Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

POV balance

Before I started editing today, this article wasn't neutral but took the point of view of the rebels or gueriilas, i.e., the opponents of the Allawi regime. Wikipedia should not assume that this POV is objective truth.

So I added some coalition POV to balance it, and in order to do so I had to change the article title.

Regime change is happening -- both sides I mentioned agree on this. Whether the coalition are "occupiers" or not depends on POV. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New Article

After careful perusal of this article, and the discussion of it, I've written a new, somewhat shorter, but I believe more neutral article on Post Saddam Iraq. I hope you all enjoy reading it, commenting on it, and editing it in the usual manner - have fun! --Xinoph 23:27, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

Shi'ite population

Based on what sources did the writer conclude that the majority of the population is Shi'ite.? ----?????

Is this really in dispute? I don't know where the writer got it, but the CIA World Factbook states:

Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

Dpbsmith 17:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are political reasons behind implying that shi'ites are majority. It should be stated in any article that shi'ites are majority (based on CIA Factbook). Many are considering shi'ites majoriry as a Fact and its not. There were no independent census done in the last 25 years not even a government census that categorize population based on religion. One recent statistics show that shi'ites are only 40%. Of course, I cannot confirm the reliability of this stats. Here is part of the article: BAGHDAD, January 29 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) ? Fresh statistics by an international organization suggested that Iraq's Sunnis are in a clear majority, as Shiite scholars conceded that Shiites could make up as much as 40 percent of the whole population.

The statistics, released by a reliable international humanitarian relief agency in2003 , suggested that Sunnis make up 58 percent of the Iraqi population and Shiites 40 percent.

'The Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq' put the whole population at about27 million, including 16 million Sunnis and 11 million Shiites, Quds Press International news agency reported on Wednesday, January28 .

The remainder, 2 percent, include Christians and Jews.

The group depended on statistics by the former ministries of trade and planning as well as the data provided by the self-rule government in Kurdistan.

It also depended on ration cards every Iraqi family have used to get food supplies under the more than 12 years' sanctions after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in1990 .

The cards have been used by Iraqis as identity cards, and analysts say they could closely estimate the number of the population regardless of the fact that some Iraqis, Sunnis and Shiites, may give wrong counts of their children to get more food.

The international relief group had found in statistics released in 1997 that Sunnis outnumber Shiites by more than819 , 000people.

Other statistics, collected with dependence on counts of the Central Statistics Office of the former Iraqi Health Ministry and a study by an Iraqi academician, believed that the numerical gap is much lesser, with Sunnis estimated at 53 percent and Shiites at 47 percent.

You can see the rest of it at: [1]

--- The article has al-Hawza, the newspaper that was shut down recently as a daily, I remember reading that it was a weekly, does anyone have any quotes to back up it was a daily? If not I will remove the daily refernce to make it less specific.

---

Position of Norway

Does Norway really have troops in Iraq? --Kulkuri 16:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Al-Khoei

Concerning the issues with the "moderate" line:

1) Moderate is a relative term. For example, what is moderate in the US is very conservative in Europe, and very liberal in the middle east. Consequently, terms like this should be avoided.

2) Al-Khoei was US aligned. That doesn't change him from being Sistani-aligned as well, but Khoei was strongly supportive of the US - to the point that the BBC felt fit to subtitle their article about his murder as "A senior Shia cleric working with coalition forces has been killed inside a mosque in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf" [2]. --Rei

Let me provide some more quotes.

* "He was poorly received in a recent trip to Iran, where Shia opponents rallied against him chanting: "Go back to America." "

* "Mr Khoei had hoped to help restore order in Najaf following the downfall of the Baathist regime and was working in co-operation with the coalition."

* Although Mr Khoei was usually accompanied by coalition forces, they do not enter the mosque and so were unable to rescue him, Dr Milani said.

* Dr Milani said he believed Mr Khoei's association with the coalition forces had provoked the attack, saying "certain people did not want him in that role". --Rei

I think your current revision with the link to the BBC story to support the "US-aligned" description is fine. I do wonder why you removed the "al-" so he's referred to as simply "Khoei", but you didn't remove the "al-" where it refers to "al-Sadr" earlier in the same paragraph. Is there some reason the al- should be included in one name but not the other? Neow 20:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But it's a judgment call on your part that the "US-aligned" aspect is the most important part. His being Sistani-aligned is also an important part, and arguably the reason for his murder, given al-Sadr's continuing power-struggle with Sistani. --Delirium 04:24, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

my last edit

I deleted the entire portion of an anonymous user's post because it had been copied and pasted from http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=March&x=20040315181634sjhtrop0.8252527&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html . Kingturtle 23:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user (perhaps the same one) recently re-entered this text and was reverted. Lisiate 03:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Probably the same one. Has been changing the page a number of times recently under different IP adresses. After calling others Wikinazis, he created a page Wikipedia:Wikinazi, which i put on VfD. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 04:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Text from Iraq after Saddam Hussein

The following text was taken from Iraq after Saddam Hussein. Although the text is well-written, it was voted for deletion because it overlaps with this page. Despite the deletionists' call, the page is going to be a redirect to this page, not deleted. Please merge any content as appropiate.

NOTE: Page history can be obtained by visting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Iraq_after_Saddam_Hussein&action=history

Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government collapsed in 2003 following the invasion of Iraq by a small coalition of nations led by the United States and United Kingdom. After the governmental collapsed, the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of several other nations (including Poland and Japan) and United Nations authorization, established a provisional authority whose publicly stated goal is to provide for Iraqis' basic needs and help in the creation of a new democratically elected government following the end of the Ba'ath government.

Government Structure

The immediate post-Saddam governmental authority in Iraq is the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. This body was initially led by U.S. General Jay Garner; however he was rather quickly replaced by civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer. ORHA shares some authority with the Interim Iraq Governing Council, an appointed body.

Challenges

ORHA and the IIGC face many immediate challenges as basic as food, water, and electricity. Iraq is a nation recovering from years of totalitarian rule, economic sanctions, and several wars, including the 2003 invasion itself.

Establishing a Civil Society

After years of dictatorship, Iraq has virtually no civil society to serve as a necessary backbone to a democratic process. Any civil society under the Hussein regime was either tightly controlled or eliminated as a threat, or possible threat, to the regime. This is part of nation-building that is perhaps most difficult; examples of the consequences of failure can be seen in Haiti, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other nations around the world. Lack of a civil society generally leads to anarchy or back to dictatorship, either of which would be intolerable for a nation's citizens and could conceivably be a threat to U.S. national security.

