen Nescio 13:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a peculiar term War on Terror and a generic term War of aggression. "War on Terror" is the name given by the USA to a series of actions and policies it has undertaken and expects to undertake towards the aim of dealing with a new series of threats USA deems "terrorist". This term also has popular usage, much like the Korean War, which was not a war at all, but a Police action. Nescio, as best as I can say this, you are simply in error in your logic here. Your argument against the usage of this term is not against the fact that the term War on Terror is actually in use - which it is and you have not refuted that. Rather, your argument is against the morality of various of the USA actions which have been 'justified' to the world on the basis of "terror". I accept that you deny a rubric of "fighting terror" is a valid justification for certain USA actions and you are entitled to hold that view. However, that is a moral argument against the casus belli of USA acts as they pertain to "terror". And it is simply a violation of logic to transpose that thread into an objection to the use of the term War on Terror. Amoral or not, USA is taking various actions that it has referred to as being War on Terror related. Back in Sept. 2001, Bush said "We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them." [31]. It is indisputable that he said that and it's indisputable that this is still USA policy. Now, whether USA's assertions about terror links and WMD's in Iraq were accurate or not, they were USA's assertions and under the doctrine of "no distinction", IRAQ, at the point of the 2003 invasion was inarguably part of the War on Terror. And due to subsequent events there, remains so. Please stop arguing the morality aspect here. You are confusing the issue regarding vernacular accuracy with vernacular morality. They are not the same thing and as wiki editors, we are not arbiters of morality. Merecat 14:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the view that certain parts of this war on terror are amoral. However, morality is not what I am talking about. The USA cannot unilateraly determine what exactly constitutes terrorism and thereby what is part of this war. What is amoral is the fact that this is exactly what the Bush administration is advocating. Furthermore, the war on terrorism is a US invention, which means that it is not mandatory for other countries to adopt the applied definition. Clearly, by using the US administration's stance this is not a NPOV statement. Many countries disagree with what the US considers terrorism. Even worse, by the administration's definition, victims of terrorism are defined as terrorists. Nomen Nescio 15:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, nothing you have said so far refutes the point that the term War on Terror is in actual use among the media, public and elsewhere. And, if based on your arguments, the category of War on Terror was not used, the logical conclusion of that thinking would be to also not use as a category or term Korean War, or Iron curtain or Berlin Wall. This has all been explained above. The word "terror" in War on Terror is not purported to be an absolute definition of "terrorism". You are the one saying that, not the USA. And I did not say that I am "supporting the view that certain parts of this war on terror are amoral". In fact, it's quite clear that I have taken no position on that. And, for you to say that I did, is evidence that however lucid and cogent you may be, you are not engaging here in facts-based debate. Merecat 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I do not deny the existence of this war I fail to see your point. But suffice it to say that many non-American media do not use the US based definition. Which was my point. Nomen Nescio 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But neither did the media in the Eastern Bloc use the term "Eastern bloc", nor Berlin Wall, nor Iron Curtain. Non-use by some is no reason for prohibited use here. The term War on Terror is in wide enough use with suffient meaning, that it's fully valid to use as a category here. Merecat 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, it seems you forgot the point i made a while back that the casus belli for the Iraq War was not terrorism, it was WMD, WMD, and more WMD. To change, after the fact, the casus belli, in documentation, is historical revisionism (negationism). We did not go to war in iraq to fight terrorism. And to clarify nescio's point: this is an international encyclopedia, it is policy to avoid making articles ameri-centric. Kevin Baas^talk 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, you guys just don't quit do you? There was never any chance that Iraq was going to succeed in delivering WMD via conventional means to USA. That leaves only unconventional risks, ie; "terror" usage type risks regarding WMD's from Iraq. Your logic of "WMD = Not Terror" holds no water. Indeed, USA went to Iraq due to the risk that Iraq might strike at USA with WMD. Whether those fears were founded or not, USA did indeed lump Iraq into the War on Terror pot. You may argue that this was unjustly done, but it was done none the less. USA's current assertion of might against unconventional threats is called the War on Terror both by the USA and in much of the English speaking world. Whether this stems from there having been "ameri-centric" influence driving the adoption of that term in the public forum or not, is irrelevant to the fact that the the term has been adopted and if interpreted on the basis it was introduced (and is being used) in the English vernacular, it's use as a category here is correct. Merecat 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing two things here:

1) As I originally stated, a war can be one of two types: 1. self-defense, 2. aggression. a "war on" something is by definition a war of aggression. the iraq war was entered into under the pretense of an "imminent threat", and was therefore a war of self-defense. if you get in a fight, and you go before a court, and say "i was just defending myself", and the judge rules in your favor, you can't change your story later on when it becomes convenient, and even if you do, that doesn't change the nature of the fight. The Iraq War was ostensibly self-defense. read the AUMF. The war was not part of the "war on terrorism" at the time that it was fought. it does not change it's identity after it is over. that, to repeat myself, is historical revisionism (negationism). Kevin Baas^talk 22:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin with all due respect, thats bunk. There is absolutely no reason a "defensive war" can't be part of WOT (war on terror). Not only that, but there is no such thing as "defensive" war. There is war and there is how you choose to prosecute it, period. USA has chosen to prosecute war in Iraq. At the time USA launched that war in 2003, USA asserted "WMD". In 2003, the only forseable way Iraq could have done WMD against USA was asymmetrically - ie; on the sly. The USA name for warfare against enemies of this type is indeed "War on Terror". Kevin, you are the one with revisionism. You are looking back with 20/20 vision and saying things based on what you now know. Back in 2003, the scuttlebutt was Iraq had to be attacked to make USA safe in the post 9/11 asymmetrical conflict environment ("War on Terror"). Merecat 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2) you wrote "Whether this stems from there having been "ameri-centric" influence driving the adoption of that term in the public forum or not" you seemed to be confused of exactly what nescio's point was. by "wikipdia", "the public forum" is not meant. And the point is to distingiush between "the american forum", which you mistake for "the public forum", and the international public forum - the global population. Because wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, it's target audience, and target subject matter, is international. To make an association only made in america (and only by a limited segment of america's populace, for that matter), without proper attribution, violates that principle. Kevin Baas^talk 22:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See UK and Amnesty International links below. Merecat 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the point here and have to agree that the Iraq War was in fact not part of The War on Terror. The reason given before the U.N. was WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and as so cannot be changed later. The idea of terrorists being in Iraq was in fact not a given reason for going to war. You cannot draw lines where ever you want, stating that since Iraq did not have a weapons system capable of delivering a WMD directly to the US that it must have been planning to use terrorists and then so is part of the War on Terror. I have to agree that this idea of The Iraq War being part of the WOT comes from the inability of the United States to find WMD's. It is quite an example revisionist history as the US now attempts to paint the war in a different light. It has also been stated, I dont have the links on me at the moment, but the number of terrorists has grown significantly after the attack. I hope noone plans to quote Bush and say we are fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here, that also came after the opps no WMD's fiasco. --Zer0faults 11:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it seems that there are multiple lines of argument going on here with noone establishing a clear line of argument. I'll try to simplify, briefly. A.) GWOT or Global War on Terror is the established language within the USG for the current operations around the globe against terrorist organizations such as ELN, FARC, HAMAS, and Hezbollah, etc. the War on Terror is not. As such, using the term War on Terror to label and organize the various operations done by multiple nations around the world against terrorists, such as the Russian action against their islamist extremists, would be legitimate and not POV i.e. ameri-centric. B.) The invasion of Iraq was purported to cut short the use of WMDs by an unstable and irrational regime. I.e. to stop the use of WMDs and the spread of WMD technology that would affect American interests. I don't agree with the argument that Iraq was itself incapable of using WMDs against the U.S. at all. As such, I find the argument baseless and at times nothing more than setting up a strawman of placing this scarecrow of American jingoism and asking people who agree that the Iraqi action was part of the War on Terrorism to defend the United States.199.200.252.17 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Guardian acknowledges "War on Terror", but attacks validity of USA actions

The Guardian, UK: it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Chomsky: 'There Is No War On Terror' If you google it you most often find it in inverted commas because except for FOX news journalists are aware of the fact that a propaganda term should not be used thoughtlessly. It is not universally used as the terms cold war or Berlin wall. Most people outside the US would just laugh at you if you told them the Iraq war was "on terror". As a sidenote, talking down on someone like "do you even know anything about history?" does not speak highly of the strength of your argumentation. De mortuis... 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

De mortuis..., when editors ignore even the most basic facts of history, then such questions will arise. However, I can always agree that politeness is best, so sorry that I offended you. Having said that, Chomsky is about as unreliable of a source as you could possible cite, and for that reason, I don't give a rat's you know what, about what he says. Polling Chomsky about USA national security related topics, is like polling the KKK about the NAACP. Noam Chomsky is a committed anti-USA zealot. That you would even cite him is very revealing as to where you think the "center" on this issue is. As for the cite from the Guardian, here is how the sentence reads From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Your citing of the Guardian story supports my analysis here in that a) the term is acknowledged, even overseas, as being extant and in use by USA and b) there is resentment against the USA for pursuing it's interests. The very fact that the Guardian wrote an article denouncing the War on Terror as a "bogus cover", proves that the USA is using that term - if only for a cover. The debate here has not been whether the term War on Terror is a valid term from the perspective of outsiders from USA accepting USA motives and actions. Rather the debate here has been about whether or not the term War on Terror is in use, has it been used to describe USA actions and should we allow a category called War on Terror to be attached to this article. As far as I am concerned, the Guardian story settles the debate about semantics; the term War on Terror is in use and it does refer to USA actions grouped under that title. Now, because the opposition to a category called War on Terror (said opposition based on arguments of 'no actual usage') has been answered, I see no other complaints on this topic. The category War on Terror is valid. Also, see links here:

Additional links which affirm usage of term "War on Terror"

1. DefendAmerica - U.S. Defense Dept. War on Terror
2. BBC NEWS | In Depth | War on Terror
3. washingtonpost.com: War on Terror
4. "War on Terror": Amnesty International's Human Rights Concerns

These four links are the top 4 which Google returns for "War on Terror". Please note that the 1st is USA military, the second is BBC in the UK, the third is Washington Post and the 4th is Amnesty International USA. Each and every on of these sites make clear that the term is extant and in use in the English speaking world. We are writing the English wiki. The only objection which had any merit was Kevin Baas regarding WMD was the Casus Belli and his inference that such a rationale predated "terrorist" concerns with Iraq. Of course, I did (see above) show Kevin's premise on that to be false. At this point, all objections have been answered. Unless something new comes up, I fail to see what objections are left regarding a category called "War on Terror". Merecat 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not at all "ignore even the most basic facts of history" and making such completely unfounded claims does not help your course at all. Second, writing such an innuendo discourages everyone to take part in the discussion, so please limit yourself to just make concise points. Third, googling for "war on terror" does not help, you need to google for "war on terror" AND Iraq at least in order to see if the tag is used in this context. That is what I did, and what I posted is what turned up, not my choice that Chomsky was among the top links. The Chomsky link, the Guardian one and the own you cite from amnesty where it is again in inverted commas show that the term is heavily criticized and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia caption or wikipedia category. Period. De mortuis... 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Straight off Amnesty Internationals page on the War on Terror: "For over three years Amnesty International has reported allegations of torture, ill-treatment and deaths of those held in US custody in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. Join Amnesty International USA’s special initiative Denounce Torture: Stop It Now!" They dont have a seperate page for the Iraq War, its included in the conflict known as the War on Terror. Rangeley 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They even have it in inverted commas in the title. If Bush had named it "War to bring peace" they would have that as their title. And no one serious would even think of using that without comment in an encyclopedia. De mortuis... 01:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What the government calls something does not always stick. If its catchy, it tends to. Most people call the Iraq War the Iraq War, though the government called it Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even from the get go most people called it the Iraq War. The War on Terror, on the other hand, proved catchy enough to remain the most popular english name for it. Some put it in quotes, others do not. But the fact is, if you asked most people what they called it, it would be this. If the government named it the War to bring peace, who knows if it would have caught on, I for one am glad we dont need to deal with that one. But yea, I already adressed this at the bottom of the page, so check there too. Rangeley 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio replies

• Interestingly, all use comma's to show that it is not a generally accepted word. Second, you still mix up the arguments. Nobody denies there is a war on terror, it is disputed whether Iraq is part of that. Clearly, numerous sources outside the USA use the term with comma's, thereby implying they not necessarily agree with it.
• Or, read the following:
  • Indeed, the metaphor "war on terror" is exaggerated and misleading. In fact it is a struggle against fanatical terrorists. If the word "war" is used to describe the horrific American Civil War AND the current struggle against terrorists (to say nothing of the "war on drugs," the "war on pollution," etc.), then the word has lost all meaning. Moreover, "terrorism" is an abstraction, while terrorists are specific people and specific organizations. "War on terror" is useful only to persuade the American people that Bush is a wartime president and to justify the foolish and now dangerous war in Iraq.[32]
  • For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim.[33]
  • The United States has long insisted that government agents cannot be terrorists. The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Since government action is almost always lawful—or at least not considered criminal by the government itself—governments almost never qualify as terrorists under the U.S. definitions.[34]
  • ...a crusade against terror, is a terrible mistake. It is disproportionate, it is poorly defined, and it is fraught with uncertainty.[35]
  • Despite the trillions being spent worldwide to combat terrorism, there is no war on terrorism. This bears repeating: There is no "war on terror."[36]
  • Bush, however, seems to think of the war on terrorism quite literally -- as a real war -- and this concept has worrisome implications. The rules that bind governments are much looser during wartime than in times of peace. The Bush administration has used war rhetoric precisely to give itself the extraordinary powers enjoyed by a wartime government to detain or even kill suspects without trial. In the process, the administration may have made it easier for itself to detain or eliminate suspects. But it has also threatened the most basic due process rights.[37] Nomen Nescio 09:37, 2 May 2006

The bottom line: It's controversial! Is the term valid or not? It's an interesting discussion, but both sides need to be presented. You can't present both sides in a caption. --Hermitage 09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio immediately above you said this: "Nobody denies there is a war on terror, it is disputed whether Iraq is part of that". But, in your same posting, you go right on ahead and post a quote from commondreams which says Despite the trillions being spent worldwide to combat terrorism, there is no war on terrorism. This bears repeating: There is no "war on terror." [38] Nescio, I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. You are so inconsistant in your logic and assertions that I can only conclude you have no interest is resolving disagreements. Merecat 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Your selective use of quotes (you fail to mention For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. and the metaphor "war on terror" is exaggerated and misleading.) only proves my point. Your gift for ignoring information detrimental to your position is inspiring. Second, you still are not familliar with the principle of reposting, otherwise you would not make the mistake of saying the article was from commondreams, again! Nomen Nescio 10:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hermitage, the word you seek is "determinative", not "valid". There is no such thing as us saying a term is "invalid" on it's face. However, there is such a thing as us agreeing on what will be the determinative measure of defining usage here. Once again, for the final time, during the Cold War, when USA opposed communists, USA used terms such as Eastern Bloc, Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain. Back then, the USSR definately did not agree with USA usage of these terms. However, at no time did USSR opposition to those terms become the determinative measure that defined their usage. If you can't understand that, then well, this will never be resolved. Anyone caring to know what War on Terror means, how that term is being used, what the objections to it are and how the term was coined, etc., can get all that information by clicking the link and reading the article. That category link serves as a topic aggregator, is posted on various WOT related pages and is highly beneficial to the readers. Also, it is simply inarguably true that the USA has applied and does apply the term War on Terror to post 9/11 military and other actions which seek to (among other things) eliminate asymmetrical threats. Is any reasonable editor here going to argue that "terrorism" as typically practiced, is not an "asymmetrical threat"? Of course not! The simple fact is that a category of War on Terror is semantically correct and accurate vernacular in English for the topic to which it refers. And it's also accurate to apply that category to this article. Each objection raised above has already been answered by me several times. Merecat 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding your "Is any reasonable editor here going to argue that "terrorism" as typically practiced, not an "asymmetrical threat"? Of course not!" Please read this "A far sounder definition was offered by Israeli National Security Council chairman Major General Uzi Dayan, who defined as terrorist in a December 2001 speech "any organization that systematically harms civilians, irrespective of its motives." This definition catches all types of terrorism—not just actions that lack political blessings or official sanctions."[39][40]. Nomen Nescio 10:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio you are wrong yet again. That definition is only partially accurate and only regarding terrorist organizations, not terrorist actions. Terrorist actions themselves are by definition asymmetrical. If a powerful authority cruelly harms a weaker entity for no reasonable purpose, that's "repression". And systematic harm over time for no reasonable purpose can be called "tyranny". But, terrorists are not "repressive" and they are not "tyrants". Rather, they are asymmetrical fighters who use methods aimed at both harming and frightening the opposition, hence "terror". This is why the 9/11 attackers were "terrorists" and it's why the fear of Iraq possibly being able to get WMD into USA was seen by USA as a "terrorist" threat. Saddam was too weak to be a conventional adversary of USA - he could only have been an asymmetrical one. And an asymmetrical opponent who might have WMD would certainly be seen as posing a risk of "terrorist" actions. Why this eludes some here, puzzles me. Merecat 10:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that when a country uses "asymmetrical" techniques it is guilty of terrorism? if so, you thereby accuse the US of being a terrorist state. Enlightning view, coming from you. Nomen Nescio 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio and Hermitage, please stop going in circles. If Kevin Baas wants to speak for you both and make a new posting with arguments on this, I'll answer him, but I am not going to repsond to your broken-record complaints on this anymore. Merecat 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• A familiar stance from an editor who still has to respond to several arguments that are not in favour of his position. Nomen Nescio 10:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You put forward critocisms of the name, some of which were purely political (they are from an editorial afterall, its to be expected) and others are more legitimate; for instance the name "War" implies a front line, two sides, two armies, and that sort of thing. Unfortunately, the name Cold War also falls short on this. It was not a typical war, but a string of related conflicts that came together on a common theme. It also included related events that were not even war necessarilly, such as the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Blockade, the Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, and other various 'peaceful' things. I do not see you objecting fervently to the name Cold War, so I have to think that you are driven by purely political reasons for your objections to this. Another objection - that the Iraq War was done for political reasons, can also be said about the Space Race. It was a technological race to get into space, just to say you could do it. But its still considered part of the Cold War. Why? Because it took place between the Soviet Union and the USA. The 1980 winter olympics in which the USA beat the Soviet team is considered part of the Cold War as well. Its simply ridiculous to discount the Iraq war when it has a much clearer connection - the two sides are actually fighting each other. And as for your argument that the Iraq War did not begin as part of the War on Terror - which I disagree with for reasons stated numerous times before - The same can be said about the 1980 Olympics (both of them). One had the victory of the USA over the Soviet Union, the other had the large boycott due to the Afghanistan invasion. Its ludacrous to say "they didnt plan it as part of the cold war so it doesnt count." But that is essentially one of your arguments. There is no debate that terrorists are being fought now, so obviously it is part of it currently. This in itself should end the argument, but you will undoubtedly keep on talking and keep on vandalising the article despite having no legitimate reasons to do so. Rangeley 23:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley, the cold war analogy had already been discussed above. The term is universally used and does not imply which side you are with. "War on terror" does and is just laughable to most people outside the US.