Violence and Instability

As a direct result of this lack of civil society, there has been violence and instability continually in Iraq since the fall of the Hussein government. Much of this violence has been directed against foreign troops serving in the part of the nation called the "Sunni Triangle"; however there have also been attacks in other parts of the country and against Iraqis seen as as assisting the western military forces. The majority of these attacks seem to be by members of the Sunni branch of Islam who were granted special privileges in the Ba'ath Party and wish to regain their central role in Iraqi politics. However, there have been a number of violent groups at work in Iraq, and it is not immediately clear whether and to what extant the resistance is organized or united.

Iraqi Concerns

The main concerns of those opposing the post-Saddam government, both violently and politically, seem to be (not in order of importance):

Ba'ath Party/Sunni Power

While officially secular, the Ba'ath Party was largely made up of Sunni Muslims, while the majority of Iraqis are Shiite. This category is representative of both those formerly high-ranking Sunnis who are seeking to use violence to regain power and the attacks motivated by revenge for the crimes, or perceived crimes, of former members of the Ba'ath Party.

Ethnic & Religious Freedom

One effect of Hussein's ethnic and religious favoritism and opression is that the various religious and ethnic groups in Iraq are extremely distrustful of each other. There is concern that any new Iraqi government will again begin opressing the rights of one group or another in order to gain political advantage.

National Sovereignty

Some have expressed the belief that the American led government will not truly allow a democratic process to establish itself in Iraq, with the possibility of Iraq electing some sort of fundamentalist regime to power - or indeed any government hostile to the interests of the United States.

International Concerns

Many countries have expressed some of the same concerns that the Iraqis themselves have about the country post Saddam: about Iraqi self-determination and ethnic and religious freedoms. Foreign nations have largely focused on the issue of possible American influence, whether sought or unsought, in the future Iraqi governmental process and economy.

Terrorism

There have been frequent claims made, by both U.S. government officials and others, that Hussein had contacts with officials in al-Qaeda, the organization considered by many to be responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. This has not been independently confirmed. Historically Hussein did support Palestinian causes; however, this seems to have largely been in the form financial support for the families of suicide bombers. This was part of Hussein's attempts to become a pan-Arab leader. Western military officials also frequently identify Iraqi militants as terrorists, although others may consider them to be freedom fighters. As always, the application and use of this label depends on one's point of view and specific circumstances - defining these terms in a neutral way is difficult.

I don't expect this to help much, but at least as a starting point and just for the record we should note the dictionary definition (AHD4):

Terrorism, n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Dpbsmith 01:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Canada

Do we need the comment of the Canadian ambassador? First it is nonsensical given the 8,700 British troops, second it is in contradiction to the official Canadian government position. As it is now it is twisting reality to a strong Canadian support and therefore POV. Get-back-world-respect 11:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I moved it from U.S.-led coalition against Iraq when i merged the page to remove redundancies, but I also though that it is an odd comment. Is this still up to date? -- chris_73 11:22, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Checked the web, but the only references I could find are from January, e.g. [3]. Doubt if this is still up to date. If somebody has a more recent ref, then we can add it again, no problem. -- chris_73 23:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think something on this should be here. Canada was considered enough of a supporter to be allowed to bid on the military contracts reserved for supporters, which is significant. At the very least we should say that the official position is neutrality and opposition to unilateral action, but that in practice the US and the Canadian ambassador say Canada has quietly provided significant support. --Delirium 01:33, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I removed it from the section Participating nations because i could not find any recent refs to actual canadian troops in Iraq. However, I also think that the Canadian position is important to mention, I just don't know where. Any suggestions? -- chris_73 02:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Due to international protest the US reversed its decision to reserve contracts to coalition members, not just for Canada. The Canadian government opposed the invasion and judged it illegal, although they used a more diplomatic wording about the UN weapons inspections should have continued and there should have been a UN resolution. Get-back-world-respect 01:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Current News

What's the point of including current events that are going to change day to day or week to week? Specifically, I'm talking about the statements saying that such-and-such country's troops are "currently" confined to their base. When these troops start venturing out again, it's probably not going to be news (or it will be news in Japan, Thai, etc. newspapers that we can't read) so we'll have inaccurate info in the article. Info that wasn't particularly useful in the first place. Mdchachi|Talk 13:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the whole situation changes all the time. Number of troops, participating countries, etc. I agree, however, that it would be better to provide sort of a timeline, i.e when which country had troops where, how many, what they were doing, and what their future plan was. Are you up to the Task? I tried, but couldn't find enough information, so I (lazily) just added the latest info. BTW: there are many Wikipedians that DO read Japanese newspapers, and pretty much any other language, too. -- chris_73 14:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If we say they have troops there but in fact they only have troops hiding in their bases we report inaccurately as well. Always difficult with current events. I think we should report what seems worthwhile and in the medium run we will be able to delete parts of it that do not seem to be of particular importance. Get-back-world-respect 15:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's no need for the article to be a real-time commentary. I think it's sufficient to say roughly how many troops are there and what they are there to do. And any major changes in this. What they are doing (or not doing) at any given moment is too hard to keep current. As for reading the foreign papers -- these are the kinds of things that wouldn't reach even the foreign papers for a while. Most of these countries don't have embedded reporters and any info that gets out will be info coming from the governments that are generally tight-lipped. So if the Japanese venture back outside their base, we probably won't know for a while. Mdchachi|Talk 15:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No need for real-time commentary if there is another attack killing two or so. But if there is an official statement like "Our troops shall not leave their base until the situation has calmed down." I think it is worthwhile to add it as soon as possible. "Until the situation has calmed down" implies it is unclear when they will return so it does not do much harm if we come some days late reporting they are out again. We can just change it to "remained in the base during riots" or so. Get-back-world-respect 15:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Similar problem is the including that "one newspaper claims that Poland will pull-out". I havenot removed this absurd claim, but i would advise not to copy all newspapers articles. FYI, The source of problems is premier Miller sentence "We cannot pretend that Spanish withdrawal is not a problem" and that "Poland will review it's position in Iraq in future" (for example, because after June 30 status of Polish forces will be based on decision of Iraqian ogvernment) and that Polish forces will not be weakened until January the 31, 2005 (because of elections) and later will be weakened, but not withdrawed. User:Szopen

Why do you believe it is worthwhile to add this kind of stuff? So what if the security situation was such that work was interrupted for two weeks? I think this miniscule "current news" makes the article look bad, unverifiable and out-of-date. I think after some time has passed, significant events could be added when there will be enough information about them to deem them significant. Or whoever adds these "current" items needs to remain committed to actively following them up and changing them as soon as the situation changes. Or -- my final suggestion -- date the current news e.g. On April xx, the Japanese government announced that the troops would not leave the base until the situation has calmed down. At least this way the reader will be able to judge better how current the information is. Mdchachi|Talk 16:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection if you want to add dates. I think it is worthwhile reporting they hide in their bases because otherwise it looks as if there were dozens of countries keeping up law and order in Iraq, which in fact is not the case. Get-back-world-respect 16:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't have enough interest in this article to invest that kind of time. So I'll leave my comments as is and hope they are taken into account in the future. IMO statements such as "currently", "soon", "near future" don't look good in this kind of article. (This is not a newspaper article, after all.) Mdchachi|Talk 17:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reconstruction Contracts

One thing missing from the article, unless I'm overlooking it, seems to be discussion of the various issues surrounding the award of reconstruction contracts to non-Iraqi companies. At the very least, there should be some mention of:

• the fact such contracts have been awarded, and the process by which they were awarded;

• the exclusion from bidding of companies from certain countries which opposed the war, and all the resulting politicking;

• allegations of improper links between certain members of the Bush administration and certain companies which have been awarded contracts; and

• the debate over whether foreign contractors are doing work which could be done by unemployed Iraqis, and whether this is a factor fuelling resentment of the occupation.

I hesitate to add such a section myself because, try as I might, I can't make it read like an NPOV. I'm beginning to think this is because the facts in this particular case don't reflect too well upon the US administation, which I guess can't in itself be a reason not to include them! What do people think? Cambyses 05:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that your points are all important and should be mentioned. Of course not reflecting too well upon any governments cannot be a reason not to include facts, often to the contrary. Many articles would not exist otherwise, e.g. Iran-Contra Affair, France and weapons of mass destruction, or Mordechai Vanunu. Get-back-world-respect 12:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Definitely agree this topic should be included. Suggest you give it a try, using the Gradgrind approach: facts, facts, facts. For example, one can state factually that an audit found that Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), may have overcharged the U.S. government $61 million for bringing oil products for the U.S. army into Iraq via a Kuwaiti subcontractor, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co. On the other hand, it would probably be unwise to note that troops in Bosnia referred to Brown and Root by the nickname "Burn and Loot." Dpbsmith 17:12, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Definitely - do a "facts, facts, facts" approach, as mentioned above. I can get you lots of links - here's a few to start: "Bechtel's work on Iraqi schools earns low marks" [4] (the army investigated Bechtel's work on the schools, and found that in many cases they did more damage to the schools than they fixed); Haliburton won deal after auditor warns - Pentagon saw 'systemic' problems with contracts [5]; Pentagon Finds Haliburton Overcharged [6] mirror [7]; Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor [8]; Canada barred from Iraq contracts [9] (covers more than just Canada); etc. As for the issue of unemployed Iraqis, probably the best cases I've found for that are Iraqi blogers (like riverbend) giving personal accounts, but blogs probably don't count as good references, so here's a few articles: A letter from Henry Waxman(D) covering the issue extensively, an article about Iraqi labor organization, and Houston Chronicle - Iraqis say contract bidding is rigged --Rei

Rei, i ceased to consider guardian reliable newspaper when they published "Polish soldiers bewildered and marooned", where they haven't interviewed single POlish soldiers, failed to mention that fact that shiite militia is patrolling streets was effect of agreement made many weeks before Sadrists uprising, quoted Sadr-follower that "they are not attacking Poles because they are hiding behind Iraqian police, and those are brothers" (but they came to that conclusion after 4 days of battling etc. Newspaper who fails to even quote second side of the conflict is not reliable. Szopen 06:59, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also: just in today, Bid rigging, fraud and damage common in Iraq - the AP reviewed govt. documents, and found that 10 companies with billions of dollars in Iraq contracts "have paid more than 300m$ in penalties since 2000 to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage.". Some of the companies are particularly nasty. Many of the companies were banned from getting US contracts, but the Bush admin repealed the Clinton-era rules that prevented them from getting contracts. --Rei

Adding a section on the reconsrucion contracts is very important, it's a crucial aspect of the occupation and the quality of this article would improve a lot. Regarding the question of the reliability of The Guardian, I think that we have to accept that no single newspaper by itself is a reliable source of information. They all have their particular agenda and point of view. The best way of dealing with this problem is to state the source, especially when there is reason for doubt, and then leave it up to the reader to decide what they believe to be facts. As a further source for information on contractors in Iraq, I'd suggest the Corporate Watch website. They produce their own articles like this one but also collect articles from other papers like these: ft: reconstruction on hold Reuters: Halliburton in Iraq. pir 10:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Opinion poll

Check out this Iraqi opinion poll I just added. Opinion poll of Iraqis 2004-04-28 Pretty interesting stuff. Sam Spade 04:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

These polls are interesting; I'm not sure what to think of them. I was pleasantly surprised to see that they've been doing interviews door-to-door instead of via phone polls as they've done in countries like Venezuela, which produces a badly skewed poll in favor of the opinions of the wealthy. However, some of the data coming back is still just strange. For example, one poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, and others, came back with 44% of Iraqis saying that they are Sunnis, and 33% Shiites. That is opposite what we know Iraq's religious breakdown to be, however. An article in the guardian speculates that the problem is that people are choosing answers that they think pollsters want to hear, or answers that are prestigious [10]. But really, I have no clue what is causing this... Some people have suggested that pollsters are refusing to go to areas where security is bad (Fallujah, Sadr City, etc), and are consequently staying in the wealthier, more stable areas. Who knows what is real.... --Rei

Having been a pollster myself, I will heartilly agree that it is far from a perfect source of information, even in the best of circumstances. That being said, it is also a window into what people are thinking, and is much better than just randomly shooting our mouths off (as is often done on the wiki) about how "most ABC's believe XYZ" despite the lack of anything outside of original research to verify it w. Anyhow, take it for what its worth, which is what 3,500 Iraqis told the interviewer in answer to those questions :) Sam Spade 19:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Full vs limited sovereignty

The introduction states

Bremer has announced that full sovereignty and control of Iraq will be given to an Iraqi government by 2004 June 30.

However, the CPA has admitted that they will only tranfer "limited sovereignty" in the sense that the occupation forces will be able to operate fully autonomously in Iraq, apart from legal restrictions to the ability of an Iraqi government to roll back the CPA's decisions prior to June 30. I think "limited sovereignty" is more appropriate than "full sovereignty", and that a section explaining what Bremer thinks he means by "limited sovereignty" is needed. — Miguel 03:23, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

The phrase "limited sovereignty" in itself is POV spin

I have a real problem with the phrase "limited sovereignty." There is no such thing, because the definition of the word "sovereignty" is (AHD4; emphasis mine):

Noun, sovereignty 1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state. 2. Royal rank, authority, or power. 3. Complete independence and self-government. 4. A territory existing as an independent state.