Merecat, comments like "please stop going in circles" when this is exactly what you do yourself, and telling others they lack logic after showing that you are unable to differenciate between what someone says and what he quotes do not help your course. De mortuis... 01:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read, because my analogy had not been discussed previously. It explained clearly that events not even intended to be part of the Cold War were included in it, such as the olympics. This precedent removes all reasonable doubt that the Iraq War is currently a part of the War on Terror. As to your other point, this has been discussed. I have already said conflicts on this English encyclopedia are placed at their most commonly used English name, as is anything. The Vietnam War is located there, whereas in Vietnamese it is most commonly called the American War. Perhaps other languages also use this name, or perhaps it is more commonly called something else. Whatever the case, the most commonly used, and recognizable name is used. I highly doubt terrorists call it the War on Terror, however they would not question the conflicts existence. But their name for it, much like the name "American War," is not used in English as the title of the war, and would not be recognized as well as the War on Terror. There are even other English names, such as Long War, World War 3 or 4, but these are not as widely accepted and widely known. Until that happens, and its possible for it to (The War to End All Wars ---> World War I), Wikipedia will continue to keep the name at the War on Terror.

But yet again, this is irrelevant to whether or not Iraq is part of the war. It is an issue with the name of the war, but regardless of what we call it, Iraq is part of it. Rangeley 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason you keep asserting that the war on terror exists. Clearly you are missing the entire point to this discussion. It is NOT about the war on terror, but whether the illegal invasion of Iraq is part of that. Look at the articles I cited above and you will see that even in the English speaking community that is still debated! Nomen Nescio 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Read my reply above, for it already addressed that. Rangeley 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Part Quatre

The more and more wikipedians and civilians alike dig into the Iraq war/War on Terrorism/Invasion of Iraq/Gulf War 2 the less we know. I particularly like this comment, '"You make a very good observation: "if the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, then what's it part of?" To answer that question, it would make it a war of aggression, and thereby a war crime. Sufficient reason to propose the adoption of euphemistic language."' If you payed attention to the U.N. charter and its implications upon the Invasion you will find that the Iraw war falls directly under the terms of "an act of aggression." We went to war on false pretense and are continued to be led by fictional or idealistic purposes. We aren't really bringing democracy to the Middle-east because we are doing the work for the Iraqis. A democracy requires self-governing, self-liberation, and self-independence. If Iraq doesn't start that way then it can't become a democracy. If we had any respect for the ideals of democracy we would understand it is best for the people of Iraq to decide what to do and let them do it. At least the "democracy" "justification" is what is the most popular fabrication. Ironically in the "shock and awe" of the 10 of March 2003, we had a very different notion of what we were there to accomplish. We all know the "Mission Accomplished" procalmation on a U.S. Navy carrier makes it all the more silly. And what a silly war it is. The "war on terrorism." Good luck with that. Wait, what is terrorism? If it means something similar to the action of terrorization, then doesn't that make the U.S. military/gov't terrorists?--Existential Thinker 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There are online forums where you can quench your thirst for political debate, I myself belong to one and would gladly give you the link of you so desired. However, Wikipedia is not a political forum. You have given us a political view to ponder, but it is not my job to respond to your view with my view as this is not a political debate. Even the most unjust war can be part of a larger conflict, many say the Vietnam War, or Soviet Afghanistan Invasion were unjustified. But they are still part of the Cold War. Sometimes, in the name of democracy, the USA would prop up dictatorships solely to combat communism. But its still considered part of the Cold War. You have interesting views though, and it would be fun to respond to them point by point, however this is not welcome at Wikipedia. I would also point you to other responses above where a lot more has been said than in just this one response, because they may prove useful to you. Rangeley 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley, you weaken your own argument for adding the partisan title "war on terrorism" to this article (and others). As you illustrated everyone refers to and the universal descriptor for the vietnam war is the "vietnam war"--not the "war for the liberation of south vietnam" or the "war on communism in vietnam." Adding the "war on terrorism" label is simply inserting a partisan POV--it is not providing an accurate description. As you clearly wrote, Wikipedia is not the place for political debate it is the place to put the facts and descriptions. For the Iraq war, it's pretty obvious that "war on terrorism" is a label that is open to dispute, while no one would argue with the simple label "Iraq War"-how about we leave the title at that and leave the rationales for war for the debate floor not the wikipedia.Publicus 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In the above comments, there are no new arguments being advanced regarding opposition to War on Terror as a category. And take a look at Peace movement. Interestingly enough, the info box at Peace movement says this "Part of the Politics series on Anti-war topics". I don't see anyone here complaining about that type of categorization! And yet, if I turn to the article for A.N.S.W.E.R., I see that article is also covered under the category of "Part of the Politics series on Anti-war topics", which to me is absolute sheer POV because A.N.S.W.E.R. is a known Communist front organisation and is not at all truly anti-war. A.N.S.W.E.R. is a group of radical trouble makers whose main goal is to wreck USA. So if you guys want to keep going down this insane path of fighting to the death to remove War on Terror as a category, well then I guess to be consistant, we'll have to start hacking and chopping categories out of lefty-fartsy articles like A.N.S.W.E.R.. You can't have it both ways. Merecat 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Vietnam War is not the universal name for the war. As I said above (again, please read the preceding discussion as it covered all of this) in the Vietnamese language, the name for it is the American War. In other languages, like Chinese, it may hold a different name as they have had wars with Vietnam and would not likely consider the US one as "The" Vietnam War. It is the standard of the English encyclopedia to use the most common, and most recognized name in the English language for all topics, including countries whose official name differs from the most commonly used English name (think Germany). If "The War on Communism" was the most commonly used name for the Cold War, thats what we would call the Vietnam War a part of. But it isnt the most common name, "The Cold War" is. And thats where we are with The War on Terror, it is the most commonly used name for the conflict. Rangeley 21:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the main issue

We need to keep focus here. The question as to whether Wikipedia should have a category War on Terror at all is settled. The real argument is whether Iraq War and 2003 Invasion of Iraq belong to that category. In that light the links provided by Merecat above are worth looking at in detail.

DefendAmerica - U.S. Defense Dept. War on Terror

This site only shows that the U.S. government views the Iraq War as part of the war on terror. Up to now no one involved in this debate has found a Wikipedia policy that says Wikipedia should reflect the U.S. government POV, instead of the neutral POV.

"War on Terror": Amnesty International's Human Rights Concerns

The Amnesty International report deliberately puts quote marks around "war on terror" wherever it appears because they do NOT accept the Bush administration's definition of the term. Hard to see why Merecat thinks this is helping his case.

washingtonpost.com: War on Terror

There are 95 stories in this "Special Report" devoted to the "War on Terror", spanning July 2004 to April 2005, and yet only 3 of those stories refer to Iraq. I think it's fair to assume that the Washington Post had more than 3 stories about the Iraq War during that period. This is strong evidence that as far as the Washington Post is concerned, the fact that an article is about the Iraq War does not, by itself, make it an article about the War on Terror.

BBC NEWS | In Depth | War on Terror

The link is to an page specifically about Al-Qaeda. Nowhere does the page suggest that the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror. What's very interesting however is that there is a link on that page to a news analysis entitled US 'forgetting war on terror. Pursuing the link, we read the following commentary:

But while Iraq and Iran may top the list, you hear almost no talk - at least at the moment - about Washington's "war on terror" against al-Qaeda

...

Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism czar under both President Clinton and President Bush, has been an outspoken critic of the current administration since he left it.

He accuses the Bush administration of a lack of strategic thought.

"So much of the US government's attention is on Iraq that they are really not thinking conceptually about the war on terrorism," he told me.

"President Bush has conflated Iraq and the war on terrorism into one thing, and therefore when they're working on Iraq they think they're working on the war on terrorism - which of course they're not because it's a very different thing.

So here we have a major counter-terrorism official very specifically disputing the view that Iraq War is part of the War on Terror. Simply put, the categorization is disputed, in this case not by a left-wing extremist but a member of the establishment who has devoted his career to fighting terrorism. That, by itself, is grounds for not including Iraq War in the War on Terror category. Brian Tvedt 02:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Govt usage - given that the "War on Terror" is a campaign waged by the United States, its POV is not insignificant. This is not the POV of just any party, it is the pov of the protagonist.
• Amnesty International - quantity notwithstanding, their inclusion does imply that they feel the War on Iraq falls under the "War on Terror"

Moreover, the links pulled were a survey of the top 10 results from google:

1. Defendamerica.mil Conflates Iraq and WOT
2. BBC News] Does not as it focuses on Al Qaeda
3. Washington Post Does conflate the two
4. Amnesty International Conflates the two
5. White House Conflates the Two
6. CIA conflates the two
7. Sign on San Diego Conflates the two
8. CNN special A wash. No mention of Iraq, but is dated 2001 and has no newer material.
9. Wikipedia We'll count it as neutral (no self-citing)
10. Chomsky Chomsky arguing there is no War on terror.

You wouldn't say there is no WOT just because Chomsky argues it doesn't exist. In fact his argument implies that there is something called WOT in the status quo that he is disclaiming.

So by the rough google estimate, out of the first 10, 6 conflate Iraq and WOT, 1 does not, 2 are indeterminate, and 1 says there's no WOT at all. Seems like the prevalent usage conflates the two.

So in sum, you have individuals criticizing the categorization of Iraq under "War on Terror" (which is natural), but effectively, for purposes of discussing the "War on Terror", both the institutional supporters (and initiators), and institutional opponents of the war treat Iraq as a subcampaign. --Mmx1 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is stupid. There clearly isn't a consensus on whether or not the invasion of Iraq was part of the War on Terror. The debate is just both sides try to label the article part of the War on Terror (or not) to justify their own world view. I happen to be outraged by the thought that the Iraq war is part of the war on terror. I don't think wikipedia should be parroting Bush talking points. Nevertheless there are people who believe that the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror. The answer, then, is to not catagorize the article as such but include a subsection explaining the controversey. Now you all can keep yelling about this shit or we can compromise and actually complete the damn article.--Jsn4 09:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You have mischaracterized the controversy. One group of editors does indeed want to categorize the invasion as part of the War on Terror. The other group of editors is not trying to insert a heading which says Iraq is not part of the War of Terror. Rather, we would rather have no categorization at all (just like you say). Brian Tvedt 10:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I realize what the controversey is, thats what I meant. Nonetheless instead of arguing about it we should just not put the label and include a subsection about the controversey (not self-referential since the controversey occurs outside wikipedia as well).--Jsn4 11:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jsn4, the effort should be in creating the article not arguing over the proper label--the general concensus in both the media and government is that the conflict in Iraq is called "the Iraq war"--reports don't call it the "battle of Iraq, part of the global fight against terror." Since everyone agrees at least with the term "Iraq war" why not leave it at that and include a section on the debate over the "war on terrorism" label. Take another example, everyone seems to have adopted the "Iraqi insurgent" term even though in previous conflicts such a group might have been labeled "Iraqi rebels"--however, everyone uses the "insurgent" term and practically no one uses the "rebel" term. It's the same with this conflict, we should use a general term that is agreed on "iraq war" and add the labeling dispute within the article.Publicus 13:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Publicus but I have to point out. The term "insurgent" is used because of the misunderstanding of insurgents being from outside the country. Rebels are always home grown, but people do not realize that insurgents are also, so the constant use of that term is to make people believe fighters are entering from outside. This can be easily tested, simply stop 10 people on the street and ask "Do you believe the fighting in Iraq is from the insurgents or rebels?" 8 out of 10 will gladly give you their view and not ask you what the difference is. This whole paragraph is however just IMHO. --Zer0faults 19:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We can all agree that it is hotly disputed whether Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Thus, any unmitigated claim that it either is, or is not, should not be a part of this article. For example, a photo caption "Part of the War on Terrorism" is just as unacceptably POV as "Not Part of the War on Terrorism" would be. Any mention of the WoT should include the fact that it is the Bush administration and their supporters who categorize the war that way. --Hyperbole 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We are confusing when popular oppinion has an effect, and when it does not. If you were to go out on the street, pull out a map of Europe, point to Germany, and ask 100 people what that nation is, most if not all will call it Germany. I doubt anyones first response would be Deutschland, unless they lived there. Just like if I went to Mexico and pointed to the USA on the map, most people would say Estados Unidos. This is a relative thing. Naming conventions at Wikipedia go with the most commonly used name. The Germany in the English Wikipedia is exactly the same as the Deutschland in the german encyclopedia. It is the same country, different name.

But lets say in this same country, the 60+ percent of the population that did not vote for Angela Merkel dispute the fact that she is infact the Prime Minister. Suppose she was unpopular, which is a slight stretch as she isnt, but its not unthinkable. If 60, 70, 90% of Germany, even 90% of the world disputed that she was the Prime Minister, even vehemently arguing against it in online enecyclopedias as this, does this impact what information we display? No, this is not the same. Facts, such as her being elected, cannot be put aside, even if 90% of the population beleives otherwise, or everyone beleives otherwise, though admittedly if everyone beleived a lie than there would be noone to say otherwise. Luckilly we are not there. In 2000, a similar occurence happened to the one I described. Many people disputed whether George W. Bush was truly the President. But he was put into office through the rules of the government, uncommonly used ones yes, but nonetheless legitimate.

I hope you can see the difference there. Popular oppinion cant change facts, and just because something is disputed does not make it POV to place.

As to the Iraqi Insurgents, this is their most common name. However, when it comes to the facts, even though most people may think they are all from Iraq, or other all from outside Iraq, we cannot go with popular oppinion. We go with facts - they are from both.

Also, is it being a parrot for J.K. Rowling when you say that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is part of a larger series, and that this series also includes 5 other books, with another on its way? Lets skip ahead a year or two. Lets say book 7 comes out, and everyone hates it and thinks its a terrible end to the story, even trying to say its a book all its own, not part of the previous series. As Wikipedia, what would we do? J.K. Rowling is the author, and she obviously has say in whether or not its part of the series, not her fans. Just like if you were to make a set of comics for your own enjoyment, and a reader disputes whether or not one of the comics is part of the series. Their oppinion doesnt matter, the maker of it says it is part of the series. Maybe it doesnt fit, it could be terrible, but it is still part of it. Likewise, the Iraq War as started as part of the War on Terror. Maybe you feel it doesnt fit, maybe you feel its a terrible sequel, but the maker of the series, the USA and allies, has said its a part of it, and ultimately you can do nothing about this fact.

And finally, another interesting point. Most people do not call it the "battle of Iraq, part of the global fight against terror." This is absolutely true. People do not call the Vietnam War "battle of Vietnam, part of the Cold War" either. And as such, neither article is located at these locations (Iraq War and Vietnam War respectively.) However, both of these wars do include a "Part of" section specifically for this purpose. Most people do not call it the "Battle of the Bulge, part of World War Two," however this too includes a "Part of" section where it links to World War Two. Individual operations, for instance Operation Swarmer, also includes a "Part of" section. The "part of" section is not the title, but instead links to the wider conflict for which it belongs.

And as I just noticed another point, here is my final paragraph, I promise. Someone said that the term "war on terror" has been used in the past. This is true. However, noone is saying this is "part of a war on terror" but instead "part of The War on Terror," a specific conflict. Another example of this is the Gulf War, a term used for the Iran Iraq War, until another conflict, that in 1991, became the most common event related to that name. Specific battles in the Gulf War would say it is part of the Gulf War, and this would be correct, as the Gulf War refers to the 1991 conflict. Likewise, saying something is part of the War on Terror is saying it is part of the US led campaign that began in 2001, not previous efforts that are no longer commonly referred to as the War on Terror. Rangeley 23:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The innuendo here does not lead anywhere. In my eyes, users Rangely and Merecat simply miss the point that a propaganda term does not meet the criteria to be used in an encyclopedia without comment and adding 250,000 more lines to the discussion won't help. De mortuis... 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that this is all you see, but I doubt much can be done to change that. However, here are a few more lines for your enjoyment.

This is as much a propaganda term as the term 'New Deal' that refers to the series of government programs run by the US Government during the Great Depression. But noone is suggesting this be deleted, or references to the New Deal in its related articles be removed. You can call this innuendo, I call it pointing out a double standard in your argument. Unless you would object to including the Tennessee Valley Authority as part of the New Deal, in which case I was mistaken in my assessment. Rangeley 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to argue that its not just a propaganda term, but its one that was tossed onto this war after the fact. This isnt as though the United States stood in front of the UN and stated its case for war was terrorism. The truth of the matter is the official reason for gonig to war was Iraq's non compliance with the IEAE and past sanctions. There non-compliance has nothing to do with terrorism. I think many people are mistaking official reasons with what the president said on TV for the masses. This war was moved to the "War on Terror" idea because no WMD's were in fact Found in Iraq. Oddly I have read the rationale that terrorism is implied because Saddam had no way of delivering a payload directly to the US. This is also faulty logic cause it was never stated as a reason, and US interests are all over the middle east.