Sovereignty by definition is not "limited." Saying that the Iraqi government will have "limited sovereignty" is just a way of saying they will not, after all, be given sovereignty.

I am sure the Iraqis understand this, and I am sure the U. S. leadership understands this. The use of the phrase "limited sovereignty" is just spin, doubtless in the hope that the American public, wishing to think well of its leadership, will not understand this.

In addition, the phrase "limited sovereignty" has a very unpleasant history; I first encountered it in connection with the Brezhnev doctrine. "Limited sovereignty" is what the Soviet Union "gave" Czechoslovakia.

In short, the use of the phrase "limited sovereignty" is inconsistent with NPOV, and I hope that editors of the section discussing Iraqi sovereignty will find more neutral wording to describe the situation. At the very least, any use of the term should be qualified, e.g. what U. S. officials refer to as "limited sovereignty." Dpbsmith 14:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

It is still factually incorrect to say that the new Iraqi government will enjoy full sovereignty and control of Iraq, for the reasons you and I point out. Your discussion is what I am calling for in that section explainig what Bremer might possibly mean by his oxymoron. — Miguel 15:33, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Agreed. No question there. (What did Bremer actually announce when, by the way? I certainly had the impression that the phrase "limited sovereignty" did not emerge until April 2004, and that before then it had been stated that the U.S. would indeed transfer "sovereignty") Dpbsmith 18:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think you are getting a little pedantic? That's like going to the court and saying that you can't have limited custody of your kids because, by definition, "custody" means that you have "immediate charge and control". Remember, the dictionary doesn't define our language, our (living) language dictates what appears in the dictionary. I don't think most people have a problem with the terms "limited sovereignty" and, as you said, it has been used in the past; I would take it to mean that whoever has it, would have autonomy in some things and no authority in others. Mdchachi|Talk 20:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that if current dictionaries still define "sovereign" the way they in fact do, that is evidence that the phrase "limited sovereignty" is not an example of the normal evolution of a living language, but a recent locution invented by officials for the purpose of putting a spin on events. Yes, officials putting a spin on words can change their meanings and eventually get the new meanings into the dictionaries but, for now, using the inaccurate language amounts to supporting the point of view of those who seek to introduce the locution into the language. Dpbsmith 10:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

On further reflection, I see even less conflict than I did before. "Sovereignty" is a word. "Limited sovereignty" is a phrase. Obviously a phrase consisting of a word and a modifier are not going to mean the same thing as the word alone. It works with any word with an absolute meaning that I can think of. "domination" vs "limited domination". "presidency" vs "limited presidency". Even "death" vs "limited death" could work in some contexts. That's the purpose of putting a modifier on a word -- to modify its meaning within a phrase. There's no need to modify the dictionaries since the base word remains unchanged. If they sneakily drop the "limited" and start using "sovereignty" without the modifier than we may yet see the dictionary definition crisis to which you are alluding. Mdchachi|Talk 14:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

With regard to "If they sneakily drop the "limited" and start using "sovereignty" without the modifier," what would you say to[Bush's speech of May 10th]. Here he says "This is a reason the June 30th transfer of sovereignty is vital. The Iraqi people, and men and women across the Middle East, are watching closely, and they will see America keep its word." So, is he saying that Iraq will have complete independence and self-government after June 30th? Or is he trying to redefine "sovereignty" to mean something other than "complete independence and self-government?" What would you say? Dpbsmith 16:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Multinational force in Iraq

I am not sure whether it is a good idea to move that section to a separate article. What do others think? I think that kind of decision should not be taken without discussion. It is strange to read that some countries retreated their troops when the article did not mention at all that they had troops there before. And at least there needs to be a link to the article. Get-back-world-respect 14:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Chris 73 and Gbwr both make good points: my creation of Multinational force in Iraq needs at least a link from the main article as well as probably some discussion first. I am not an Ent, so I'm often hasty! :-)

After listening to Bush's address on Iraq a day or two ago, I realized that the Multinational force will probably continue to stick around, even after the official "occupation" ends. That's assuming that the June 30th hand-off of sovereignty is considered "true" sovereignty. On that date, the "occupation forces" will change in character if not in composition.

Assuming that a new sovereign Iraq chooses to employ foreign troops to keep order or preserve peace, they will no longer be an "occupation force". So I thought for the sake of continuity and clarity that there ought to be an article about all these troops (or "forces" as we military men like to say :-) which transcends the point where Iraqi sovereignty begins.

Also, there might be a debate (at least among Wikipedians, if not between Republicans and Democrats) over whether "true sovereignty" arrives in Iraq on June 30th. To head off any debate over what to call the forces, I thought Multinational force in Iraq would be neutral in an NPOV way. Everyone agrees that they:

• are in Iraq,
• constitute a "force", and
• are came from multiple countries

I intend for the Multinational force in Iraq article to emphasize (not whitewash!) the controversy over when and/or whether these force were "occupying" the country. This is because of the implications of being an occupying army, such as the connotation of being there to oppress and exploit. To give an historical example, Rome "occupied" Jerusalem when Jesus was around. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think your title is ok and the splitting of the article is reasonable. You should only care for a link to the new article and check which information is needed here to make it coherent. I think the part about specific countries that retreated their forces could also move, as long as this article mentions shortly that such things happened. Get-back-world-respect 21:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Get-back-world-respect. It felt like the section was just ripped out without any accompanying edits. Except for the article getting too long, i would have preferred the list on the main article. We probably need a brief summary, with a link to Multinational force in Iraq -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:22, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Chris, you are right. I reviewed the edit history, now that the server seems be responding again and saw that (as I feared) my intended linkage from here to mfii didn't make it. I've been experiencing lags of over 5 minutes, and occasional WIKIPEDIA IS DOWN notices. Still, I apologize for not checking more carefully! The way I left it was (at best) inexplicable: a section was simply ripped out, as you said.

Now that the server's up to speed again, I hope we can proceed in harmony, discussing all major changes and creating no orphans. --Uncle Ed 17:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, the servers were terrible recently, and I didn't edit much either. Made me feel like I have a 28.8 modem. But things seem to be better now. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

We can not link to NYTimes, as they require registration. Taw 20:19 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Sure we can. --The Cunctator

Word "insurgent" is not NPOV

Hello. I've noticed the use of the word "insurgent" throughout the article, though I haven't made any edits yet. This is a loaded word which implies that the Iraqi resistance is against a legitimately established government and, despite the preponderance of this term in the Western media and the general acceptance of such a view, is neither objective nor insignificant. I believe a different word would be more suitable. Suggestions and discussion are welcome. Simonides 03:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Insurgent is a value-neutral term that does not imply either legitimacy or illegitimacy. If you want it replaced with a term that would imply illegitimacy, this would actually go against NPOV. 172 08:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How can insurgent be a "value-neutral term"? That goes against the definition of insurgent, which means rebellion against lawful authority, the point being that it implies the current authority is lawful (I just noticed that the Wikipedia article itself says this about the word "insurgent": The term is inherently political and is difficult to use without taking a political position.) Further, I did not say I want the word replaced with something that implies "illegitimacy" - only that a different term, such as "opponent" or "guerilla" would be suitable. -- Simonides 02:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Title change

Shouldn't the title "2003 occupation of Iraq" be changed to reflect the occupation's continuation beyond 2003? Perhaps "2003-Present Occupation of Iraq" or "U.S.-led occupation of Iraq", or something similar? -GuloGuloGulo 08:22, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I changed the title, but not the way you said. There is a dispute over whether the military presence of coalition forces is an "occupation" or not. For those who accept or cheer on the interim governments and like the direction regime change is going, the multinational force are not occupiers but are helping the new regime gain its independence. Those who support Saddam, or want some other anti-US or non-democratic goverment to gain power, will maintain forever that the coalition are occupiers.

I wonder if admittance to the UN or even recognition by the entire Islamic world or every country on earth would stop the latter group from calling the Iraq regime's military allies "occupiers"? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The idea that those who believe the multinational force are occupiers are therefore "opponents of Iraqi democracy and US enemies in general" and "supporters of Saddam" is a biased opinion and does not belong. That POV can be represented, but it absolutely should not be in the introductory paragraphs.

There is already an article that deals with the "regime change": Politics_of_Iraq. Information about the political changes in Iraq belong there, not in an article about the military occupation of Iraq. Whether that occupation is over can be discussed, but the fact is that Iraq was/is "seized and controlled as by military invasion." I want to revert the title change, and many of your edits, but I think that it would be best to discuss it first. If you maintain that the title change is warranted, I recommend holding a survey to see what the general consensus is. I will also be posting an RfC to bring in outside opinions.

I would very much like to avoid an edit war. I'm open to discussion and hope you are as well. I'm willing to find a common ground, as long as we uphold the policy of NPOV. Thanks. GuloGuloGulo 21:21, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

What the sock?!? "Regime change"? No, no, a thousand times no! This is not at all a neutral name. "Regime" is a term not without connotations, first of all, and second of all, "regime change" itself is a propaganda term coined by the Bush Administration to make their manipulative games a little more cuddly. If occupation is POV, surely we shouldn't make it WORSE, eh? Graft 00:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV balance

Before I started editing today, this article wasn't neutral but took the point of view of the rebels or gueriilas, i.e., the opponents of the Allawi regime. Wikipedia should not assume that this POV is objective truth.

So I added some coalition POV to balance it, and in order to do so I had to change the article title.

Regime change is happening -- both sides I mentioned agree on this. Whether the coalition are "occupiers" or not depends on POV. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Bush bias

This article is teeming with liberal bias. The anti-Bush feelings are palpable in nearly every paragraph. I can't imagine how anyone could take this article seriously. The picture, which features a glaring Bushism, is quite funny.

Title as slogan

Sorry, I had forgotten that "regime change" was a propaganda term. If "occupation" and "regime change" are both loaded terms, then we need a better article title.

Also, I must not use my "admin power" to impose an article title, so let's talk about here and form a consensus.

Here are some suggestions:

• Politics of Iraq, 2003-2004 - most neutral of all: so vague it could mean anything, and has NO connotations whatsoever

• Reconstruction of Iraq

• War in Iraq, 2003-2004 -- necessitates a merge with Invasion of Iraq -- But that would make the article too big to manage.

Please comment. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reconstruction is definitely out, since there's not much of that going on. War in Iraq has some appeal but I agree that the article would be too big if we merged; this one is already unwieldy enough. I think it would work if we merely extended this back a few months, left Invasion of Iraq as it is, and made this an umbrella article for the whole conflict. This article needs some reworking in general; a lot of detail needs to be trimmed out (like the specifics of chasing al-Sadr around). Graft 16:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we need an over-arching article, to provide a backbone for the "rib" articles about the military conflict that began in March 2003. And I agree that reconstruction of Iraq is not a good title, because it's already taken; I disagree with you about how much 'reconstruction' is going on: are you only reading the Guardian? ;-) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can we agree on War in Iraq, 2003-2004, then? (I'm assuming we'll change it to '2005' when that rolls around) If some third party throws in an 'amen'...

Regarding reconstruction, I don't read the Guardian... I'd be interested in reading something about progress in the reconstruction effort. Everything I've read to points to little activity. Graft 17:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Regime change" is not necessarily a loaded term, it is just not the topic of this article. Information about the change of government belong in the Politics of Iraq article. The end of this article summary states, "This article discusses primarily the ongoing activities of the occupying forces in Iraq."

"War in Iraq, 2003-2004" (Conflict in Iraq, 2003-2004 might be more accurate) is a fine idea for a new "over-arching article, to provide a backbone for the "rib" articles about the military conflict." However, morphing this article into a "War in Iraq" is not the right way to do it. I say keep this page titled "Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004," and create the new over-arching article that culls information from the occupation article and others.

FYI, google news searches for "Iraq" + "occupation": 10,100 [11]. For "Iraq" + "Regime Change": 1,350 [12]. GuloGuloGulo 18:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Support "War in Iraq, 2003-2004." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Survey proposal

I think a title change should be decided with a poll. With any luck, considering the relative importance and popularity of the article, many will participate and consensus will be had. Does anybody support this? GuloGuloGulo 22:55, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I can't really disagree, because I am an admin and thus sworn and pledged not to use my awesome spidey-powers to impose my preferred solution ("With great power, comes great responsibility.") But I think it would be better to create consensus via reason: finding a solution that all consent to. Mere voting rarely satisfies anyone.

The term occupation is a tricky one. For those who regard the Allawi regime as a legitimate authority (such as the Associated Press), there is no occupation any more. For those who see Allawi as subordinate to the US or otherwise deny that the current "Iraqi authorities" have sovereign power, then the US and UK, et al., are "occupying powers" and Allawi is a sort of viceroy.

Maybe we should write an article on definitions of Iraqi sovereignty or the various views of Iraqi sovereignty first.