The other problem is by applying a propaganda term to this war you are almost assisting in the rewriting of history. Since this war was not started over terrorism, yet is now labeled that by the Bush administration, you are in fact siding with revisionists. At best any mentioning of The Iraq War and War on Terrorism, should be listed and dealt with in the context of this controversy. Not mentioning the debate is allowing revisionists to ignore why the war began in the first place, and tacking it onto the "War On Terror" without a note is promoting it as factual. --Zer0faults 13:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is quote Bush gave just this year. "The doctrine still stands: If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists who commit murder." "There's a reason why he was declared a state sponsor of terror -- because he was sponsoring terror. He had used weapons of mass destruction. And the biggest threat that this President, and future Presidents, must worry about is weapons of mass destruction getting in the hands of a terrorist network that would like to do us harm. That is the biggest threat we face. Airplanes were horrible; the attacks of aircraft were horrible. But the damage done could be multiplied if weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of these people." That's just a couple excerpts from a speech Bush gave back in January 2006. You can find it here The White House There now it is fact that OIF is a campaign of The War on Terrorism. It was part part of the decision that led to the war in Iraq. Most believe that the War on Terrorism was exclusive to just afghanistan, the Taliban, and Al Queada. Most forget the official Title as well "The Global War on Terrorism" Along the lines of what Rangely had posted earlier The Battle of the Bulge was part of WW2, as well as D-Day, The Battle for Midway, and let us not forget the day of infamy Pearl Harbor. For those who dispute this simple fact, need to far better research their opinions and statements. And at the very least provide some official sources. --Swelling20 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Swelling20 10May2006

• "There's a reason why he was declared a state sponsor of terror -- because he was sponsoring terror. He had used weapons of mass destruction. And the biggest threat that this President, and future Presidents, must worry about is weapons of mass destruction getting in the hands of a terrorist network that would like to do us harm." Interesting quote. You do realize this is exactly what the US has done. 1 Use of WMD: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 2 Sponsor of terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, and failing to extradicte terrorist suspects (South America, Cuba, et cetera), 3 Spread of WMD, sharing technology and allowing Pakistan to circumvent the NPT. In other words, by his own definition, Bush has declared the US a terrorist state. Second, it fails to acknowledge that SH was not linked to 9-11 and if supporting terrorism in general through other means is applied, that ipso facto makes almost the entire world a sponsor of terrorism. Nomen Nescio 11:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

2 Osama Bin Laden was just a soldier fighting against the Soviet Union at the time he received help from the CIA. That help was also basic military training that all the fighters received. So the United States did not support a terrorist, since he was not one at the time. Thats almost like saying "The United States blew up the building in Oklahoma because Timothy McVeigh was on welfare at one point, therefore receiving support from the US". Your arguement is faulty, OBL was actually a freedom fighter at the time since the Soviets were invading the country, or at least seen to be. 1 Are you argueing that since the US used an Atomic Bomb once many years ago they no longer have the right to call another country a terrorist state? This contradicts your own logic then because it verifies that Iraq itself was a terrorist nation because it used WMD's on the kurds in the north. This then also verifies that Iraq was a terrorist nation and therefore this war was in fact against terrorists. 3 If you would read the actual resolution, which you seem to not want to, you would see that it does not state that SH had a hand in 9/11. It states:

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; "

This has in fact been proven true, that Zarqawi was in Iraq at the time, and a member of AQ. Some argue that he was in the north with the Kurds. However he was still in a nation that was doing nothing to hand him over or expel him from their lands. Now unless you believe he was there all by himself with no other AQ members, then that verifies that members of AQ were in fact in Iraq. See the resolution states nations that are harboring or aiding terrorists. Since you cannot show that all nations are harboring or aiding AQ your statement, "makes almost the entire world a sponsor of terrorism," a gross overstatement. If you want a comparison I believe Serbia is not being allowed to join the European Union because they feel Serbia hasn't done enough to bring General Ratko Mladic to trial. As you see just by allowing them to roam free in your country is not acceptable handling of peoples wanted for crimes against nations. --Zer0faults 12:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• You have misundersatood my reasoning:

1. However, this nomenclatura is interesting. Feel free to explain when and why OBL changed from freedom fighter into terrorist?
2. Calling a country a terrorist state is based upon logic. If the logic used is ties to terrorism, even in the past, than the US itself falls within that description. It's about not using a double standard.
3. As to the resolution, again I conclude that attacking any terrorist organisation, (ETA, IRA, FARC) is covered by this, and therefore any attack on these is by your definition part of ...
4. Al-Zarqawi was never in any part of Iraq that was under SH's control. To say otherwise is misrepresenting the facts. At no time was SH able to extradicte, had he wanted to. But of course, by your logic, you are aware of the many terrorists that the US is not extradicting to countries that ask for it?
5. Regarding Mladic, you may have noticed that the Europeans have not invaded Serbia. This is the principal difference between the US and the rest of the world.

First of all there is no need to prove SH was linked to 9/11 by supporting the terrorists involved or not. Second hence the official Title "The Global War on Terrorism" so yes he has declared the entire world a terrorist state. A war with no boundaries and a most determined enemy, and many ways to fight that enemy. As far as the US's use of WMD that was over 50 years ago when the Atoms fell on Japan. However this is about wether OIF is part of GWOT which it quite is a fact. --Swelling20 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• You prove my point. an endless war without bounderies. As to the use of WMD, when did SH use them, and why is that not sufficiently long ago? Nomen Nescio 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright OIF is officially part of GWOT, there is NO dispute. As far as the Resolution I have read it many times. Maybe you should take this opportunity to re read it after all it does state OIF is part of GWOT. The GWOT is a result of the events on 9/11 not the start of OIF. Yes the GWOT states just that the entire world "US, China, Afghanistan, Former Soviet Union, Germany, France, England, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Antarctica, The Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey, Lebanon, and yes even Iraq plus Every Surface on the face of this great planet" is involved. Not to mean that War has been declared on each and every country or state, but terrorists and terrorist networks that may find refuge within those locales. Not meaning that war will be declared on those countries that do have terrorists in their midst. The GWOT is kind of a new war one that has never been fought before. Iraq is included in the war on terror because of SH use of terrorist tactics and supporting other terrorists in general. Not that in any way has it been stated that SH is directly linked to 9/11 by me. My only intent here is to set it straight that OIF is a Campaign of the GWOT. After all the GWOT is not just against those involved in the events of 9/11 but all terrorists, not a specific Nation or terrorist group. For OIF to not be included in the GWOT would be totally inacurate. After all we are building a source of information based on facts not opinions. OIF being part of GWOT is not my opinion it is a fact based on the resolution which you must really read more carefully. Plus numerous speeches and the official standing of the President and his administartion as well as Congress. There are now two campaigns under the GWOT OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) and OIF.

If you actually went and resourced the facts on this subject you would also come to the same conclusion. I am kind of new to Wiki here and may not know exactly how this whole deal works. But what I do know is my facts. The GWOT is not propoganda, a political debate, nor a argument of any sort. It is a subject that has no just cause to be debated over for the purpose of a factual work such as wikipedia. I am an American and I believe every person has a right to their own opinions even about this subject. However as I stated above this source needs to be accurate in all ways. If the official standing of the US is that OIF is in support of the GWOT then it officialy is, no debate. After all GWOT is a US led Campaign same as OEF and OIF. I will not argue the details of GWOT because it is a much broader topic than I care to discuss at this time. --Swelling20 13:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your point shortly. De mortuis... 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" Should be used in the Infobox Caption

1. I have posted my reasons in the debate above and as responses below. Rangeley 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
2. I am moving vote against to a vote for. I dont want to delete the below because I dont to be accused of vandalism. However here is my case for it, and I hope Rangley can use some of this to convince others. Senate Resolution For War & you can also go here [41] and search for Iraq under "Search Multiple, Previous Congresses" and checking all boxes. The latter will give you some Bills by Congress or Senate, its easy to find it from there. Its called H.J. Res 114 "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)"--Zer0faults 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
3. It is a term for a military campaign launched by the United States, of which it claims Iraq is a part. It it not simply a propaganda name, but an official campaign name, as indicated by the U.S. medal hierarchy: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_on_Terrorism_Service_Medal". Moreover, despite criticism, it is in common usage. For example, the top 10 google results for "war on terror" return 6 links that conflate Iraq and the WOT, 1 that does not, 2 that are indeterminate (1 is wiki and 1 is a 2002 CNN report), and 1 that says the WOT is an illegitimate term (Chomsky). In fact, Iraq's role in the WOT is used not just by supporters of the War, but opponents such as Amnesty International: [42] [43]. If you disagree with the naming, take it up at the "War on Terrorism" page; but Iraq is unarguably a subcampaign of what the U.S. calls the WOT.

   Moreover, this absurd argument is being sparked by partisans that agree with one and not the other and want to separate the two. If it were indeed the U.S. fighting the WOT and the U.K. fighting in Iraq, you can argue away to your heart's delight to whether or not Iraq constitutes a fight against terrorism. But as the U.S. is the principal protagonist in both, and it is a subcampaign in U.S. military terms, the two are indelibly linked and your arguments over the merits of it won't change that link.--Mmx1 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Frankly, I don't see why it matters what anyone's opinion on the war really matters, including whether we think it involves terrorists or not. The War On Terror is a brand name developed and marketed by the US government and Bush's administration. Any other government's participation is just that - participation in a creation of the US. That campaign was created, and is executed, by said administration. The Iraq war is also a product of that administration and was also created and executed clearly and deliberately as a facet of the WOT. Since the "owner" of both brands calls them such, then that is simply what they are called. Nothing more, nothing less. The relative success or failure to make the Iraq war succeed as part of the WOT is not for an encyclopedia editor to decide. We consolidate, clarify, and then regurgitate fact. We do not interpret or edit, make judgement upon or criticize. Rexmorgan 06:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   You're right, "War on Terror" is a brand name and thats the problem. Putting it in the infobox caption brands this conflict as such and allows one side of the debate to frame the arguement. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If Nike,_Inc. released a pair of football shoes under the Air Jordan category, everyone would think that is pretty silly, but it would be most correct of us, as editors, to also place them accordingly. It is not reasonable for Wikipedians to fight such things simply because we might see them as unjust, unfair, deceptive, ect. Rexmorgan 06:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If Nike released a pair of football shoes under the Air Jordan category it would be our duty to make the reader aware of that inaccuracy, and not mislead the reader into believing this new shoe is a basketball shoe instead of a football shoe. Even if thats what Nike would prefer. You said it yourself: "consolidate, clarify, and then regurgitate". -- Mr. Tibbs 06:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, but your duty to note that it's a football, not basketball shoe doesn't extend to letting you rewrite history and say it's not an Air Jordan shoe. --Mmx1 06:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Here it comes: "But we're fighting terror!". Again, no one here needs to prove that terrorists aren't being fought in the Iraq War or that the casus belli was terrorism. All that needs to be know is that its disputed and cannot be presented in the infobox caption as an indisputable fact. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I making that argument? I'm saying that the dispute over whether or not we are fighting terrorism in Iraq, and the dispute over whether or not the war on Iraq is part of the US campaign titled "War on Terror", are separate things. Granted, the propagandistic name of the campaign makes it hard to distinguish, but that's why we should put it in quotation marks or consider another term for it. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq War is part of what the U.S. deems GWOT. --Mmx1 07:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one know that OIF is in support of GWOT, for any who oppose: Buy some reading glasses! You have given no case for your arguments. Stop trying to make points you have obviously not thouroghly researched, or only read what you wanted to hear to support your nonexistent point. Please someone show me one source that actually states OIF is not a part of GWOT, because numerous links have been posted that actually say OIF is in support of GWOT. --Swelling20 14:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" should Not be used in the Infobox Caption

1. It is a non-neutral propaganda term not in use everywhere, especially not without inverted commas. The category and the template should be deleted. De mortuis... 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   We do not delete articles about things we disagree with at wikipedia, we do not ban people we disagree with, and we do not censor people we dsiagree with. Rangeley 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   This is a vote about a content dispute, no censorship. Suffering from paranoia? Añoranza 07:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Call it what you want, I happen to see his efforts to get people in trouble who disagree with him by falsely claiming they are frequently personally attacking others, and is efforts to remove legitimate content, going so far as to delete a template, as censorship. Rangeley 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Your innuendo and fighting on in an edit war in spite of a clear consensus against you are not helpful in any way. You even summarize "vandalism", deleted an NPOV tag and listing something for deletion is how these things are dealt with here, not censorship. Please take the time to inform yourself about how wikipedia works. Añoranza 16:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   The discussion has not ended, and I do not intend to just give up because a poll shows 9 out of 11 people do not agree with me. The basis on which they disagree is a terribly unconvicing one, and the debates are still ongoing. Your side has the numbers, and can admittedly edit much more efficiently than I, since I cannot keep reverting indefinately. But is this good enough for you? Does it make you feel content that more people agree with you? Does this settle it in your mind? Or have you looked at what the sides are saying, looked at the arguments, and questioned, authentically, whether your views are right? Is it good enough that you have more people, or are you looking to be right? I hope you do not resign yourself to accept numbers as "good enough," because even if 1000 people beleive a lie it is no more true than if 1 did.

   What you are doing is vandalism, because it is removing leaders of countries who played an important role in the war on terror, and it is removing wars that were began as part of the war on terror. Your reason for removing Silvio Berlusconi and Aznar was that they were war criminals. The shear fact that this is your reasoning makes it impossible for it to be anything but vandalism. It would be like me removing Stalin from the Cold War template because hes no longer the leader of the Soviet Union, or because I claimed he was a War Criminal. Or if I removed the Vietnam War from the template because it was a controversial war that many found not worth fighting. Or if I tried to delete the Cold War template because the name implied it was a "cold war" or one where no fighting took place.

   Would you just look at what you are saying, and what I am saying, and not just have a knee jerk reaction. As a liberal you do not need to oppose everything related to the war, especially facts. Rangeley 16:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Please take a look at vandalism and agree with me that it is different from content disputes. And stop flooding the page. It deters every reasonable person from entering the debate if there are dozens of repetitive paragraphs you have to go through. I made my point concisely, if you are unable to follow and an overwhelming majority disagrees maybe you might rethink rather than repost what you already posted so often? Please keep discussions about other articles at their talk pages. Añoranza 18:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Añoranza, debate my points. Calling it innuendo, and flooding to actually put points out there is not productive. You removed former leaders of countries that participated in the War on Terror, this is vandalism. It is vandalism if I remove Stalin from the Cold War Template. It is vandalism if I remove the Vietnam War from the Cold War. What you are doing by removing these things is vandalism, especially since you have been unable to justify your edits. And forgive me for restating things over and over, but the truth isnt changing. Rangeley 20:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   I do not debate with someone who does not know the difference with a) aggressively posting innuendo everywhere time and again completely ignoring he has been refuted many times and b) a reasonable respectful debate. Añoranza 00:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   I do not beleive I have called you paranoid, or ignorant during the course of the debate, something you have bestowed on me. It doesnt bother me though, this is obviously a contentious issue and it is to be expected that things get heated at times. However, I do not appreciate it when people claim I am disrespecting them, because this is definately without base. Someone could easilly come in here, guns blazing, and try and flame out the opponents in a blaze of colorful words an imagery. But I have definately kept away from that entirely, and have tried my best to accomplish the daunting task of debating several people at once. If you are taking my actions as being agressive, I apologize for this. I am only looking to explain the facts in the best way I can, and I do not beleive the facts have been refuted once throughout this long debate. You cannot refute the fact that the United States and its allies began a conflict known popularly as the war on terror. You therefore cannot refute the fact that they, as the creators, can add expansions, and new installments to this campaign. Their is an undeniable connection, and this connection has existed since before the war began, as the government stated Iraq as 'the next step.' In the resolution for war, found here, and talked about Here by Mmx1, it is stated as a part of the conflict. You do not need to support the war to see this, and I am not asking you to support a war you clearly see as wrong. But understanding what campaign it is a part of is a non Point of View issue. Rangeley 01:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   I call it aggressive to flood pages with as much innuendo as you do. If nearly everyone tells you you are missing their points, why do you think it makes sense to post the same stuff over and over again, telling others they lack logic and such? And why do you keep edit warring in spite of a clear consensus against you? Añoranza 07:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   I am sorry if that is all you take from it. I have never said anyone lacks logic, but rather, their argument lacks logic. And I have said it before, I will say it again. Are you looking simply to have more people supporting you, or are you looking to be right? Rangeley 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   I am sorry but I have given up on you. I have never seen anyone reverting 25 times on the same issue and posting a zillion paragraphs on talk pages in spite of a clear consensus that his points are entirely flawed. Añoranza 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   If you ever get the urge to debate my points, atleast you know you cant help but find them. Rangeley 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

2. As I said before, any unmitigated claim that the 2003 Iraq invasion either is, or is not, part of the war on terrorism, should not be a part of this article; where there is no public consensus, it is not Wikipedia's place to take sides. Rather, the article should include a mention that the Bush Administration has asserted that it is part of the war on terrorism. Captioning the top photograph "Part of the War on Terrorism" is unacceptably POV, and that caption should be removed. --Hyperbole 05:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   It is not POV to recognize that something is part of a campaign. Rangeley 20:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

3. I think the term should not be used, it is obviously a propaganda based term. It also is not widely respected, perhaps used to relate, but not accepted as factual. Anyway the reasons given by the US government to the people of the US was not terrorism, but weapons of mass destruction. This was also the reason given to the UN, as we went to war over Iraqs inability to cooperate with the IEAE.--Zer0faults 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   Incorrect, before the war even began it was said to be the 'next step in the war on terror.' There was no single reason given for going to war, though the one most debated and discussed has obviously been the WMD (it was their failure to cooperate with the UN, not the IAEA by the way.) The War on Terrorism, as described by the participants, is not solely against Al Qaeda, or solely against related groups, but also treats regimes and governments who support them (such as the Taliban) in the same right as the terrorists themselves. You can disagree with the logic behind their decision to treat them this way, however these are the terms of the conflict. As Saddam and his regime supported terrorism, it is not propaganda to say that this is part of the wider conflict. Propaganda is merely a one sided argument, for instance it would be propaganda to state that the Iraq War is the best war in all of history. It would be propaganda to take republican talking points as the sole source for information on the war. However, it is not propaganda to recognize this conflict as part of the War on Terror. As I said above, it would be like if an author wrote a series of books, it is not propaganda to, when writing the wikipedia articles on them, include each book as part of the series. It would by propaganda to state that it is the best series in the world, or the best book in the world. I really hope this is a clear enough example to understand. Rangeley 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   The reason stated for going to war was Iraq's violation of UN resolutions regarding its disarmament of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Its continued manufacturing of long range missles, which violated its prior agreement. Terrorism was not a reason given to the UN, nor was the resolution used as the basis for the war based on terrorism. Resolution 1441 (2002) for which Iraq was stated as being in violation of, states the reasons as: 1) Iraq's obstruction of UNSCOM and IAEA officials to sites. 2) Iraq's proliferation of WMD's and longe-range missles posing threats to internation peace and security. 3)Iraq's failure to provide full final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its WMD and ballistic missle programmes. 4) Failure to comply with its commitments to end terrorism (against its own members and kurds) and also to return Kuwaiti nationals and property.