And also, an overarching article on the, er, "conflict" would help, too. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:42, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'd debate the whole occupation issue with you, since Allawi is clearly the leader of a quisling government. He's been a CIA asset for years, has no standing in Iraq and is a shameless American bootlicker. The only moves he makes are the ones the Americans allow him to make, and everything he does is done in lockstep with the American military. He's a puppet. He's not a legitimate authority by any measure. However, those who would like to believe the pleasant fiction that he is to ease their conscience are entitled to their flight of fancy, I suppose, and though I would not classify them as reasonable people I must nevertheless yield to at least the popularity of that point of view, thanks to the kow-towing of the American press (as you so rightly point out). So I will agree that 'occupation' is not ideal. Graft 17:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fully support a discussion, we can use a survey as a last resort. As I've stated, I agree to an over-arching article about the entire war/conflict/regime-change/occupation. "War in Iraq, 2003-2004" is a good enough title, even. I disagree, however, with the elimination of an article about the military occupation of Iraq. Military operations did not end when the invasion was over. If there is an article about the invasion, there should be article about the occupation. Again, whether the occupation is currently over or not is a separate issue; but regardless, the article should remain. So, I agree to an over-arching article as long as the military occupation is one of the subordinate articles. Agreed? GuloGuloGulo 18:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that sure was quick! Are we really in agreement already? And without even having to vote? Wonderful...

Let's start making plans to rearrange the info on Iraq so that War in Iraq, 2003-2004 becomes the backbone of a series of articles. And let's preserve Occupation of Iraq (or Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004) for the 'official' period of US-led occupation.

All of this, of course, assumes that the various POVs -- e.g., that the occupation was illegitimate, that Allawi is illegitimate, and/or that Iraqi sovereignty didn't really resume June 2003 -- will all be included at length.

Should we make an outline before we start shuffling text around? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm unclear on a few things, first. What does G³ mean by 'military occupation'? I hate articles that are just descriptions of troop movements without any indication of underlying politics. In this case I think it would be especially senseless, since there haven't been many major battles fought, and all of those that were are mostly interesting for their political implications (an article about which alleys US Marines chased Mahdi Army militiamen down is not really worth writing).

Second, I don't want to make an article called 'Occupation of Iraq' for the 'official' period, because that would be endorsing the viewpoint that the occupation ended when the U.S. said it did. There's still 150,000 troops in there, and a puppet government, and a giant fucking American palace in the middle of Baghdad. I think the occupation is ongoing, and I don't think it would be NPOV to imply that it ended. Graft 20:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By "military occupation," I meant belligerent occupation. I was hoping to clarify that occupation is "the control of a country by military forces of a foreign power" (emphases mine), and that whatever one thinks about Iraqi sovereignty, the country is still occupied until foreign forces no longer control the country.

I agree that just having a list of troop movements would be ineffectual. However, significant troop activities should be included. Underlying politics should indeed be included, especially if they show how the "foreign power" are "controlling the country." I agree completely with your second paragraph. GuloGuloGulo 23:12, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

How about using the Multinational force in Iraq article to talk about Coalition troops and the implications of their presence? I have no intention of reducing in the slightest the Wikipedia's attention to the POV that the "occupation" has not ended: as you put it, America has troops, a palace and a "puppet" or viceroy. I only want to add the POV that Allawi is a genuine prime minister whose government enjoys a measure of recognition from other Islamic countries, if not the entire UN. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like we agree on the definition of "occupation" and only disagree on how to apply this definition. Since I never liked the idea of Bush (or his dad) invading Iraq, I can take a step back and be neutral about this -- despite my other pro-Bush leanings. At least I think I can. I call upon Graft to give me a nudge if I start injecting bias into any Iraq-related article.

If foreign military troops control Iraq, you are saying, then it is "under occupation". That sounds like a reasonable definition we can all work with. However, several intricately related questions still remain:

• Is Iraq's interim government a legitimate one?
• Is the multination force (Iraq) in the country at the request of the Iraqi goverment?
• Did the US or any other Coalition nation say that it would NOT leave Iraq, even if the new, elected government asked it to?
• At what point does a victorious army involved in nation building cease to be an "occupier" and transform into an "ally"? (US forces are still on Okinawa.)
• Is the US helping Iraq to put down a guerrilla insurgency, or is it suppressing a popular resistance movement whose only motive is to expel the foreign invaders?

It is with all these questions in mind that I edit (and discuss) the Iraq series of articles. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These are perfectly good questions, they should be addressed in the article by having multiple POVs represented. There is an excellent article here: [13] (free reg. required). It has good answers to many of your questions. GuloGuloGulo 20:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Occupation defined by International Humanitarian Law

There is an occupation when:

1. There is an international armed conflict
2. A foreign military force has made an incursion on enemy territory
3. This force is exerting any form of control over the population of that territory.

When does occupation end?

Occupation ends whenever one of the conditions of occupation is no longer met.

1. The international armed conflict has ended.

An agreement has been signed between the parties at conflict bringing to an end the armed conflict. In general, such agreement will involve the withdrawal of the occupying forces. There may be situations, however, where the former occupier will maintain a military presence in the country, with the agreement of the legitimate government under a security arrangement (e.g. U.S. military presence in Japan and Germany). The legality of such agreement and the legitimacy of the national authorities signing it are subject to international recognition, whereby members of the international community re-establish diplomatic and political relations with the national government. In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation.

2. Foreign military forces have withdrawn from enemy territory or are no longer exerting control over the population of that territory.

In case of an on-going conflict, the withdrawal of the forces also brings an end of the applicability of the law of occupation. It implies, however, that the enemy power has regained control over its population and territory. The mere withdrawal of troops from certain conquered places does not end or suspend the application of IHL rules if it leaves a vacuum of authority. The control of the territory and the legal duties involved remain in effect until the front lines have stabilized. Evidently, in the course of a military campaign where front lines can move back and forth many times and responsibility over the territory and population is unclear, the implementation of such rules can become impractical. However, in the case of the collapse of enemy forces, as in Iraq, the law of occupation applies to territories and populations entering into contact with invading forces, and remains applicable regardless of further tactical deployment of troops. In other words, there is no vacuum of authority or responsibility once troops have moved into a given territory. Obligations for the maintenance of law and order as well as all other obligations pertaining to occupying powers are applicable to the coalition forces as soon as they drive Iraqi forces out of civilian areas.

In both cases:

- The hand-over of administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the occupying power of its obligation;

- The set-up of government structures by opposition groups with the continuing military presence of coalition forces does not fulfil the conditions for the end of the occupation. If changes to the Constitution are required, it can only be amended under its own provisions and procedures or, in exceptional cases, under applicable international law and procedures. Agreements concluded by the U.S. or the U.K. with local authorities of the occupied territory or changes introduced by coalition forces to Iraqi institutions or to the government of Iraq cannot deprive protected persons from the protection offered by IHL (see Article 47 of Fourth Geneva Convention);

- In all cases, the law of occupation applies until one year after the general close of military operations, and even beyond that date, basic rules continue to apply if the occupying power exercises the functions of government in the territory (see Article 6 (3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention). In addition, Protocol I contemplates the extension of the full application of occupation law until the termination of occupation. [14]

GuloGuloGulo 20:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think this boils down to the occupation ending only when enough international recognition of the new Iraqi govermnent occurs. And that will depend on the outcome of the scheduled January 2005 elections -- not enough countries recognize the interim government. And the elections in Iraq depend, I daresay, on the outcome of the November 2004 elections in America. (There's a reason the guerrillas are stepping up their attempts to thwart Allawi & Bush's plans for Iraqi elections.) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq now has its own Government, recognized by most of the world as the official government. Most of Iraq is at peace and is slowly emerging from the misery of Saddam, Uday and Qusay. Terrorism continues to be a problem with every nutbag, psychopath and misfit arriving in Iraq with plans to blow up law enforcement officials, kindergartens and other soft targets. The occupation has ended. The new era is dawning, don't believe the liberal media, the darkness has ended, tyranny is over, the Coalition continues to support the new Government. This is no occupation, it was liberation and is now the beginning of a new day. ReithySockPuppet 20:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Most of Iraq is at peace" I guess if you didn't read the "liberal media" and just watched Bush's stump speeches you might think this. I mean come on, Iyad Allawi can't even go outside the Green Zone without getting attacked [15] [16]. Regardless, Iraq's "own government" is appointed, not democratically elected. As Uncle Ed pointed out, we will have to wait till Jan. I don't know what you mean by the US elections affecting it however, as both the candidates policies are pretty much the same regarding Iraq, albeit Kerry pushing for a more multilateral approach. Yet both want to achieve the same ends, a stable democratic Iraq. In addition, the increase in attacks is more linked to Ramadan than to U.S. elections, as the State Department has reported (DefenseLINK.mil). - Dejitarob 23:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I've removed several paragraphs of this talk page I viewed as irrelevant to the development of the article. People seem to be forgetting something that to me seems key. This talk page is designed to help shape the main article, not to allow people to vent. They can do that in a chat room. This page is to benefit the encyclopedia. (unsigned)

I back Occupation defined by International Humanitarian Law argument

I will confess i wouldn't be able to contribute anything impartial since i have been rabidly anti war since day one. However, the guy who proposed that we rely on international humanitarian law did a very good job in driving the point home. The problem with some other proposal like polls is wikipedians aren't a good representative of world population. Look at most links and most point to US based media companies. This is despite almost a 100% online concession that US media have squandered their legitimacy. This point to the fact that most wikipedians are Americans. The thing is i don't even wholly agree that international law can help, because it can also be manupilated to a degree. To me, occupation ends when a majority of the country's citizen view the government as legitimate. Bear with me here so that i explain why international law can't help much. Burma, for example is not defined as an occupied (by their own military) country, though that is exertly what it is imho. That could have something to do with the fact that most countries still need to trade with it. For example Total (oil company), or most Americans textile firms. Yeah, i am aware asian countries like China and Thailand does the same, but that doesn't excuse the west doing it while still trying to preach human rights to China. The point is, despite the current Burma govenment losing legitimacy as far as Burma citizens are concerned, MOST of the countries are still trading with it (while singing sactions) and therefore giving it legitimacy as far as "International law" is concerned. Now, replace Burma with Iraq. If US and Britian come up with a plan that accommodate France, Russia and China economically, immediately the same government we are beating on here becomes legitimate in the face of "Internationa law", despite the same barely lukewarm acceptance by Iraq citizen, leave alone not being able to write their own speeches. You see where i am getting? So to shorten my rant, when does the Iraq occupation stops, when they can be sure that majority of the Iraqs wouldn't entertain an uprising against the government in power. Anything else will merely be painting some cosmetic word to the same old beast 'OCCUPATION'

This is going to be a hard article to ever get straight.

This discussion was censored/parts deleted by some half brained twit above

My paragraph on causes for war was censured becauses I suggested (in order to contribute to the iraqi resistance page) The cause of Iraqi resistance should be included.

In the Enclycopedia Bratinnaca when the french resistance is decribed the cause occupies one third of the article.

This following is what the Vandal deleter took umbrage at. This he does not want YOU to see. He has taken on himself to be a self appointed policeman for this discussion AND while he keeps his own views for all to see HE deletes those of others he disgrees with so YOU the reader cannot see them or know about them.

I dont remember my previous post exactly but I wished to point out why some Iraqi people hate US forces and cause them to resist. These in my opinion are (and I may be wrong please correct me)

 (A)Illegal War
 (B) Bombing
 (c) Supply of Chemical weapons to saddam by USA in 1980s
 (D)Support USA for invasion of Iran 1n 1982 which caused a million Iraqi lives
 (E)Tourture at abu Gharib prison
 (E)100,000 Iraqis killed (BBC News Service)
 (F) Massacre at the initial demonstartion at Fulljah at a school

This led many Iraqi people to see the USA as a force for evil

Some supporters of the US occupation seemed uncomfortable with the above. If you wish to disagree then express your opinion "Mr Censor", you are free to do BUT do not remove the views of others (this is a discussion page) let readers see both sides and decide. Do not insist on allowing people to only read WHAT YOU think they should -let this discussion be democratic however radical the view. Use YOUR BRAINS dear chap, to convince people of your side of the arguement not the erase button please.. By doing so so are giving Wikipedia a bad name in order to protect your own political intrest. This is a forum for many nationalities they sometime have a view that differs from the US viewpoint. Express your views by all means but do not delete a counter argument in a cowardly manner

Happy editing but do not delete the opinions of others in the discussion page how can we have a discussion otherwise.

Lalit shastri

Calling anyone a "half-brained twit" is not the best way to influence people. Maurreen 06:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article length

The article is about 43 kb. Any thoughts on slimming it down? Maurreen 06:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maureen the Newspaper editor and marine quit flying the US flag each time you edit

Hi Maureen

I have been noticing your political edits all over Occupation of Iraq article – These edits do not seem in any way to contribute towards the knowledge on the subject in a neutral manner. But seem to be deliberate act of vandalism in support of US policy in Iraq. For instance you have removed all references to US soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq and Civilian deaths. You have removed all references that the war was illegal even though the UN declared the war illegal – We only quoted from the UN Gen assembly - you have even removed the words of the UN secretary Gen on Iraq.... You have removed references from a dozen newspapers that report on the occupation of Iraq as that puts the US in a poor light. You have removed the account on the violence on the Iraqi people and their suffering from the page.