   So as you see since the US's reason for gonig to war with Iraq was their failure to comply with Resolution 1441 (official reason), they did in fact not go to war over terrorists. In fact the CIA knew the Zarqawi was in northern Iraq at the time of the invasion, a part of the land controlled by the Kurds. Please realize their is a distinction between what Bush said on the nightly news and what reason the United States gave the UN. --Zer0faults 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   Firstly, the USA did give Iraqs terrorist connections as an example of a threat they posed, Colin Powell stated to them that the potential to give WMD's, bio weapons, and money to terrorist organizations was real [44], and Iraq did infact support palestinian terror organizations. The United Nations did not begin the war, it was the coalition of the willing, IE. USA and allies. Before the war began, and since the war has began, the US Government has stated a variety of reasons, ranging from WMD's, Terrorist ties, Humanitarian violations, and ofcourse failure to comply with the UN. And as I said, it was stated as a part of the War on Terror. Your argument might have held weight if the UN had begun the war, in which case they would set the terms for whether it was part of it or not. If they chose to have it be seperate, and merely a forced disarmament, it would be just that. However, the United Nations did not wage the war, it was instead the USA and allies, whose stated objectives included disarmament, as well as Iraq's support for terrorism - making it a part of the US led war on terror. Rangeley 21:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   While I have changed my vote to for, since I have now read the actual Resolutions, and linked them above for those curious. I do also stand by the fact that the link between Iraq and AQ was never proven correct, much like the uranium from Africa debacle and the whole WMD idea in general, including the accusations Iraq was making nuclear weapons.--Zer0faults 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Leave the propaganda for the politicians. We're historians. Kevin Baas^talk 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   As I said above, it is not propaganda to include it as part of the series. Historians would lose their job if they selectively looked at history like you and others are proposing. Imagine if a large group of people began to push for the removal of The New Deal from wikipedia as the term was coined by the government. Or the Marshall Plan. Just because they have a name that perhaps doesnt fit everyones idea of what they should (were all the initiatives "new" in the New Deal? Did Marshall really think up everything in the Marshall Plan?) they are nonetheless what most people call them. Just because their name was made by the government doesnt mean we cant state the truth: the large sums of money that went to France after ww2 were a part of the Marshall Plan, The National Recovery act was part of the New Deal. And the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   (Ignore)The difference between the "New Deal" arguement you proposing is that you have no facts regarding when the term began appearing in the encyclopedia. The problem is the term is debated now but has already become widely accepted, not for its accuracy, but just because its the term that stuck. By applynig that here you are almost promoting the furthur spreading of misinformation. Since the issue of the Iraq War being part of The War on Terrorism is in fact debated now, why should we adobt a term that is wrong? Does Wikipedia promote false terminology, and misinformation simply because its popular? I think not. (Ignore)--Zer0faults 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   My point is, though politicians may change what they call things after-the-fact, the task of the historian is to faithfully keep things in chronological order. In the article, we might put on the record the administration's propaganda efforts, attributed to the administration, but to balance that out we also would need to put in the article opposing views, likewise attributed. Notice, for instance, that the title of this article is not "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Kevin Baas^talk 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Indeed it is not called that, the reason for this is due to it both including that operation, and the other operations conducted by the other countries. So in other words, it is not solely Operation Iraqi Freedom being described. As historians we must put things in chronological order, as such, this must be characterized as part of the War on Terror. Before it began it was touted as the next step, when the war was made with Iraq it was noted as a part of the War on Terror. It is not a propaganda effort, it is the truth. Read the entire article Zer0faults gave if you dont want to take my word for it. Rangeley 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   I'll look into it further. Let me add, though, that I see no way for the adminstration, or anyone else for that matter, to honestly, rationally say, that we invaded iraq to fight terrorists, because the only terrorists in iraq were in a northern region not under Baathist control, and our war was against the Baathist regime. The title "part of the war on terror" suggests, misleadingly, that in the known circumstances the war could somehow have been expected to reduce terrorism. Insofar as our task is to historically inform (rather than misinform) the reader, such a title is inappropriate. Like i said, leave the propaganda to the politicians. we'll record the facts. Kevin Baas^talk 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   You can read the actual Senate/Congressional resolution for yourself, the wording in the resolution authorizing the use of force itself states "war on terror." Senate Resolution. If furthur arguement arises I have compared that to what is found on the THOMAS: Congressional Library page. It is in fact the same document. So the agressor in this war, that being the Unites States was authorized to use force and those authorizing it stated it was part of the war on terror. I am not really sure what the debate is anymore considering this fact, its not simply propaganda but actual terminology used in the House Resolution passed by both House and Senate. Please see my vote above for directions to finding it on the Congressional Library homepage.--Zer0faults 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

5. If World War Two wasn't 'The War on Nazism' or 'The War on Fascism', I don't see how this can be called 'The War on Terrorism.' Czolgolz 17:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   This is a confused argument. For starters, noone is suggesting we rename the Iraq War The War on Terror. However, you are correct that people do not call WW2 The War on Fascism. That is why we we do not call it that at wikipedia. But we do put together events, such as the Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Battle of Okinawa, and other battles. This is done by placing "Part of World War Two" in their "partof" section. This is what has to be done with the Iraq War article. I know that you may not think it was a necessary part of the conflict that the US and its allies are waging, however it is nonetheless a part of this conflict. Rangeley 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   Compelling argument, Rangley. Czolgolz 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

6. I think the familiar rhetoric "War on Terrorism" is to general and has some contradictory implications to current U.S. foreign policy.--Existential Thinker 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   It is no more contradictory than to call something a part of the Gulf War. Wikipedias article on the Gulf War refers to the 1991 conflict, despite the fact that other wars were at times called the Gulf War. The reason they do this is that currently, most people mean the 1991 war when they say Gulf War. Likewise, the War on Terrorism article is about the conflict that began in 2001, as this is currently what most people mean when they say War on Terrorism. Both articles make note of how other, past conflicts and wars held the name, but this does not interfere with the usage of the name Gulf War, and neither should it interefere with the usage of the term War on Terrorism. Rangeley 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   To support Rangeley part of the wording in the exact resolution H.J.Res 114 by the 107th congress and Senate titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)"

   "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;"

   "Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"

   Considering the term "War on Terrorism" is mentioned directly in the resolution I believe now that the term is being properly used and classifying War in Iraq with War on Terrorism is in fact the proper way of handling it. The war was engaged by the United States perdominantly and that terminology they use is just that. --Zer0faults 22:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

7. The term should not be used in the infobox. A section of the article should consider the issue and indicate that there are different views about whether the invasion of Iraq is part of this war on an abstract noun.--csloat 00:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Just because some peoples views differ from reality is no reason to accomodate for them here. We are not interested in presenting urban legends, and other falsities that people beleive. We at wikipedia state facts, and the fact is that the United States and its Allies began the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror. It can be noted that some question its necessity, or question whether it is a useful part of the war on terror, however we cannot stretch the truth and deny that the US and their Allies started the war as a part of a wider campaign for which they also started... and thus have the authority to add more parts to. Rangeley 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   The American administration is not the judge of what is "reality." It's safe to say the majority of the world does not consider the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror; this is hardly an "urban legend." As I said, a section of the article should consider the issue and indicate that there are different views on it. Following your logic, we could just as easily include "partof=Jihad against Jews and Crusaders" as Rama notes below.-csloat 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   It is exactly an urban legend as it is widely beleived, but in fact untrue. The United States does not determine what reality is, however when they begin a campaign, they can add parts to this campaign. For a rather archaic example, lets think of it as an expansion pack to a game that is out there, called "The War on Terror." The game came out in September 2001, and was widely popular due to anti terrorist sentiment. In late 2001, an expansion pack is released, which takes place in Afghanistan. Most people give it good reviews. Two years later, the game is still popular, and the company decides to release another expansion pack, which takes place in Iraq. But when it comes out most people do not think it was that good. Some go so far as to say they dont think it is even an expansion pack. But the company says it is, not only that, it was touted as an expansion pack as early as 2002. What would we, as wikipedia say? Is the fact that some dispute its quality and whether it is an expansion pack good enough reasoning to not include it as such? Or does the company atleast have some authority to say whether or not it is part of the series? Ofcourse they do. Sure, its POV to say this game is the best, or as good as other ones. But its not POV to recognize its part of the series.

   So forgive me if that was a rather lame example, however I think it proves to be quite the analogy. The US government and its allies began the War on Terror, they have the authority to state when another part is added to it. They do not have the authority to state whether its a good part, and we cannot take their talking points on this. But we can, and must take their authority on whether its a part of the conflict they began. Rangeley 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   No. We cannot, and we must not. The war, as conservatives never tire of reminding us, was started by a coalition, not by the U.S. Defense Department; and, as dominant as the U.S. role is in the war, it still is not the sole defining body. The U.N. does not recognize the war as part of a war on an abstract noun. The majority of the world's people do not. As noted above and by others below, your argument is an equally good argument for putting in partof=Jihad against Jews and Crusaders, on the theory that bin Laden started the war, not the US, therefore he gets to define it. Of course the theory would be bogus but the same is true of the US propaganda term "war on terror." Again, let's have a section where these different viewpoints are noted rather than letting propaganda terms dictate the categories.--csloat 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   You are correct, when we get down to it the war is being waged by a coalition. This coalition does not, however, include the United Nations. All participants fought it on the grounds of it being part of the War on Terror. And again, you mixed up two things I said. If Osama began the war, he could name it whatever he wanted, sure. Just like how the USA can name it whatever they want. Ultimately, though, a consensus does emerge, among the press, among the governments, and among the people. Among the English speaking portion, for which this wiki represents, the term War on Terror has won out over all others when referring to the conflict. Rangeley 00:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   You acknowledge below that for the English speaking world (and I'm not sure why we should limit it to that, since there are translations for "war on terror" in other languages) most people would not refer to the Iraq war as part of the war on terror. You seem to think the "war on terror" is a term for a specific set of military campaigns. It is not, and even Bush Admin propaganda acknowledges that. Pentagon analysts often refer to "gwot" (global war on terrorism), and it is true that many of them portray the war on Iraq as part of the gwot (though others portray it otherwise; see, for example, Jeff Record). In fact, the war in Iraq is often portrayed as a separate event, with discussions of whether the campaign will help or hurt the gwot. But your assumption that Wikipedia categories should uncritically mirror those of the Pentagon is also incorrect.--csloat 20:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   Please note the difference between the majority of people recognizing the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror, and the majority of people referring to the conflict for which the US began as the War on Terror. The first is a false, and remains false even when a majority beleives it. The US Government, and Coalition governments used the language "war on terrorism" when they began the war in Iraq. They officially referred to it as a part of the campaign. Thus it is automatically a part of their campaign. And as a majority of the english speaking world refers to this conflict as the War on Terror, so do we. The reason we limit it to the english speaking world is because that is who we are. We call the Vietnam War the Vietnam war, whereas in Vietnamese it is called the American War. We call Germany Germany, Germany calls itself Deutschland. Rangeley 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

   Please re-read my response above and reply to that, rather than to the response you would prefer I had given. Thanks.--csloat 20:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

8. As I said before, even if everyone here thought it was an acceptable description we should still remove it because there is an ongoing debate over the use of the term in describing the Iraq War. As per my previous comments I support a subsection addressing the controversey. --Jsn4 05:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   The problem is that it is not a description, is not attempting to be a description, and that partof is never used as a description. When the Vietnam War article states it is part of the Cold War, this is not attempting to describe the war as Cold, or a struggle against two sides who never engage in combat. Instead, it is stating that the war was part of a larger conflict, popularly known as the Cold War. When it says "Part of the Cold War" it means just that, it is a part of that conflict. Likewise, when the Iraq War article states it is "Part of the War on Terror," this is not an attempt to describe the war by any means. It is simply stating it is "Part of the War on Terror," in other words, part of this larger conflict. Rangeley 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Thats my rhetorical inaccuracy. Replace the word description with catagorization and my argument stands.--Jsn4 06:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   Categorization is not quite the right word either. The Battle of Okinawa could not be cattegorized as a world war, nor would it fit in as a world war. Instead, it is part of World War Two, a specific conflict that was fought all over the world. The Vietnam War cannot be categorized as a cold war, but instead it is Part of The Cold War. You may not categorize the Iraq War as a war against terrorists, but this holds as much weight as it did with the above examples. The Iraq War is part of The War on Terrorism, a specific conflict waged by the USA and its allies. Rangeley 00:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   First, the "category" of something can be the same as what it is a part of. But all of that is completely irrelevant because none of your responses has actually answered my argument.--Jsn4 06:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   Your argument is that there is an ongoing debate. That is evidenced by this discussion. However, just because something is debated is no reason to not state the truth. I have responded to why we must recognize this was begun under the same campaign as the Afghanistan War below, in response to your Holocaust/Gulag argument. Rather than restate it, you can just find it there so I dont have to type it twice and you dont need to read it twice, as this page is getting quite lengthy. Rangeley 16:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

9. We are not to be dictated according to which concepts we analyse things. Accepting things like "War on Terror" is opening the door to "collateral", "homicidal bombers", "insurgency", or even "Holy war against the Crusaders and the Jews", for that matters. Rama 08:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   You are correct, we cannot be dictated to by anyone. For instance, think back to when the war began. French Fries were renamed, by some, to Freedom Fries. Does that mean wikipedia has to rename them? No! Not at all. While the term French Fries is not undisputed, for instance in some of the world they are called chips, it is the most commonly used term, and the one that most people will understand when you say it. Freedom Fries never caught on. Your other examples, except for insurgency, have not caught on and are not the most commonly used term for the respective items. The Iraqi Insurgency, on the otherhand, has become the most widely used term for the group, and thus we use that name at wikipedia, despite not all of the fighters included in the insurgency actually being from elsewhere. It is not being dictated to, it is using the terms that are most popular, a concept that wikipedia has always used. Rangeley 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   The concept of "War against terror" might be popular in some neo-conservative circles, perhaps even in the USA, but I would advise caution before suggesting that it is universally popular. In Europe, the word is use between huge quotations marks, and often though to be as legitimate and accurate as its counter-part, "Holy war against bla bla bla" (the series of war waged by the USA being generally though as either an imperialistic move, or a panic reaction of a ruthless administration who tries to beat a fly with a hammer because the only tool it knows is the hammer). And I don't know how many people regard opposition to the USA as a "War against US imperialism"; counting the populations of Iran, Iraq, a good deal of the Middle East anyway, probably China, undoubtly Afghanistan, quite a few people in central and South America... I think the most popular term to qualify the Bush-called "war against terror" might not be what you think. And anyway, they are trying to rename it the "Long War" now, right ? I feel tired already if we have to periodically evaluate the popularity of loaded terms initiated by the US government. Rama 07:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   We will change the name when, in the english language, most people refer to it as something different. Perhaps one day, Long War will be most popular. When this day comes, we will change it. Rangeley 16:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

10. As can be seen by the cited articles above, there is no consensus regarding including Iraq in the WOT. While the facts clearly show there is no connection with terrorism (and we know the administration was well aware of this prior to the invasion), to adopt every war the US starts as part of the WOT is ridiculous. Wikipedia should not present the talking points of the Bush administration. Nomen Nescio 10:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

    There have been ties to terrorism (for instance, support of palestinian terror groups), and further, terrorism was a stated reason in the original united states resolution for war, dated october 2002 (Senate Resolution For War). You are right in saying to adopt every war the US starts as part of the War on Terror would be ridiculous. But to not include wars that 1. Are Stated as part of the War on Terror before, and after they begin, and 2. Fit the criteria of the wider campaign, would be just as ridiculous. I am not saying everything the USA does is automatically a part of the War on Terror, but the parts that they say are, and fit the requirements of the war on terror (a war against terrorists and state sponsors of terror) are definately to be included as part of it. Rangeley 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

11. As this edit war has shown, whether or not terrorists are actually being fought in Iraq is a hotly disputed subject. Given that the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" directly implies that terrorists are being fought in Iraq, it cannot remain in the infobox caption as is. Currently that phrase presents one side of this controversial subject as fact and is no more legitimate than "Part of American Expansionism" or other phrases that make implications and do not allow neutral presentation of both sides of the arguement. If we were to let that phrase remain in its current form we would be ignoring WP:NPOV. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

    Does the phrase "part of World War Two" imply that the entire world fought in the given battle? Take the Battle of Okinawa. In it, two nations fought each other, not the whole world. Your argument fails to work because you are mistaken in what "part of" means. You appear to think it is an attempt to describe the war in a sentence. But this is not its purpose. The Part of section is meant to state what the war is a part of. Okinawa was a part of World War Two. The Iraq War is a part of the War on Terrorism. The War on Terrorism was started by the US and its Allies, the US and its Allies began this as another part of the conflict. It is not POV to recognize this. Rangeley 20:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

    Again you are missing the point. No one disputes the implications of "Part of World War Two". So there's no reason to present both sides of the arguement, because no ones arguing. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    Are you saying when someone disagrees with something we cannot state it as fact, even when it is fact? Rangeley 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    To support Rangeley It seems as though you arguement is based on your disbelief of the existence of terrorists in Iraq. The problem with that is, its not really important to the facts. The facts being presented show that the term "war on terror" was directly used in the resolution by the Senate and House resolution 114 titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)" You can find this here [45] or by looking it up yourself on [46]. Make sure when using the latter to specify you want to search the 107th congress as that is the group who authorized this resolution. So as you see, the "war on terror" is in fact that the US government clasified this conflict as. Considering how they are the agressors in the war, their terminology and classification should be the ones applied. --Zer0faults 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

    No, "aggressors" or governments do not get to dictate how their actions are recorded in history. If they did Iraq, Iran, and North Korea would all be tagged "Part of the Axis of Evil". - Mr. Tibbs 05:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    What does the Axis of Evil have to do with anything? Lets put this into simple terms. Lets say I work at a business as a manager. I ask my company to work on a new project, titled "Rejuvination Project." This projects goal is to clear the company common grounds of trash, and beautify the building itself. So when someone gets the note to clean the yard as a part of it, that is an undeniable part of project rejuvination. When someone begins to clean the side of the building, thats an undeniable part of project rejuvination. Why? Because the manager of the company began these beautifications under this wider project. The work in the yard is inextricably linked to the cleaning of the walls. It would not be POV to state that both the yard cleaning and the wall cleaning are part of the wider project. Now lets say I, as manager, called 3 rival companies "The Worst Place to Work, Ever." How is this at all similar to linking related jobs into a project I began? There is an obvious difference, and I hope you can see that. Rangeley 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose, mildly. The existence of a War on Terror, and the inclusion of the Iraq War in it, are both contested, as this discussion should make clear. Contentious statements do not belong in infoboxes when they can be readily avoided. Septentrionalis 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    They are contested on what grounds? It cannot be disputed that a campaign began after 9-11, led by the USA and its allies. It cannot be disputed that under this campaign they began two wars. You can dispute whether or not the wars are justified, and whether the campaign itself is justified, but this is no reason to doubt its existence. Rangeley 16:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose, strongly. Of course the Bush Administration view, properly labeled as POV, that Iraq is part of the WOT should be mentioned at some point in the article. At the same time there are prominent, knowledgable people (Richard Clarke is one), who have criticized the Bush position strongly and specifically said that the WOT and the Iraq war are separate. The POV of Bush's critics should also be mentioned. To slap "part of the WOT" in the infobox is to give far too much weight to the Bush Administration view, which has not been generally accepted. The whole argument can be easily avoided because it is not necessary to have a "part of" entry in the infobox at all. Brian Tvedt 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
14. It should not be used in the caption, as I've argued above. --Hermitage 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose, on the reasons that I mentioned before. Stating this as part of the "War on Terrorism" gives credence to the claim that Hussein's Iraq was connected to 9/11 and/or Al-Queda which every reputable institution (9/11 Commission, CIA, NSA, etc..) aside from openly partisan ones have stated to be non-existent. By putting "War on Terrorism" in this article we are further propagating rhetoric used by politicians and Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for rhetoric of any political issue regardless of whether it is supported by Democrats or Republicans. The only thing that should be relevant to us is the flat out facts.--Jersey Devil 05:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    Can you please inform me as to what intelligence agency said he did not have ties? You said "reputable institution" but do not list any. You then remove the CIA and NSA, two intelligence agencies in the US, as being partisan. So please list intelligence agencies that said there was in fact no link between AQ and Iraq. I would also like to state that H.J Res 114 states that the US will go after countries that harbor terrorists. Saddam had AQ members in Iraq, which has been proven above, yet did nothing to remove them, hence harboring. Please read the exact resolution, it doesnt say what you seem to think it does. --Zer0faults 11:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I include the CIA and the NSA are "reputable non-partisan institutions".--Jersey Devil 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1. This war definitely should not be labelled as part of the War on Terrorism, because such a label is highly POV and widely disputed. Just because the Bush administration calls the invasion of Iraq a part of the War on Terrorism doesn't make it a fact to be recorded in encyclopedias. Including the label makes the judgement that Bush and his supporters are correct, and his opponents who argue that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terrorism are wrong. Wikipedia policy is to not make judgements of right and wrong, but instead to record information from a neutral POV. Removing the War on Terrorism label from this article and making no judgement whatsoever on which side's characterization of the war is correct is the only way to maintain WP:NPOV. The article should certainly note that the US government calls the Iraq war a part of the War on Terrorism, but it should not declare that position to be factually correct and should note that the claim is disputed by others. Redxiv 05:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Repost of comment in identical poll in Iraq War Talk page: De mortuis, time and time again points against the term have been raised and have failed. You are essentially stating that regardless of this failure, you will continue to fight it without base. I will be the first to admit that it is likely that most people will vote along what they see as 'party lines' so to speak. They have not participated in discussion and have not seen how they have gone, but you prove that even when people participate they can still be ignorant to the truth. This topic is controversial, which makes it an unfortunate case in point of support of the policy Wikipedia has adopted. Arguments are weighed on their value, logicality, and and overall worth rather than the number of people who say it. I beleive that this is exactly why you have put up the War on Terror template for a "speedy deletion" and created this poll. You, and others, have lost in the attempt to put up a convincing argument, and now you have resorted to redefining the issue as one where we see how many people go to each side of a line. Its tiresome, and counterproductive. Rangeley 02:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from a vote, what other method of resolution do you propose, Rangeley? --Hermitage 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading through this entire arguement there seems to be one major hangup. People seem to be argueing back and forth about whether or not the US is actually fighting terrorists in Iraq. Frankly, this is irrelevant to the caption. The only reason that issue even comes up is because "War on Terrorism" is a loaded phrase. Similiar to "Axis of Evil" or "Coalition of the Willing". It was popularized by the Bush administration to imply certain things, unlike the phrase Cold War which was popularized by a journalist[47]. I am certain the pro-war people would be argueing just as much if the caption read "Part of American Expansionism". "War on Terrorism" implies that "terrorists" are being fought in these various conflicts. As this arguement has shown, that idea is disputed by a great many people. But it is certainly not an encyclopedia's place to take sides in such a dispute, and the infobox caption cannot practically cover both sides of the dispute. So I don't think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" can remain as is. - Mr. Tibbs 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your own link refutes the origins of the term "Cold War." The term was used 2x by Bernard Baruch once in South Carolina on April 16, 1947 and again on october 24th 1947 before being used by Walter Lippman in the title of his book later in 1947 called "The Cold War." Mr Baruch used the term when testifying before the Senate’s Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, and earlier at the unveling of his portrait at the South Carolina Legislature. Mr. Baruch was also working for the government. --Zer0faults 13:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The simplest solution I can think of is to place the phrase War on Terrorism in quotation marks in the caption to make it apparent to the reader that the term is suspect. That is how Axis of Evil and Coalition of the Willing are used in articles. Another option is to simply rename War on Terrorism to Invasions Initiated by George W. Bush, Military Actions of George W. Bush, or something of that nature. I wouldn't want to see the phrase or its corresponding template removed entirely though simply because I think they have organizational value. - Mr. Tibbs 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no hangup. If one day most people begin referring to this larger conflict as Bush's war, this is the term we would use at Wikipedia. Just like in the American Civil war, the North called it the civil war, the south called it the war of Northern Agression. Some 150 years later we are calling it the American Civil War, not the War of Northern Agression. This is not because Wikipedia has a bias, or has chosen sides, favoring the north. This is because the term, American Civil War, has become the most common name for the event in the english language. Some currently dispute whether it fits the definition of Civil War, some still claim it to be Lincoln's war or the above stated War of Northern Agression. But only when these titles become the most commonly used, and recognized term for the war will Wikipedia rename its article on the American Civil War. There are few wars which I can think of that are not loaded somehow. For instance, The Mexican-American War is a simple title that just lists the countries involved. Most wars are not like this. If you had never learned about the Cold War, and a teacher asked what your first impression was, you might say perhaps it was fought in the arctic. Or perhaps you would be more familiar with terminology and suggest that the Cold War was a war with cooling relations, but no actual combat. In both cases you would be wrong, not only was the Cold War fought in a lot of hot places like Vietnam, but it was fought on the battlefields, not simply cooling relations. The name implies one thing, but the reality is different. The name War on Terror is no different. If you had never heard what the name meant, you might think it would have to do with some FDR initiative against "the only thing to fear." Or you might, if you were more familiar with terminology, suggest it was a "war," so to speak, much like the war on drugs, that would include higher security being implemented and the tracking down of terrorists acrossed the world. You would be incorrect in both cases, though the second example is going on, it is not the only thing that this conflict includes. The article itself states its mission is to go after terrorists and state sponsors of terror.

You bring up an interesting point with the Coalition of the Willing. Why is it in quotes, when past military alliances, also named by the participants, are not, such as the Axis Powers, Allied Powers, Central Powers... NATO, Warsaw Pact. I mean now the article has been moved to "Multinational force in Iraq" rather than "Coalition of the Willing," perhaps thats what most people call it, I have honestly not looked into that one. And Mr Tibbs, just because people dispute something is no reason to shirk from our responsibilities to present the truth. The War is Part of a larger campaign, this is a fact. The name for this campaign is popularly known as The War on Terror. This is a fact. The origin of this term is irrelevent, what matters is whether it catches on. In the case of the Invasion of Iraq, the term Operation Iraqi Freedom did not catch the imaginations of the world and is not what most people use to refer to the invasion. The War on Terror, on the other hand, proved catchy enough to become popular, and stay popular. Rangeley 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter what term is more popular, just like it doesn't matter whether or not terrorists are actually being fought in Iraq. "Axis of Evil" was a popular phrase for quite a while. Does that mean we should tag Iraq, Iran and North Korea with "Part of the Axis of Evil" in the infobox caption? Of course not. If we were to go just based on popularity Iraq War would be tagged with "Part of American Expansionism" simply because the majority of the world feels that way. [48] Fact of the matter is the phrase "Part of the War on Terror" makes serious implications about this conflict which cannot be neutrally presented in an infobox caption. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC) -- But in any case, both sides are apparently unwilling to compromise so the best that can be done now is to wait a while, tally up the votes, and then act on the consensus. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your arguement ignores the fact that Axis of Evil is not the name of a campaign. It is also not the term used to identify those nations in any House or Senate bill. "War on terror" however is used in Resolution 114 stating the Iraq War was part of the "war on terror." You are comparing the name given to a campaign with a name used to identify a group. If you arguement is one you truely believe in then you should be in the AQ thread arguing about that because it was given to the group by the US government. You could also argue then about the term Cold War because that was also a name coined by Bernard Baruch while being the US appointee to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC). I will state however that I am fine with War on Terror being in quotation marks. --Zer0faults 14:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting that you cannot see where the difference lies. The United States and Allies create Campaign A. In Campaign A, they make War with Afghanistan, and War with Iraq. This is a fact. Both of these wars are part of this campaign. I want you to dispute this, Mr Tibbs. Provide us all with information stating that the United States and its allies began the Iraq War as a seperate war, and not under the wider "Campaign A." Campaign A was named the "War on Terrorism" by those waging it. Just like the Al-Aqsa Intifada, this particular conflict has been popularly known by its assigned title, rather then names given to it by outsiders, such as the Oslo War, or American Expasionism. When a bus bombing occured in 2002, would it be a POV to say it was part of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, when those perpetrating it claim it to be? No. Simply, no. It is not POV, but instead factual. Is it somehow justifying the attack by putting it into the wider conflict? No. Simply, no. Is it somehow justifying the Iraq War by putting it into the wider conflict? No. Simply, no. Do most people call the War on Terror (ie, campaign A) American Expansionism? Nope. The Axis of Evil is a term used to describe 3 nations, not to label an existing military alliance. Further, nations military alliances are not displayed in their infoboxes. If a military alliance existed, and the popular name for it was Axis of Evil, this is where we would find it at. Just like we can find the former soviet alliances at Eastern bloc, a term they did not create, but was instead applied by western media and governments. Rangeley 21:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the template should be deleted, because it constitutes original research. It is not for Wikipedia editors to determine which events are, and are not, part of the WoT. --Hyperbole 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what is this debate about? If its not in our place to determine what is and what isnt, shouldnt this issue be settled? All of those events have been claimed to be part of the War on Terror, and all of those people have either claimed to be participating in the War on Terror, or have been the targets of the War on Terror as stated by those participating. Rangeley 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that for any given entry on that template, there is no objective answer as to whether it is part of "War on Terror." Take, for example, the 2005 Bali Bombings - why is a terrorist attack against Indonesia, by Indonesians, part of any American "War on Terror"? No source is cited in the template showing who is defining that attack as part of the WoT, and I'm afraid it's probably the author of the template doing it - which violates WP:NOR. --Hyperbole 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing people are failing to grasp is "war on terror" is the term used in the resolution passed justifying the War in Iraq. The senate resolution itself specifies the attack on Iraq is part of a "war on terror" [49] you can also search for it yourself here [50] if you believe the whitehouse.gov page is biased. When searching on the THOMAS: Library of Congress page, please specify the 107th congress and search for H.J. Res 114 "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)" --Zer0faults 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If the attack caused a response, such as the respective government vowing to fight the war on terror, it is inevitably part. It isnt original research. Take, for example, the Amman Bombings. After this, Jordans King declared that they would help further in the War on Terror in the region. This is logically a part of the War on Terror, just as September 11th attacks are. Others, such as the Madrid, or London bombings were done in retaliation for the respective countries participation in Iraq - as claimed by the perpetrators. Further, the Madrid bombing led to the ousting of a pro war regime and brought in an anti war one, which lost the coalition a participant. Rangeley 21:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This will echo Tibbs somewhat but I think the ascertion that the votes opposed to the use of term aren't partisan at all. If they were partisan we'd be arguing for the article to be tagged with "Part of American Imperialist Expansion" or "Part of the Neoconservative Plot to project American Power". The argument is only that there is a controversy and that wikipedia shouldn't just declare one side of the controversy true by placing the term at the top of the infobox.--Jsn4 05:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a controversy for which you may have heard of regarding evolution. Many people feel as though it isnt a scientific theory, and is wrong. Some others beleive it is a scientific theory, and is true. As Wikipedia, this controversy is irrelevant to the facts we present. We would not take sides in the dispute; declaring evolution true cannot be done. But we can state the fact that it is a scientific theory. This is not taking sides, it is presenting facts. This specific fact may indeed help out those supporting evolution, but we are not implying that it should, rather, we are stating the fact that it is a theory. Likewise, we cannot state that the War on Terror, or the Iraq War is right or wrong. We can state facts. Saddam Hussein was deposed. Insurgents have risen and are causing many casualties. Infrastructure has been damaged. Elections have been held and a democratic government has taken over. These are facts, 2 of which can be used by those against the war to prove a point, 2 of which can be in support of the war to prove a point. But presenting these facts is not in violation of NPOV. I can understand why you may think that stating the fact that the war is part of a wider campaign, popularly known as the War on Terror, is taking sides. But it is not, any more than stating there is damage to the infrastructure is taking sides. The War is part of a larger campaign for which is known as the War on Terror. Controversy, yes. Factual, yes. Nowhere is it wikipedias policy to not state the truth when there is controversy. Rangeley 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If we want to state facts, we should be stating that the Bush Administration considers the Iraq War to be part of the War on Terror, and that many Americans within the U.S. government, media, and academic circles, do not. The President does not have the executive power to define terms. --Hyperbole 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The House and Senate both agreed by majority vote on H.J. Res 114 which states the Iraq War is in fact part of the "war on terror." The term is used in the official Congressional resolution [51]. So in fact at its onset, the Iraq war was decided to be part of the "war on terror" by a majority of both the House and Senate of the United States. This means the people who initiated the war, and make up the majority of forces in the war, call it part of the "war on terror" officially. Sadly enough if Bush decided to attack Canada tomorrow and the Senate and House signed a resolution saying it was in fact part of the war on terror, then they would be justified in naming it, they get to call it what they want. Academic professors can disagree with its classification, but they are not the ones who get to name conflicts, battles, and missions. --Zer0faults 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're dead wrong. Military leaders and presidents name missions and operations, but conflicts and battles are named by academics and historians. --Hyperbole 06:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples, the Cold War was named by a government official. WWI and WWII I believe are self naming, but I will accept credible sources as to their naming history if needed. Please also stick to campaigns as that is what were are discussing here, not specific wars.--Zer0faults 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are specific requirements for something to be a scientific theory. Thats a question that can be answered quite easily. Something isn't part of the War on Terror just because a) the President says so or b) terrorists show up to fight us. So what standard are you using that I can compare to "can be empirically disproven" or "agreed up by the vast majority of people in the field".--Jsn4 21:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The government has the ability to define programs and conflicts it begins. They also have the ability to start new operations and initiatives in this conflict. Lets say you make a television series, called "The Best Damned Sports Show, Period." You make 10 episodes, all about sports teams. A few of them came out good, but the rest of the episodes sucked. By the end of the series run, most people hate it. At wikipedia, some people begin saying "Hey, its POV to say that episode is part of 'The Best Damned Sports Show, Period,' because it sucked! Saying its part of that series is blatantly POV!"

Would you agree with this person? Because thats whats going on here. Those who made the "series" or in this case campaign, named it, and started two wars under it. Whether or not your show was indeed the best damned sports show, and whether or not a war actually fought solely terrorists is beyond the point. It was begun as a part of it, and that is all that it takes for us to define it as part of it. Rangeley 21:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh! I get it! Wow, looks like we have a lot of work ahead of us. Please join me is demanding that the article on Soviet Gulags be renamed "Corrective Labor Facilities" and the Holocaust article will have to be renamed "The Final Solution to the Jewish Question." We'll also have to rename THIS article "Operation Iraqi Freedom". What? We already decided NOT to do that?? Guess that puts a damper on your standard doesn't it.--Jsn4 06:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between the conflict in question and the examples you provide - namely, that saying "War on Terror" immediately brings up associations in most english-speakers' minds between the overall campaign and the Iraq war. Whether or not any of us think those associations are justified or if they are just the result of deceptive campaigning is irrelevant. Your examples, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, use names and titles that hardly anyone uses in common speech and typically only even know through rote fact, not association by use. Rexmorgan 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you brought up the holocaust as an example, Jsn. The Buchenwald concentration camp, and Auschwitz camp, were part of the final solution, no? This 'campaign' was started by the Nazi regime, and there were many parts to it. From the gas chambers, to the concentration camps. Obviously, they lacked justification for what they did - but does this prevent us from recognizing the connection between such things? When the Jews were rounded up, was this part of a different campaign to when they were executed? No! It was the same campaign, so to speak. The Nazis called it the final solution, but in the english language the most common term for it is the holocaust. I am also glad that you brought up the gulags. According to you, they were named Corrective Labor Facilities, though I do not know if this is right. Lets say they were though. So they build several in siberia, several here, several there. All of them are grouped together under the same program in the soviet union, high security prisons and such. Is it propaganda to state that all of the camps are part of the same program? No! Ofcourse, we english speaking people have come to refer to them as the gulags, but this does not change the fact that they are part of the same program. Now, I am not asking for this article to be renamed, so I dont get where you get that from, because I have infact stated several times that this is not what I am going for. The invasion of Iraq is commonly known as such, rather than the US operation name for it, or the British operation name for it. This was not the 'official' name given to the invasion, far from it, the government used the term liberation. The most common name is Invasion of Iraq, and it is aptly named. The War on Terror is aptly named as well, for at the moment, it is the most commonly used name for the campaign. It also happens to be the name assigned to it, atleast roughly (its Global War on Terror officially). But this is a seperate point. That is the justification for the naming of the campaign. The justification for including this as part of the campaign in question is the same justification for grouping the different parts of the holocaust together, or different parts of the gulag camps together. They were linked in a program, or campaign, conducted by a government or governments, making them undeniably linked. Rangeley 15:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the vast majority of English speaking people would not call the Iraq war part of the War on Terror. They would call it part of American Imperialist Expansion.--Jsn4 18:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that what most people call the campaign for which it is a part of, or is that what most people think was the real cause for the war? The difference is one is the name for the campaign it belongs to, the other would belong in the "Possible Ulterior Motive" section, or as a critocism. Rangeley 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the difference. Both are true. Most people who speak English would not refer to the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror--Jsn4 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? How do you know? Or is it "most of my friends would not refer to the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror" Because the google results say otherwise - including media outlets like the Washington Post and opponents of the war like Amnesty International. --Mmx1 19:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See, that wouldnt matter. It is a part of the War on Terror, regardless of what people think, just like the different parts of the holocaust will be parts of it regardless of what people think. Rangeley 18:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but in your own words, when people start calling it that, we'll use it. Kevin Baas^talk 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please post the poll you are using to verify your claims of what people call this campaign and what they do not, Thank you. --Zer0faults 13:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasnt the codename of the Iraqi invasion originally "Operation Freedom" and not "Operation iraqi freedom"?

No, it has never been assigned that name. Rangeley 20:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's rewriting history? The 2002 Senate Resolution for war on Iraq clearly states:

 Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing   
support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass  
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United  
Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the 
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security 
Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of 
authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against     
international 
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who 
planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or 
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions 
against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations 
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on  
September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and 
prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint 
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and....

The House Resolutions and Colin Powell's statements before congress contain similar language. Terrorism was ALWAYS part of the Iraq War rationale. It is Kevin Baas and Nescio who are attempting to rewrite history by claiming it was only WMD that lead us to war. --Mmx1 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations" - October 2002-[52]

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link - September 2003

Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link - September 2003

Who's rewriting history, indeed. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How does that effect the fact that it was stated as a part of the war on terrorism before it began? And please note that the resolution does not state that Saddam was involved in 9-11. Rangeley 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, it just includes "September 11, 2001" 5 times in the resolution for the fun of it. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that, as this is an encyclopedia, the purpose is to regurgitate information accurately, not to hold a debate between two or more individuals who personally hold no historical significance. No one in the greater world cares what you or I or anyone else here thinks of the war or the President, so pushing your opinions on them is fruitless at best. Rexmorgan 06:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Some misconceptions have become part of this page.

1. I never denied that the attacks on 9-11 were used to justify this invasion. My point was that the administration explicitly used Al Qaeda, and not terrorism in general. Further, since we now know that no such link existed, and this was known to the administration well before this invasion started, it is difficult to maintain the argument that Iraq is part of the war against the people behind 9-11, which is what the administration contended.
2. If we adopt the view that this administration is fighting terrorism in general, I would think this results in several inconsistencies.

• We know the US has supported OBL. We know OBL is a known terrorist. This means that the US has supported international terrorism. Further, we know of many other terrorist organisations (i.e.IRA, FARC, Saudi Arabia as sponsor of terrorism, et cetera) that are/were supported (directly or indirectly) by the US. Therefore, logic dictates that any attack against the US must also be part of the war on terrorism and not vice versa (i.e. named terrorism).
• By definition, this would nmean that any war, that involves terorist organisations, is part of this WOT. In other words, if the US invaded Ireland and Spain to fight the IRA and ETA, it would be called part of the WOT.
• Not many would support the previous assertions, therefore the premisse that the WOT is against ALL terrorist organisations, or countries supporting terrorism, must be flawed. Nomen Nescio 14:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your main problem in your entire lengthy argument is that you are looking at the war on terrorism as an open ended term. It is not. The term applies to a specific conflict being fought by the USA and its allies. You can question the credibility of this conflict, and question whether the popular name of it accurately reflects whether it is doing what it is or not. You can even question whether the wars in this conflict are justified at all. However, this is irrelevant. Just as we link together the different parts of the Nazi "Final Solution," a program that is popularly known as the Holocaust, we must include the different parts of the US/Ally led campaign, popularly known as the War on Terror. When you include Auschwitz and Buchenwald together with Krystalnach, it is not a point of view. These different events and camps are linked together under the same nazi program. So long as this nazi program is known popularly as the holocaust, it is correct to state they are part of the holocaust. So long as this US/Ally program is known popularly as the War on Terror, it is correct to state the Iraq war is part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 16:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The main problem w/your argument is it totally ignores the logic of his. Kevin Baas^talk 17:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with his logic is it totally ignores the facts stated above. He contends that the US used Al Qaeda in its resonining, but this is faulty as you can see by the passages in the Resolution, it states terrorism in a general way. It does not even state we are gonig after specific terrorists that commited 9/11 attacks. Nomen Nescio is also stating that the US can attack any country and call it part of the War on Terror if we follow the logic of allowing this to be included. Oddly enough he seems not to be debating any of the facts and instead making assumptions on what the US can get away with if this article is accepted. Is anyone actually debating that Congress called the attack on Iraq part of the war on terror? If not then this debate is over, you cannot keep contending what is a fact, simply because you fear its implications in the future.

What people are failing to grasp is the US is the agressor, they can name their conflicts whatever they please. If they wanted to call it the "War Against Too Much Sand," then that would be the name of the conflict. You can see the term "war on terror" is used multiple times in the actual Resolution 114. So is anyone left debating the factual mentioning in the official Resolution declaring the presidents ability to use force in Iraq? Too many people here seem to be confusing the facts of the matter, with what future implications its naming may have. We arent here to prevent or justify, we are here to state facts, and it is a fact that congress refers to this conflict as part of the "war on terror." --Zer0faults 20:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem with your logic is that you present as fact what is assertion. As there is a debate as to whether or not Iraq is part of the WOT there clearly is no support for the claim it is fact. Second, if you implement a certain logic you also implement its consequences. If the US can determine how a global problem should be named, it means they can unilaterally define for the world what "torture," "war of aggression," "terrorism," "global warming," "science," et cetera staand for. This would be a novel idea! (Interestingly, it is exactly what the Bush administration is trying) Nomen Nescio 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, you are blurring what this issue is into something it is not. It is no mere assertion that the Iraq War is part of the wider campaign. This is a fact. When the Nazi regime began the program which aimed to 'purify germany,' they did various things as part of this program. They started by rounding people up, moving them around. Eventually it advanced on to concentration camps, and finally mass genocide. FACT: The events were all part of the same program and effort conducted by the Nazi regime and its sattelites. ASSERTION: The events were necessary and justified. It would be innapropriate to state that the events were necessary or justified, as this is a POV. It is not a POV to state they were part of the same program, known popularly as the Holocaust.

Now for this event. FACT: The Iraq War is part of a campaign conducted by the USA and its allies. ASSERTION: It is justified and necessary. It would be innapropriate to state that the events were necessary or justified, as this is a POV. It is not a POV to state they were part of the same campaign, known popularly as the War on Terror.

There is no logical argument against that. Rangeley 21:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is not and never has been whether the war is tagged "war on terror" by the US government but if the tag should be used prominently and without quotation marks and comment in an encyclopedia. Shouting won't help you. Añoranza 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If we both agree that its part of the conflict, than what is the objection? The "partof=" was made specifically for the purpose of stating what something is a part of. No other conflict is put into quotes, so it makes no sense to do it here. Rangeley 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some government calls something they way it does does not mean wikipedia has to call it so. If you know other conflicts that are named in a way that is widely criticized you are welcome to put it in quotation marks. Añoranza 00:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardly, I am not saying we should name it that just because thats what the government does. But rather, thats what most english speaking people call the conflict in question, and also what wikipedia is currently calling the conflict in question. Rangeley 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly assertion presenting as fact. No, not most English speaking people agree with that (see cites above and you conveniently ignore that the BBC and AI both use quotation marks) and certainly including Wikipedia into the arguments is a logical fallacy. If you sttate as fact that most use Iraq as part of the WOT you surely can support that assertion with references! Nomen Nescio 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to accept quotation marks. I am willing to accept renaming "War on Terrorism" to something more in accordance with wiki standards. But my point is merely that there IS a campaign that the U.S. calls the "War on Terrorism" and the Iraq War is a part of it. Please let me know which cites you have indicating that most English Speaking people do not agree, I don't see them above. The Google analysis of top 10 results of "war on terrorism" I posted above would indicate the opposite.--Mmx1 01:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually, the burden of proof is on those making a claim, and not on those disputing it. Therefore, we need a source supporting the suggestion that Iraq is part of the WOT. Second, Google is not a valid instrument and you fail to notice that the same Google search came up with the BBC using quotation marks, arguably THE source of news in the world. Nomen Nescio 01:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to link the exact Resolution before you stop calling it an assertion. The 107th Congress used the terminology in HJ Res 114, the resolution giving power to the president to use force in Iraq. The quotes are in this subsection at the top from the exact resolution that factually gave the president the power to begin this conflict. Your objection to the term "war on terror" is because you do not believe that terrorists are being hunted in Iraq. Its almost on par with arguing if killing Jews was in fact a final solution since Hitler couldnt have expected to kill them all, the fact remains that "The Final Solution" was in fact the terminology used. The United States began this war by assembling the "coalition of the willing", the United States legal procedure called for the House and Senate to agree, they did so in a resolution that itself uses the terminology "war on terror", The officials in the government also use the term when reffering to the war they started and are maintaining. If everyone directly involved with the war is using the term, where is the arguement? Is anyone disputing the fact that the Resolution itself connects the War in Iraq to the "war on terror"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zer0faults (talk • contribs).

In other words, Nescio, you don't have cites for your assertation. You and others on your side have brought up the "most people in the english world don't say this" argument. Google is a refutation. It's a flawed tool but a useful one nonetheless. And you have no counterarument to the methodology: take the most linked sites about the "War on Terror" and see if they include Iraq. It's quite sound.

The principal protagonist of the campaign "War on Terror" says Iraq is a part; the rest is just quibbling over whether or not the name is accurate. Also, note that I am not opposed to putting WOT in quotations or renaming or whatnot, but denying that Iraq falls under America's WOT (which is what the WOT article referrs to: --Mmx1 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the opposition to the use of War on Terror in the info box (or as a category) for this article boils down to three points:

1. Ex post facto-- The argument that at the inception of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Iraq was not involved with "terror" against USA.
2. Pro-USA -- The contention that it's USA-centric to allow USA to name it's own disputes
3. Endless War -- The view that if we adopt the USA name of "War on Terror" for this article, then we might have to adopt it for others if the WOT expands to additional theaters, etc.

Now regarding these points, think about this:

• Ex post facto -- This might have validity except that:
  • Iraq did try to assassinate Bush Sr. "The DOJ and CIA reported that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot and more than likely that Bush was the target." [53]. This was clearly a "terrorist" style attack as we were not formally at war with Iraq in 1993 and at that point Bush Sr. was a private citizen noncombatant.
  • Conventional wisdom in USA in 2001 (which is prior to 2003) indicates that Iraq has long been suspected of terror ties. "Bin Laden is believed to have met repeatedly with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay. Bin Laden also seems to have ties to Iraq's Mukhabarat, another one of its intelligence services.", "Iraq doesn't shrink from financing terrorism. Baghdad has two intelligence services that have funded and planned terrorist campaigns carried out by independent organizations, starting in 1969 in eastern Iran.", "And Iraq, alone among the 22 members of the Arab League, failed to condemn the atrocities of Sept. 11. Indeed, Baghdad celebrated them. Saddam's government issued a statement, quoted widely in Al-Iraq and other state-run papers, that said America deserved the attacks." and "For almost a decade, Saddam has waged a secret terror campaign against Americans, according to terrorism experts, former government officials, U.S. government reports and newspaper accounts from around the world. That Iraqi-inspired terror campaign--working through Osama bin Laden and others--is believed to include foiled assassination attempts against President Bush père in Kuwait in April 1993 and against President Clinton in the Philippines in November 1994. The terror campaign seems to include the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; a 1995 bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed five American soldiers; a massive 1995 bombing of U.S. troop barracks at Al Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 Americans soldiers; the simultaneous bombings in 1998 of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224; and last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which killed 17 sailors and wounded 39."[54]
  • In 2002, Iraq was caught red-handed funding terror against USA ally Israel. "Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel"[55] and see Salaries For Suicide Bombers
• Pro-USA -- Arguments on this point are hard to address simply because opinions are so polarized. If we accept that the vernacular term "War on Terror" actually is in use, then the question arises. "must we discount its validity as a category, on the basis some editors contend there is no such thing?". This is a profound question. If we say "yes" (after all the anti-WOT editors here do point to some sources) then based on this principle, so long as any recognized group of agitators protest against an official name for anything, then we must not use it. I reject this reasoning. The state of Israel is not recognized by many as even existing or its name being valid. Same too for Taiwan, but we do not fail to use those names. Names of conflicts are sometimes disputed in perpetuity, but we as editors cannot agree to that. We must settle on a reasonable and rational name. If the USA name of "War on Terror" for certain of its current activities is not accurate, what do some here propose we call it? Perhaps we'll call it the Great Satan's evil crusade against pious Muslims? The only disputed word in War on Terror is "terror". And USA is only applying that term to targets it deems "terrorist" related. I see no objections on this page from Saddam loyalists contending "we object to being categorized as terror related". In fact, there is no voice coming out of Iraq which says that 2003 fighting against Saddam's group was not WOT related. As I see it, the arguments by User:Rangeley regarding naming conventions as per Vietnam War and Cold War are very persuasive and have not been rebutted.
• Endless War-- This point is the easiest to rebut. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not refuse to make edits based on what might happen in the future. We base edits on what is now and what has been in the past. Merecat 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back and I hope your weekend was good. I had sun, sea and BBQ. Anyway, several observations ad 1 To include every action from the past 50 years seems unreasonable. Further, your logic does not onclude ties of the US government to Al Qaeda around the same time. Let alone all the other terrorist related activities by the US. If Iraq was involved in terrorism, you should say the same about the US. ad 2 It is clear there are numerous, and notable, sources that do not share the position of the Bush administration. Contrary to your example Israel, which all notable organisations accept as state. Not a valid analogy. Second, there is no debate surrounding the WOT. The controversy is Iraq. By the governments own adminsion Iraq was invaded because of WMD and ties to 9-11. Both allegations are officially not supported by the current evidence available. ad 3 Stating there will be an earthquake, or impeachment is saying what "might" be. To conclude that the US is already trying to make the inevitable attack on Iran part of the WOT is not a prediction. The administration already is using ties to terrorism in its statements. Which is exactly what the result would be if we adopted your logic: any conflict can now be part of the WOT. Nomen Nescio 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see by Nomen Nescio reasoning his issue is purely political. He feels the US has commited terrorist actions and as so cannot go around attacking countries in the name of fighting terrorism. His "ad 2" is also completely false as I have numerously pointed out, and the quotes are above, that the war on terror was in fact mentioned directly in the Resolution authorizing force, also was the claims of Iraq supporting terrorists, it does not strictly say 9/11 terrorists. "ad 3" is also once again more political opinion. I think its time we start striking peoples political views if they are not supported by actual facts. The point alone of his #2 is actually directly again a fact that has been backed and posted and even quoted from numerous times in the long long discussion. Point #1 is also political, can we get someone to debate the actual Resolution? Is anyone debating Congress, and by representation of their voters, agreed this war was part of the "war on terror"? --Zer0faults 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good representation of the points that have been made. Regarding being accused of historical revisionism here: the iraq war was ostensibly a "pre-emptive strike". does anyone disagree with that? Kevin Baas^talk 03:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a political debate, or debate on the Iraq War in general, Kevin. Whether or not it is a pre-emptive strike has no bearing on whether it is part of the conflict. Rangeley 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

yes it does. in predicting my argument, you failed. can you answer the question? Kevin Baas^talk 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the USA's war as far as the world is concerned, they declared the war, so why not call it what the USA calls it? I see no problem with that. Just because you (Nomen Nescio) may personally believe the USA is "terrorist" doesn't mean it is fact. You are politically biased, and that has no place in a purely factual encyclopedia. nuff said. -Pj- 03:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do not say that the USA is a terrorist state. The logic advanced is that SH was supporting terrorism, therefore the invasion is part of fighting terrorism. The suggestion that when countries deal with terrorists this makes them a terrorist state applies to all countries. So, since the US has been proven to support terrorist organisations, heck OBL was created by the USA, logic dictates that the reasoning used, makes the US a terrorist state. Not my opinion, but the consequense of the advocated arguments.

What does any of this have to do with the current discussion? This is more political opinion and you are not even stating a point relevant to the discussion. It really does not matter if the US is a terrorist state or not, what matters, and what is being discussed, is if the War in Iraq is part of the "War on Terror" and if it should be put in the infobox, please stick to the topic.--Zer0faults 11:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To say SH was supporting terrorism because he had ties to terrorist organisations means you also think that the US is supporting terrorism because it has ties to these organisations. This is logic, but I do accept your assertion that the multitude of logical fallacies advanced, in favour of claiming Iraq is part of the WOT, are politically motivated. Nomen Nescio 12:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are reffering to me, but I did not say SH had ties to terrorism, I said Iraq was harboring terrorists by taking no action against them, by allowing them to roam the country. If you are against this idea you are against the attack on Afghanistan then as well. The Taliban never said the US couldnt have Bin Laden, they simply said they would not get him for us. SH didn't go after the terrorists, he was therefore harboring them. Much like the Serbian governement in regards to the general wanted on charges of war crimes. --Zer0faults 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• To dismiss a discussion based on an ad hominem attack usually indicates a lack of valid arguments.
• As to naming conventions, the US does not decide for the world how to name things. Torture still is torture, even when the US calls it enhanced interogation. See doublespeak and newspeak. Nomen Nescio 10:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you aren't understanding the discussion here, noone is claiming the US is allowed to change the meaning of words. Conflicts however have names, and usually the people participating in them, get to name them. It has already been proven that the US was the agressor in this war, and its been proven the President of The Unites States, the one who authorized war called it part of the "war on terror". This was then furthur supported when Congress, by a majority in the House and Senate, authorized the war also by calling it part of the "war on terror." I don't see you debating these points, instead you are simply stating your political view. I was doing this at first, but you have to step back and look at the facts. When a country participates in a military attack, its usually called something, this one happens to be part of the "war on terror." Noone is claiming the whole world has to call it this, people can call it what they please, however it doesnt change the fact that it is the official campaign name assigned by the people who authorized it, and by so, a majority of the population of the Unites States.--Zer0faults 11:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If the people who do something get the right to name what they do we have to redirect holocaust to final solution of the Jewish question. Añoranza 12:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an article Final Solution you do realize? The article does also point by references to the Holocaust and is talking about the same thing. So they are in fact linked. What is gonig on here is almost as if people were attempting to remove the term "Holocaust" from the Final Solution article or vice versa, then using the logic that the term "Final Solution" is a propaganda term so it shouldnt be used. However if you look at both The Holocaust and Final Solution you will see they both mention eachother throughout, including in opening paragraphs. --Zer0faults 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No one tries to get "War on terror" deleted, what we are saying is that the term is inappropriate in captions, template titles and categories, just as final solution of the Jewish question would be. Your exact argumentation that the people who do something have the right to name it was refuted, now stop stealing our time. Añoranza 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering the caption for The Final Solution lists the major compaign it was part of "The Holocaust" How is your point valid? The caption of any war, when looked up on Wikipedia mentions the larger conflict it is part of, why should the Iraq invasion not state "Part of The War on Terror"? You can look up Bay of Pigs Invasion and see "Part of The Cold War" etc. I still have yet to see the basic principle of the agressor naming the war refuted, unless a name is adopted by both sides. There is a campaign going on called "The War on Terror" this is a fact. Part of this campaign was the Iraq War, this is also a fact. So why should this article be different from any other where "War on Terror" should now be not in the caption? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

You are missing the analogy. The final solution for the Jewish question was not part of the holocaust, it was the propaganda term for it. Your point was that those who do something have the right to choose the name for it. That is obviously complete nonsense, and propaganda terms obviously need to be treated with great caution, so now stop wasting our time. Añoranza 13:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a falacy, "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" was actually started after the Holocaust began, it was not the beginning of it, but actually an extension of it. Please read the articles before stating false information as factual. --Zer0faults 13:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are in fact wrong and should go read the article for yourself. If you feel it was a propaganda term you need to debate that on their talk page. Also I would prefer you do not continue to be so rude to me or I will have to go about filing a complaint. The term "War on Terror" is not a propaganda term, it is the name of the conflict. Are you arguing the fact that "war on terror" is used in the actual resolution authorizing the war? --Zer0faults 13:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do not know what propaganda is that is not my fault. A term coined to make things appear in a certain way is a propaganda term. And the "final solution" is a propaganda term coined by the Nazis for what other people refer to as the holocaust, this is in no way similar to a war being part of a campaing. And this is not the point altogether as the example was only used to show that the reasoning that those who do something have the right to decide how it is called is entirely stupid. Añoranza 19:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please go read Final Solution before commenting on what it is. The Final Solution was not the propaganda term for the Holocaust. The Holocaust began before the Final Solution term was used. The Final Solution was an accelerant to the Holocaust perhaps but over 1 million Jews were killed before the document was even made that made use of that term. If you care not do your own research on topics before using them as examples, please at least attempt to search on Wikipedia. Any furthut debate of this topic does not belong here and I will not post anymore regarding it. If you find anymore fault with the relevant discussion please see Merecat's post below. Thank you. --Zer0faults 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not have to read an article about something I have grown up with. Final solution of the Jewish question was the propaganda term used by the Nazis for what they wanted to do with the Jews, extinguishing them, that is commonly called today the holocaust. And as I already told you, even if the final solution had been a part of a greater holocaust campaign, it still would not change anything about the fact that if the campaign was not holocaust but some non-neutral propaganda term it would not be used in encyclopedia captions and template titles without quotation marks and further comment. The same holds for war on terror. For the third time now, your reasoning that those who do something have the right to name it has been shown to be absurd. If you like that example better, try to discover whether antifascist protection barrier redirects to Berlin Wall or the other way round. Hm, surprise, surprise, the latter is not even a redirect. Añoranza 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you, you can decide not to pay attention to the facts if you please. However please stick to the topic. Does anyone question Merecat? It seems this issue is resolved now.

No one needs to question Merecat, and no one needs to argue endlessly with you or anyone. The current vote tally shows that there is overwhelming consensus that the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" should Not be used in the infobox. However the vote was only intitiated on May 5, and the requisite week's worth of voting has not yet passed. Once the vote is complete the consensus will be obeyed. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is sad that Wikipedia allows concensus to overrule reality. When the concensus doesnt include a single "fact" other then, "most people say", and doesnt even support that with a poll. But since its your political agenda I guess that is just fine for you. Secondly, I already stated to Anoraza that I would not continue to argue with her over the facts of the Holocaust, that is what I was reffering to, please read all the posts above you before posting. Thank you. --Zer0faults 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Several observations

• Endlösung is the term the Nazis used the descripe what they thought would be a solution to the Jewish problem. The way in which they implemented that idea is currently known as the Holocaust. AFAIK they describe the same thing. For some strange reason Wikipedia fails to explain that. Second, as has been said before, if those asserting something have the last word on things, than Taiwan would be a provence of China. Although China (1.6 billion citizens) claims it is part of China, the rest of the world does not agree and refuses to adopt that term. Oddly enough, when the US alleges a term (Iraq part of ...) we should adopt it simply because the US says so. There is a logical fallacy somwhere in that statement, don't you think? Nomen Nescio 12:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Taiwan is not represented in the United Nations, nor does the US have an official embassy there. Taiwan is in fact part of China according to the United Nations at least, where as Taiwan is not even a recognized nation. When the PRC took over China they claimed they still owned China and that the leadership in Taiwan was disolved. The United States "conquered" Taiwan and handed it over to the Chinese to control militarily. China has since claimed official rule over the country, when according to treaties and official it belongs to the United States. You can look here for official rules and treaties, as you can see it is much more complicated then you seem to make the situation out to be. In the end however Taiwan is not recognized by the United Nations or United States as a sovereign state. If anything has changed in this situation feel free to link some news articles from credible sources and I will do more research then weigh your arguement. Thank You --Zer0faults 12:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Taiwan still is not part of China. Nomen Nescio 13:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that depends on where you stand. China was given military control over the land by the United States, this control has never been taken back or ordered to end. China now declares the land its own, this would seem like the easiest overthrow of an occupying nation(US) by a foreign government(China). Then again the people of Taiwan held an election, that election was certified by only 23 nations of South America and Africa, and not by the United Nations or United States or the occupying nation of China. One would argue that when China declared Taiwan part of itself, that it was stating it has taken the land from the United States, the occupying force. By China not certifying the Taiwan elections, they technically mean nothing, hence China is still in control of Taiwan. I can declare an election tomorrow in New York City for a new government, but without it being certified by the Federal Government, it means nothing, this is technically what the people of Taiwan did. --Zer0faults 13:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, the logical fallacy lies only in your analogy. You are dealing with apples and oranges here. If the US Government claims that the sky is magenta, this does not mean that it really is magenta. The sky is not something the goverment has control of. Much like you being unable to change the sky color by saying it. Likewise, the PRC can claim Taiwan as its own all it wants, but in reality, Taiwan has its own government, and for all intents and purposes is not under its control. China does not exert any power over Taiwan, except diplomatically (think "Chinese Taipei"). But this is getting well into irrelevance. The basic truth is that Taiwan, at this time, is not under the control of the PRC. To further extend this, at one time, both the PRC and ROC claimed all of China as their own. It is logically impossible for both of them to be right. Whereas for the PRC, Taiwan was out of their control, for the ROC mainland china was out of their control. But is this to say governments cannot claim or do anything? No! They simply must stay within their realm of power. Whereas the PRC's claim of control over Taiwan is obviously false, barring an invasion (which would cause the USA to aid Taiwan... but lets not get into that..) But the PRC's claim of Tibet is legitimate. They do have control over Tibet at this time. Whether you like it or not, Tibet is definately in the realm of PRC control. And guess what, Wikipedia recognizes this. The China article, and China maps display China as including Tibet. I personally think that Tibet should be freed. But I recognize that, at this time, Tibet is a part of China. It should not be a part, but it is. And it will be no matter what people think.

Now to extend this further, there are other things within a governments power. Among these is the ability to wage wars under a campaign. Or wage operations under a war. When Operation Swarmer began, it was began as a part of the Iraq War. Noone can dispute this. It is not a POV to recognize that the Operation is part of the War, because this is a power governments have. When the Iraq War began, it was began as a part of the War on Terrorism. Noone can dispute this. It is not POV to recognize that the war began as part of the campaign, because this is a power governments have. Its like if you were an author. You cannot look at another authors books and decide what chapters are in what books, and what books are in what series. But you can do this to your own books you write. When you put 13 chapters in a book, there is no disputing the chapters are a part of that book. When you put 13 books in a series, there is no disputing these books are in the series.

The government has another power, the ability to name things. Every government names the things they do, including the nazi regime. But a power they did not have was the power to make people use these names. The US Government doesnt have this power either. If the terms they put out there catch, they catch. But they caught not because people were forced to use them, instead because they chose themselves. Even authors are unable to make people use the names of their books. Occasionally, books change titles, plays as well. Maybe they began with a long title and it was shortened, for instance "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is often called "Huck Finn," and some books are even sold as that instead of the original name. Why? Well, various reasons. Its shorter, its catchier, people called it that anyways too, a lot of the time. Wars, as I have said, change names too. War to End all Wars is now called WW1 for instance. So remember, there are things governments can do, things governments cannot do. They can declare things as part of a campaign they begin. They cannot declare what everyone must call it. For this reason, we must recognize that the Iraq War is part of the campaign, and recognize this campaign by its popular name: The War on Terrorism. End of Story. Rangeley 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like point out that the term "Cold War" was in fact first used by a government official to describe the term, that term was then used later by reporters, so Cold War is yet another term coined by a government official. You can read more about it on the Cold War page or Bernard Baruch since he is the gentleman who used the term first when talking about the Soviet/US situation in a speech. --Zer0faults 12:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please people, let's stay focused here. As I identified above, there are only three basic controversies regarding a category called "War on Terror" and I have listed them. above. Regarding point #1 "Ex post facto", I resolved that by providing actual information, contemporaneous to and prior to March 2003 to show that "terror" related issues were indeed being attributed Iraq. Also the 2002 Senate resolution, posted by Mmx1, additionally shows that the actions against Iraq were indeed "War on Terror" related. These points establish that Iraq invasion 2003 did indeed have a "terror" related predicate as part of the starting rationale. However, I still see that Mr. Tibbs points to news from after the March 2003 invasion date to "prove" that USA assertions about some terror links were wrong. This is not relevant because it's already been shown that at the time of the invasion there was a perceived "terror" link in Iraq and therefore, the 2003 invasion itself (which is what this article is about) is accurately stated to be part of the War on Terror. We do not de-ratify a premise by subsequent events. At the time of the invasion, the premise indeed was that Iraq was terror related. Therefore, all complaints about the terror-relation status - as seen at the time of the invasion, have been resolved. Further complaints under this point are foreclosed from reasonable doubt. This point has been proved. The next point is #2, the "Pro-USA" aspect of the term "War on Terror (actually, as posted in the article it's "War on Terrorism".) The objections raised on this point are very vexsome. On one hand, I do understand Nescio's point which is the contention that "War on Terror" is a "propaganda" term. As the previous dialog will show, I've already agreed that it is one (and answered that point - see above). Nescio also argues that USA might be rightly accused or "terror" itself, and therefore, to allow USA to brand its opponents in this conflict as "terrorists" is to adopt a USA-centric view. Suffice it to say, if USA were indeed attacking others on the basis USA has sustained confirmed attacks (eg: 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing 2000 USS Cole, 2001 9/11) , then one might say that USA is "terrorist". Absent that, then we end up in a semantical debate about what is "terrorism". To those who make this objection, I would ask them, is the wiki page on Terrorism wrong? Also, it would seem that USA-centric or "Pro-USA" argument actually has a fall back. Not only is it being contended that "War on Terror" is pro-USA because it's a USA term, but, it's being contended that USA is "terrorist" itself, so using the term is biased and it's also being contended that for this reason, using as a category is factually false. These arguments do not hold water. It's already been established on this page via the preponderance of the evidence that the term "War on Terror" is in wide enough use and with wide enough understanding in the English speaking world as to be a benchmark. When we write the wiki, we do not claim to be writing the absolute truth. Rather, what we write is what's generally understood to be the case. Example: it's generally understood that migrants crossing the border into USA illegally are illegal immigrants. Likwise, it's generally understood that fighters who attack in certain ways are terrorists. And it's generally understood that a country (USA) which undertakes a wide scale military action can reasonably call that a "war". USA is indisputably engaged in preemptively averting and otherwise prosecuting a "war" against persons and situations which USA deems a "terrorist" threat to USA. Ergo, the rational basis of the actual-in-use-term of "War on Terror" is valid. To refuse to acknowledge that USA refers to its actions as "War on Terror" is to substitute our own opinions in place of the established facts of that term's usage. However, if indeed USA is also "terrorist" itself (I say not), then the answer here is to have an article about Terrorist activities committed by USA. Canceling the truth about one point War on Terror, does not establish the truth about another USA terror (if there is such a thing). Lastly, #3, the "Endless war" risk that USA might expand its application of the term "War on Terror", does not preclude us as editors from using it in this current context now. As per WP:NOT, the wiki is ot a crystal ball and we do not try to guess the future. Speculated future misapplications are no excuse against discussed and agreed upon applications today. I am reasonably sure that I have addressed and answered the objections to "War on Terror". Merecat 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Response to my comments with nothing but assertions and logical fallacies. Nomen Nescio 12:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is simply a list of facts on both sides, and we can then debate them accordingly, ones that are found to be supported and factually documented are then accepted and weighed against the opposing side. We seem to be going in circles here and long drawn out paragraphs are not establishing facts, there are also the same discussion going on in 3 different heading at the same time. Perhaps a new section called Facts and then the debate carries on there as people present document facts, quotes etc in their arguements. All facts must be sourced or linked, and all refuting must be done the same way. Is this acceptable to all so we are not weighing political/personal opinions, "undocument facts" etc. but instead making a decision on strictly factual information. --Zer0faults 12:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "premises" would be more appropriate than "facts". Kevin Baas^talk 13:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer facts, such as 1) The terminology was first used in X on X day (link to source). This prevents long drawn out paragraphs and just lists factual information for or against. Instead of a population count perhaps we should weigh facts and sure even premises over the number of people who participates view. I just want to prevent the mess that is above, where people are saying things like "US dropped the atom bomb so they can't declare nations terrorists." This isn't really a fact, as the US can still go before the UN and do this and can do it locally declaring nations terrorists states within their own countries rulings. I hope I am not rattling on, just want to get peoples opinion on this idea of weighing just the facts of the situation as can be documented and proven. --Zer0faults 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, perhaps even make a section below the facts where people can debate the fact itself instead of making the fact section look like the vote section. This way perhaps we can come to a concensus on the use of the fact and how appropriate it is to the discussion without people feeling as though negating a single fact will negate their entire defense of the situation. --Zer0faults 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not repeat my comments if you fail to understand them. I never said the US can't call countries terrorist states because the US dropped the bomb. What I said was, the logic used is ties to terrorism and the use and spread of WMD, all refer to the US. To include Iraq as terrorist state on the basis of this reasoning, inevitably includes the US too. Nomen Nescio 13:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not attribute any quote to you. As for the main point of this thread do you have any objections to the format I am proposing? --Zer0faults 13:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest the US Medals given to soldiers who served in Iraq in 2003 were tiled "GWOT" Global War on Terror. The Australian medals were titled "ICAT" International Coalition Against Terrorism. Greynurse 13:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the discussion got heated, it got lengthy, and it involved a great many people. But several days have passed since the weekend (which seemed to be the peak) and since than things have cooled off. I think now people are more willing to come to reasonable conclusions. The discussions have revealed the core issues and arguments. I have not seen the arguments for recognizising the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror disputed. They proved to be solid against everything thrown at them so far. I think it reasonable that we can conclude that they are therefore worthy of application in ending the edit war, which has needlessly consumed time for all of us involved.

Enough time has passed, and enough has been said. Its time to implement the conclusion. Rangeley 01:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear 14-4 majority against the war on terror tag, and if you "have not seen the arguments for recognizising the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror disputed" you just chose not to see and indeed, your 25 (sic!) reverts stole all of us time. Añoranza 02:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I have chosen to look through it all and I just dont see it. I wont rule out the possibility that I missed something, simply point out to me where the arguments are refuted and we can continue discussion. However, we must remember that we are at Wikipedia, a site meant to be fast to get things right through cooperation. We cant hold things up forever just because you want to balk, call me names, question whether I have read this or that. We have done this for weeks now, and its time to put it aside. I was never going for a majority, or a supermajority here, and it is shameful that is all you were going for, Añoranza. I couldnt care less which side has the more votes, but instead have strived to be right, and get it right. I feel that since this debate began, there is a much stronger, and more developed argument for having it as part of it than against. You obviously dont know me, but I do not just go around endlessly debating something that I know I am wrong on. Especially on Wikipedia, which I have only once before debated on before this, and it was months ago. I dont just get on here and think, hey, lets waste some peoples time, including my own. I am doing this, and discussing this with you and others because I beleive the system at Wikipedia can work. It is not a system of who can get the most supporters, but rather, whichever side is right is the side that is implemented. There is no debating that the poll stands at 13-4 (one vote changed). I am not claiming the poll states otherwise. But look under those 14 votes originally against it, and look at the responses point by point. Look at the discussion under it, the discussion elsewhere, its even gone onto my talk page. The debate is over, all that can be left is obstruction by those who disagree with the outcome, but are out of arguments to defend their view. I dont think this is what Wikipedia is about, and I doubt its what you think Wikipedia is either.

So please, point out the refutations that you keep claiming I and others missed, and stop just claiming I missed them without base. If they dont exist, thats fine too, and we can get along with our lives with this learning experience behind us. Rangeley 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No one needs to point out anything to you. And no one needs to argue endlessly with you. The consensus determined by the vote is clear, and it will be obeyed. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand Wiki Policy, however I am new as well so read Wikipedia:Straw polls and get back to me, thank you --Zer0faults 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley, the fact is that although you and I have indeed proved the logical accuracy of including War on Terror as a category for "see also" in the info box, the consensus of the other editors who outnumber us on that point is against WOT in the box. Personally, I feel you should yield to the others on this. Not all editorial decisions are logical. At this point, it's an editorial decision and we have been overruled. If you want consensus to carry when it agrees with you, you have to accept it when you are in the minority also. I yield to Tibbs, et al, on this one and I ask that you do also. Merecat 05:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we honestly saying here that votes are what counts on Wikipedia for determining facts? If I can get enough people together I can also change the name of "Iraq War" to "Big Fight in The Sand" I thought what we are attempting to achieve here was a factual acticle? I will yeild for the time being if Mr. Tibbs can contend that he feels all 13 votes on his position are being made based soley on facts, and their summary included with their vote represents that. --Zer0faults 11:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We are honstly saying that a clear 14-4 vote is a better indicator for what should be done than the endless innuendo of people who regard themselves as the only clever guys around, who ignore the countless refutations of all what they write, and who revert 25 (sic!) times on a single issue. Añoranza 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your hostility attempts to accomplish, but since you are reffering to me, please realize I have yet to change a single thing in this article, and I would like an apology for your accusation that I did. Furthermore wikipedia policy calls for dicussion participants to by civil, please do so as so I can avoid issuing a warning or asking for administrators to watch the tone you use. If you have a point to present please do so without false accusations and personal attacks. Also you are not Mr. Tibbs, please refrain from replying to things not directed at you. Thank You. --Zer0faults 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley did the 25 reverts all by himself and I never personally accused you. There was an IP from Washington that did 3 more. I regard it hostile if a discussion is flooded with innuendo in spite of a clear consensus. It is ok to go on discussing if there is a real debate, but here it is largely characterized by posting the same stuff over and over, completely ignoring what a clear majority answers. Mr. Tibbs also got frustrated by this, and he replied for many of us here, there is nothing wrong with hopping in. Añoranza 16:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Straw polls This poll is not binding, polls are meant to layout information and see where people stand, not as final judgement on an issue as you seem to interpret it. Wikipedia does not make decisions based on how many people a side can muster up. --Zer0faults 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tibbs himself can answer if he feels all the votes are fair votes and if people clearly expressed why they voted as such. I ask him this cause I know for a fact he does not feel that way as he went on to post on a users page that he feels they don't understand what is being asked in the question. Furthermore you keep claiming its a 14-4 vote which it is not. Finally if you objectively looked at the votes its clear people are not even giving supporting reasons why they voted as such. Some are listing obviously unfactual reasons as to why they support your position such as Nomen Nescio stating Iraq had no connection with terrorism. The vote of #9 goes directly against the Wikipedia policy found here WP:NOT. Are none of these examples troubling to you? Are we really stating the side that can muster up enough people to post simply that they agree is the side that should have their view expressed? Futhermore voting doesn't decide what does and does not take place on Wikipedia, it simply a means to hopefully reach a concensus, its not binding. I think a mid ground some of us were reaching was putting the term in quotes, however you seem to be under the understanding that voting is the "end all", if I am wrong please correct me. --Zer0faults 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't shoot an own goal by claiming only reasonable votes should count. And yes, polls are not the final answer, but when there is a disagreement they help, and unless you convince the rest of us - which I hope you won't try with another zillion ignorant posts - you must accept that and refrain from edit warring. Maybe wikipedia articles do not have to be based on democractic decisions, but they definitely should should not be based on the law of the jungle. Añoranza 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am filing a complaint against you for your constant personal attacks, please refrain from further addressing me. --Zer0faults 22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not beleive that this is the way Wikipedia is intended to work, and it is clearly written that wikipedia is both not a democracy, and a consensus is not merely the results of a poll. I wonder if the tables were turned, and if Añoranza, Mr. Tibbs, and Nescio had the logical, truthful argument, would they accept the idea that the opposition can win merely through having 9 more people on their side? If a movement sprung up to claim the world flat, would the 100 people pushing for that here overrule the scientifically backed oppinion if it only had several supporters? I suppose such things are an inevitability. It is a difficult job to create a quality article on a contemporary event, we were faced with this when the the Ratzinger became Pope a year ago. Determining what is important is tough enough, and when you throw in an element of controversy, like the Hitler Youth program, it doesnt make things easier. Back then people were stating it was POV to say Ratzinger was forced to join the program, even though it was mandatory to do so, among other things. As time passed, eventually the truth was seen for the truth, and if you look today you see the truth is indeed in the article. I guess it was unreasonable to expect much from this article so soon, the hype has not died down. But when it does, perhaps years from now, I have no doubt that Wikipedia will have re-evaluated the issue and determined that the truth is not in violation of NPOV, just as it did with the Pope. And when that day comes, perhaps you will regret insisting so vehemently on the conclusion you wrongly reached.

It was a good discussion. I know the truth, others know the truth, and even you guys probably know the truth too. Some day, Wikipedia will have that luxory. But I accept that this day is not today. I will not continue to push this, per Merecat's suggestion. Rangeley 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So flooding a page with innuendo ignoring what others tell you and refusing to accept that as most disagree with you there might be some reason for it is a good discussion. Claiming to be the one who knows the truth when there is no truth but just two opinions, what is that? Fundamentalism? Añoranza 22:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, if you feel you have counter-points please post them, starting arguements is unecessary as we are all adults and rational people. --Zer0faults 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is on topic that flooding a page with innuendo ignoring what others already wrote on topic is not helpful. Añoranza 00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still hoping to come to resolution of this issue and hope possibly this can be it. I have seen Mr. Tibbs and Rangeley have already come to an agreement that quotation marks is a fair middle ground and non POV way of coming to a middle ground. I agree with this as the term is one that is being used in the current conflict that the Iraq War is factually part of, however the term is not used by the whole world, though it is used in The United States and the UK in legal documents. Can we come to this center ground? --Zer0faults 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I never agreed to that, because it is not the standard used for any other conflict. Rangeley 19:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies Rangeley I misunderstood your wording at a point somewhere in the mess above this. --Zer0faults 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am posting straight factual information as I see it relates to the usage of the term "war on terror" in relation to the conflict in Iraq. Can we please have an alternating list as according to Wikipedia:Straw polls voting is not binding. Thank You --Zer0faults 20:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Medals given to participants of Operation Iraqi Freedom were titled "Global War on Terror Expeditiary Medal" and "Global War on Terror Service Medal." [56] [57] [58] [59] (PDF) [60]

• Does not count, the US government would use it'sa own words. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Look above - US were not alone: Australian medals were ICAT = International Coalition Against TERRORISM. Stop being blinded by your obvious hatred of everything US! Greynurse 04:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not spam this section, I ask you remove your posts as you do not need to type the same thing 3x, please feel free to state your opinion though without posting it 3x. Also if your point is that noone else calls it, then feel free to post a poll stating the rest of the world does not call it that. I have already posted proof that the UK and US consider this war as a war against terrorism. Thank you --Zer0faults 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

2) The phrasing "war on terror" is used repeatedly in H.J Res 114, the resolution passed by both House and Senate authorizing the use of force in Iraq. [61] [62](PDF)

• Does not count, the US government would use it'sa own words. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

3) The US Senate voted by a majority in favor of H.J Res 114 by a vote of 77 to 23. [63]

• Does not count, the US government would use it'sa own words. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

4) The UK Parliament stated as one of reasons to goto war as Iraq's possibility of spreading WMD's to terrorists and terrorist states. [64]

• And it turned out to be wrong. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That does not change the reasoning for gonig to war, if you would like to post some facts supporting your side do so below. Thank you. --Zer0faults 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

5) UK Parliament voted by majority to use force in Iraq by count of 412 to 149.[65]

• As part of ...? Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

5) A military campaign presents what one side of the conflict does, not what both sides do.[66] [67]

"military campaign, technically, is a series of related individual military operations. A military campaign here is used predominantly to refer to what one side does, and is useful for distinguishing between "the war" as a whole, and "the parties" to the war."

• An encyclopedia should present a neutral story and not one side. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not posting facts nor even replying to anything in the above section. Is it your understanding that all military operation names should be removed from all articles on the basis as they are named by the people carrying out the operation and not by the world? Please also post your specific facts below thank you. --Zer0faults 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

6) Brief explanation of the term "operation" from Wikipedia. the term Operation Iraqi Freedom is not being debated oddly, though that is also POV if seen as a statement and not a name. Please read furthur to code name for futher understanding.

"A military operation is a military action (usually in a military campaign) using deployed forces. It involves the planning, calculating, or the giving (or receiving) of information. It can involve the carrying out of a strategic, tactical, service, training, or administrative military mission in the process of carrying on combat, including movement, supply, attack, defense, and maneuvers needed to gain the objectives of any battle or campaign. Military operations are often referred to by a code name."

• ???????????????????? Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have something to say feel free, however do not spam with meaningless text, thank you. --Zer0faults 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

7) Military operations and campaigns are named by government officials. Desert Storm leaked to press by anonymous government official, Cold War named by Bernard Baruch while working for the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) in 1947 as the United States representative. Operation Iraqi Freedom named by the US Government.[68]

• Nobody contests that the US administration uses the term, point of this discussion is that the majority feels it is not common usage in the rest of the world. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have proven the term is used in US and UK. Your claim however that a limited portion do not seems to go unproven, if you wish to keep asserting this fact, feel free to post a poll or back it with factual information. Thank you --Zer0faults 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree some battles are named after the victor's choide eg Battle of Waterloo but by no means all eg Battle of the Bulge. Is it the American war of Independence or the American Revolutionary War,? What about the Seven Years War? And most telling of all what about the First World War which was known as the Great War until the Second World War? Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Naming conventions says

Articles should generally have titles like Battle of Gettysburg or Siege of Nuremberg, since "battle" and "siege" are neutral terms that are preferred to "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid". Other names can be used, however, if they are the most common ways to refer to the battle (so Attack on Pearl Harbor and Doolittle Raid are acceptable titles).

--Philip Baird Shearer 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

8) Operations conducted under other campaigns are in fact listed as so on all other Wikipedia pages. Vietnam War part of Cold War, Battle of Kursk part of World War 2, Western Front part of World War 1, Battle of Gettysburg part of American Civil War, etc.

• I don't think that Holocaust is what the initiators of that campaign used to call it. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust was not a military campaign. There was no war. Can you please use a military campaign for anology so I can better see where you are coming from. --Zer0faults 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you please reread the fifty pages you and Rangeley added to discussions in the last couple of days and rethink whether we should restart to discuss the holocaust/cold war/Vietnam war/War of Northern aggression analogies? Añoranza 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cold War was named by a government official. --Zer0faults 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Those examples you give, Nescio, are of conflicts or battles that are indisputably part of larger wars. The lack of any factual connection between the invasion of Iraq and the larger War on Terrorism means that the US government assertion that they're parts of the same conflict is questionable. It's certainly a widely disputed claim (whereas there is no dispute that the Battle of Gettysburg was part of the American Civil War, that the Battle of Kursk was part of World War 2, etc.). Listing the invasion of Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism is a declaration that Bush is correct and his critics are incorrect on this subject. That's inherently POV, and thus is an overt contradiction of one of Wikipedia's core policies. This talk page also shows a pretty strong consensus that the label "Part of U.S. War on Terrorism" should not be included, yet it still is.

As for the "Global War on Terror Expeditiary Medal"...the issuing of that medal for participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom was widely criticized from the start as being a policially-motivated attempted to tie the invasion to the larger War on Terrorism despite the lack of factual links between the two. This medal has been replaced for Iraq veterans by the Iraq Campaign Medal, which effectively is a tacit admission of that fact. Redxiv 16:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

O removed the part of as being against consensus. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article in its protected state listed "part of war on terrorism". Please see Wikipedia:Straw_polls on rules regarding polls on talk pages, Further reverts will be reported as acts of vandalism. --Zer0faults 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles that are subject to edit wars are protected at the version the protecting admin finds, only in cases of obvious vandalism do admins decide which one is the wrong version. Reverting in spite of knowing that the discussion has shown support for the other side is vandalism. Añoranza 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else see this link New_york_times#Times_self-examination_of_bias coming up incorrectly, if so please fix in article. Thank You --Zer0faults 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat late, but this maybe interesting:

If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[69]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a poll going on at the Iraq War article that is related to this article. You can add your vote here: [70] -- Mr. Tibbs 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. Tibbs as you did not follow the rules for starting a poll I am afraid its invalid. Please see Wikipedia:Straw_polls section "Creating a survey" point (2) " Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." --Zer0faults 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article needs considerable re-wording in its present form to represent the fact that the US was not the sole nation involved in the invasion. Whilst it contributed the largest portion of the invasion it still only held around 60% of the forces involved, The UK, Australia etc. holding the rest. The invasion was not planned and implemented by the US, but rather by the Coalition of the willing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.151.178 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 May 2006.

I agree but Anoranza or Mr. Tibbs will just revert if you were to hint someone other then the US was involved. Goodluck --Zer0faults 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather, we should strive to hint that the "coalition" is more than a puffed-up PR device. We shouldn't belittle the noble though admittedly immaterial contributions of Eritrea, Angola, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, Estonia, Ethiopia, Honduras, Iceland, Latvia, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uzbekistan, or any other nation that allowed its name to be put on the list in exchange for a check.--Mr. Billion 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Or their one-man armies (literally). (notwithstanding those that don't have a military) Kevin Baas^talk 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The US issued the ultimatum unilaterally, and "Coalition of the willing" gives numbers showing more than 80% of the forces were from the US, same holds for the statistics here. Añoranza 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Zer0faults' comment is biased endorsement of a totally wrong statement. The "only around 60%" does not fit in my math - U.S.A. officially confirmed over 130k troops, UK being the second largest was under 10k, and the rest have provided less than 1000 troop per 5 "biggest" supporters/allies. The total sum of all soldiers which are non-US (including symbolic contributions of 10-50 men) is around 22-23k. It can hardly make those missing 40%. -- Goldie (tell me) 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on Wikipedia policy on assuming good faith. To assume I am biased when this article doesn't even mention that passed UN resolutions covered in 1441 talk about human rights abuses, iraq's link to terrorism (PALF) etc. is absurd. This article is suffering from a horrible case of Undue Weight. There is an entire section that begins "Opponents of the invasion of Iraq disagree with the arguments presented by the Bush administration" but does not state who or reference a source, horrible use of weasel words. It even says they feel the war was waged so Haliburton can have defense contracts, I would love to see a reliable source for that one thats not in the form of an editorial. --Zer0faults 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy on good faith says nothing about saying someone is biased and made a factually incorrect statement. One can be biased and make a factually incorrect statement and still be honestly trying to make the article less biased and more factually correct. I am biased, and sometimes make factually incorrect statements, and I'm not ashamed of it - it's only human - and i wouldn't expect anyone to accuse me of not trying to improve the article. And he never assumed you were biased. Assumption is making a statement before having any evidence. He took the fact that your factually incorrect statement was strongly slanted in a certain direction to suggest that your views are likewise slanted, which is quite a reasonable inference. Kevin Baas^talk 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why sometimes its best not to comment on things that are not addressed to you. I did not make the factual wrong comment, the anon user above me did. Please read next time before commenting. --Zer0faults 15:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, ZerOfaults. My mistake and I retract the directedness, but my points still stand. Kevin Baas^talk 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I think that's why the word "endorsement" was used. But this tertiary argument is irrelevant, anyway. --Mr. Billion 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article yesterday. I made well over 50 edits and i'm still only half way through. There was one part in the middle that was so POV i had to extensivley re word it, the info was correct it was just written in such a biased way it was basically slagging off the iraqi armies response. I had to re word it to say things like "the iraqi army was unable to respond to..." to replace statements like "furthermore the iraqi army didnt even retaliate due to an entirely incompetant leadership" etc etc. Please , I'm trying hard here to make this a good article but its not easy when people are smacking their own opinions down as facts. I'd go as far as to say that really any comment that is more than common sense needs to be referenced from now on - its the only way such a current afairs article can be good quality and NPOV.

Futhermore, currently there are about 10,000 UK troops to about 133,000 US troops there. But at the time of invasion there were actually closer to around 30,000 UK troops in iraq and 100,000 US troops. So if you want to be a pedantic prick with the numbers then it was around 23% UK and 77% US. (excluding the 2% of total troops which were foreign). No one says the US made a small contribution and we all except it made the largest, but the invasion would not have been practical AT THAT TIME had the UK and other nations not been involved as the US couldnt commit enough troops. If you read the article it actually already states something similar. Now im not saying the US was incapable of it, but rather more forces from the US would have had to have gone costing more to the US and taking more time to deploy to the region. This is about making a good encylopedia and not about only representing the major party. Please... reverters.... GET OVER IT.

Yeah its almost humerous to see the article mention 50,000 Kurdish troops, 45,000 UK troops and 214,000 US troops. That means other forces of just Kurds and UK made up 32% or so? But for some reason we ignore the kurds ... --Zer0faults 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The NASA photo caption on this page claims that the smoke plumes are from bomb impacts, while the caption on the image's page claims the plumes are burning oil-trenches set afire by Iraqi forces as a defensive measure. By personal memory and the color of the smoke, I reckon the latter correct-- does anyone know more definitively? AlanKHG 05:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's probably right. The change was made by the IP 199.107.67.88. The image's original NASA location doesn't actually say what the image shows, but I can't imagine smoke from ordinary bombs being that thick. --Mr. Billion 17:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this what they mean with interesting?:

The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links to the White House.[71]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would invite all who are interested to partake in the discussion that is taking place on this page. Rangeley 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You two said above

At any given time, what the president/administration says is the USA's position, is the USA position. Anyone trying to say this is not so, is wrong. Merecat 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"USA's official position" is ok with me. Merecat 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's okay w/me, too. Kevin Baas^talk 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My reply to these statements is as follows:

I've noticed a couple of references to the former Iraqi president as "Saddam" in this article. Although this is accepted in the political world, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we wouldn't call George Bush "George" throughout an article! (With the exception of quotes,) I think that we should change "Saddam" references to "Hussein" references, unless it's important to differentiate between Saddam and other Husseins in particular contexts. Does this sound right? T. S. Rice 08:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, "Saddam" is more accurate; "Hussein" is his father's name, not a surname. Please see Saddam_Hussein#fn_2. Most Arabs reading "Hussein" would think of Hussein of Jordan.--Pharos 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahhhh.... I see. Maybe I should read a bit more about Arabic naming conventions... `T. S. Rice 09:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to visit and comment the debate on whether Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism.[72] This is to counter the severely one-sided and biased discussion that Rangeley started. Instead of redacting out all the relevant information this RFC presents the entire case and not only what Rangeley wants you to know.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the consensus reached is located here [73]. Rangeley 01:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The still ongoing discussion to reach consensus can be found at theRFC on the same page.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems someone with a fairly... festive mind erased the strength of the U.S. forces in Iraq, the commanders, and replaced the result of the conflict with "Sex". I really hope that whoever was behind that is warned. John D'Adamo 18:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph from the article which states "Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find weapons of mass destruction.[10][11]" is incorrect. The search for WMD's is still on going and there have been some discover of WMD as noted in the following published articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html

Why these findings have not been published by the "main stream" press amazes me.

However- although there may have been the finding of SOME WMDs, the fact remains that the United States government grossly overestimated the Iraqi nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities under the Hussein regime. John D'Adamo 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, overestimated greatly, unless its true they all went to Syria or are in those Underground Bunkers the ISG refused to open because they lacked the equipment. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And, let's not forget that the US officially stated they have not found WMD.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd the report by the ISG did not say there was no WMDs, it said these were not the ones we went to war over. Hence they were WMDs ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've marked several sections on this article that I think should be merged into Iraq War. Please go to Talk:Iraq War to discuss so we keep the discussion in one place. --Bobblehead 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny how this article doesnt mention Bush's references to the security of Israel as an ally of the US, esp. when in context of the North Korean strife and missile launches. NK, which poses a threat to American soil, is ignored, while Saddam's SCUDs only posed a threat to Israel (Powell's fairy-tale drones aside). Anyone wanna supplement the article with this information? It is severely lacking. -Anon

The 100,000 civilian deaths was reported by Lancet in Sept. 2004. That was 18 months after occupation. It is now about 40 months after invasion so this figure cannot be accurate. 81.157.196.23 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody had moved the entire page text to Gulf War II and just made this a redirect, I moved it back. That's a silly name that makes it sound like a Hollywood movie, please don't move pages without clear consensus mandate from the people ;) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 12:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the way that the way the deaths are quoted is quite POV against the war. Most sources quoted the figure at the time that George W. Bush used, but he is the only mentioned as quoting that number. I am not trying to suggest my feelings here about GWB or anything, but it's quite obvious that due to his public reputation, and unpopularity that many people don't consider him to be a very trustworthy source, especially since obviously it's in his interests to quote a low figure. Therefore the 30,000-40,000 figure is portrayed as a 'rogue' figure. In reality however, the opposite is true - I've personally never seen any figure anywhere for the number of deaths that anywhere close to that high except that one study called the lancet study. Even people strongly opposed to the war (eg: Michael Moore) quote a figure somewhere around 40,000 people (and recently too). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fookoyt (talk • contribs) 23 July 2006.

According to a Harris Poll released July 21 found that 50% of U.S. respondents said they believe Iraq had the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003. This was reported in numerous news articles, such as The State (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15215272.htm) and The Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/08/do_you_believe_in_wmd.html). PJ 06:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed {{pov}} tag a few weeks ago after other editors removed some of the pov edits made by others. Obviously the topic is a heavily debated one so it is my opinion that major edits should be discussed first as the changes may present a pov. The recent edits by Garygoldstein have not been discussed and present a pov. I reverted the edits by the user and a second suspected sock puppet 69.86.126.2 of the same user. At this point, I would like the opinions of other editors on the edits made by the user before adding the pov tag or requesting the help from an admin. I have no opinion on the subject either way and have no interest in the US/IRAQ dispute so I have nothing to add from a pov. Just trying to keep all articles NPOV.I already forgot 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to try and clean up some of the pov statements from the new edit by Garygoldstein and it turns out to be a rehash of what has already been stated in the article after numerous edit disputes and discussion.I already forgot 17:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in this section. I somehow don't think it will last long but I believe it to be true. The truth will out eventually. It would be nice if Wiki was ahead of the game.

Why the USA invaded Iraq because Iraq was pricing oil in Euros not Dollars:- [74]

Why the USA will invade Iran - if they do - for the same reason [75]

SmokeyTheFatCat 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been removed from the "Rationale" section as it was never presented as rationale, and is only speculation over ulterior motives. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected my addition has been deleted. Rangeley just seems to want to accept the Bush administration line without question. Shame. I had hoped for more from Wiki. SmokeyTheFatCat 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the reason it was removed or did you refuse to read it and just assume that I "want to accept the Bush administration line without question?" The rationale section is for the publicly given rationale for invasion, not for speculation on ulterior motives.~Rangeley (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's not 'rationale' but 'publicly given rationale' then? SmokeyTheFatCat 20:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is for the rationale put forward, not for speculation on ulterior motives. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's Wiki's place just to parrot the White House line then? Imagine if Wiki existed in 1939 and was edited by Germans. What would you have said about the Nazi invasion of Poland? You should be ashamed of yourself Rangeley.SmokeyTheFatCat 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is the argument put forward in justification of an action. It is Wikipedia's place to present facts, as such it would present the rationale put forward in justification of the action, and not misrepresent speculation on ulterior motives as the justifications put forward for a course of action. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered my question.SmokeyTheFatCat 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree with what I said? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. I guess you're not going to.SmokeyTheFatCat 20:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He answered your question. Its not about bush, Iraq, UN, etc. Its about the facts. I personally think there is a strong possibility that the war has to do with oil and a weak economy, but I do not, or have not seen any facts to such an accusation, only speculation. Wikipedia is not the place for "I heard", "I thought", or "I think", just give us the facts with sources and move on. The fact that you knew your edit was going to be deleted should have keyed you in on the possible POV edit.I already forgot 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree with what I said? I think this is all based around a misunderstanding on the meaning of rationale. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)