The newspaper you work for The News & Observer is a rabidly pro American occupation of Iraq mouthpiece. Undistinguishble by content from Fox News – But let me remind you this is Wikipedia not some silly Southern Rag and therefor you need to me more skillful in your edits as the readership in Wikipedia unlike the readers of the rag you work for are not semi literates and understand the world.

OK! OK!!! You are a American and JUST love your country GOD Bless America and all that..- If you love your country so much re join the marines or something and toddle off somewhere in the world to find some people to fire on.

But you know the rest of the world has a point of view as well along with many Iraqi people who visit this page OCCUPATION OF IRAQ and contribute to the reality of whats going on in that country under occypation. The page is ruined now with signs of your grubby deletions all over it in favour of your president & country.

Goodall

RfC?

This page is listed on RfC. Is any dispute still active? Maurreen 23:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Invasion and article length

Last night I reverted material about the war and material that is POV, in my view. This article is about the occupation and past the recommended length limit. Other than maybe about a paragraph, I think material about anything before the occupation itself belongs in a different article. Maurreen 17:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing from anyone else, so this isn't just between me and Goodall. Maurreen 07:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection?

In my view, one or more anonymous users are adding questionable edits. Should we get the page protected, or will the anonymous people at least attribute their material? Maurreen 18:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Dictatorship of the fans of protection

Dear Maurreen

I refer you first to my previous comments(two postings above).

So now you wish to get the page protected to prevent the World community from editing it having first got in your partisan views on the occupation. You go against the very ethos of wikipedia the collective opinion of a worldwide community, which democratically arrives at agreement via counter edits and discussion.

Do you really wish now impose your own little dictatorship, in your appeal to get the page protected.

The edits that must remain are the few lines on the casualties of the war and the NPOV paragraph on the legality of the war which is just a UN quote.

Otherwise the article will appear as something out of fox news, or from the provincial newspaper where you contribute your articles – Its worth a mention here, for the benefit of our readers, that this newspaper News & Observer is famous for its jingoistic and inaccurate coverage of the war example. (a) Your newspaper first reported that Iraq operation was a war on terror to catch Al Queida whom Iraq was supporting (b) Saddam Husain could fire his weapons of mass destruction on England within 40 minutes. (c) USA is in grave danger from the threat from Saddam Husain. Therefor in view of your employer’s consistent record, of carrying fiction in its editorials, you may not be schooled in either NPOV reporting or NPOV writing.

To bring another point up, You as a ex marine soldier have added to the article the modus oparandi and equipment of the US marine force in their occupation of Iraq and a lot of other nonsense, I suggest if you wish to make the article shorter edit out the irrelevant section on US forces and all such rubbish and concentrate on the effects of the occupation on the people of Iraq. Like Lawlessness and the diminishing of the quality of life even if this takes just one paragraph in a NPOV manner and of course do not edit out the fact that 100,000 people have died to date (the fact reported by the BBC and the UN)

Anyway happy editing, experience shows that wikipedia is an excellent educational tool, and contributors gradually learn to use the NPOV concept in writing from their peers.

Happy editing

Goodall

Goodall or whoever

A disagreement between users does not belong in a to-do box. When you are ready for a discussion without personal criticism, just let me know. All that is relevant is the article. Maurreen 07:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edited Out Personal criticism

Point accepted, I was wrong, Edited Out Personal criticism in all refrences to yourself in my postings here and elsewhere

regards

Goodall Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maurreen_archive_2#Edited_Out_Personal_criticism

Maureen the Newspaper editor and marine quit flying the US flag each time you edit

Hi Maureen

I have been noticing your political edits all over Occupation of Iraq article – These edits do not seem in any way to contribute towards the knowledge on the subject in a neutral manner. But seem to be deliberate act of vandalism in support of US policy in Iraq. For instance you have removed all references to US soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq and Civilian deaths. You have removed all references that the war was illegal even though the UN declared the war illegal – We only quoted from the UN Gen assembly - you have even removed the words of the UN secretary Gen on Iraq.... You have removed references from a dozen newspapers that report on the occupation of Iraq as that puts the US in a poor light. You have removed the account on the violence on the Iraqi people and their suffering from the page.

But you know the rest of the world has a point of view as well along with many Iraqi people who visit this page OCCUPATION OF IRAQ and contribute to the reality of whats going on in that country under occypation. The page is ruined now with signs of your grubby deletions all over it in favour of your president & country.

Goodall

RfC?

This page is listed on RfC. Is any dispute still active? Maurreen 23:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Invasion and article length

Last night I reverted material about the war and material that is POV, in my view. This article is about the occupation and past the recommended length limit. Other than maybe about a paragraph, I think material about anything before the occupation itself belongs in a different article. Maurreen 17:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing from anyone else, so this isn't just between me and Goodall. Maurreen 07:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of simplicity, I suggest trying to compromise with one or more separate sections, such as "War," "Invasion" or "Iraqi perspective." Maurreen 00:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection?

In my view, one or more anonymous users are adding questionable edits. Should we get the page protected, or will the anonymous people at least attribute their material? Maurreen 18:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Dictatorship of the fans of protection

Dear Maurreen

I refer you first to my previous comments(two postings above).

So now you wish to get the page protected. Do you really wish now impose your own little dictatorship, in your appeal to get the page protected.

The edits that must remain are the few lines on the casualties of the war and the NPOV paragraph on the legality of the war which is just a UN quote.

To bring another point up, You have added to the article the modus oparandi and equipment of the US marine force in their occupation of Iraq, I suggest if you wish to make the article shorter edit out the irrelevant section on US forces and concentrate on the effects of the occupation on the people of Iraq. Like Lawlessness and the diminishing of the quality of life even if this takes just one paragraph in a NPOV manner and of course do not edit out the fact that 100,000 people have died to date (the fact reported by the BBC and the UN)

Anyway happy editing, experience shows that wikipedia is an excellent educational tool, and contributors gradually learn to use the NPOV concept in writing from their peers.

Happy editing

Goodall

Goodall or whoever

A disagreement between users does not belong in a to-do box. When you are ready for a discussion without personal criticism, just let me know. All that is relevant is the article. Maurreen 07:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Point accepted, I was wrong, Edited Out Personal criticism in all refrences to yourself in my postings here and elsewhere

regards

Goodall

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maurreen"

---

For the sake of simplicity, I suggest trying to compromise with one or more separate sections, such as "War," "Invasion" or "Iraqi perspective." Maurreen 00:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comment

In response to the RfC, my own view is that information about what led up to the Occupation does not belong in this article, as there is a separate article about the Invasion of Iraq. Any pre-invasion material arguably belongs there instead. An exception would be if Bush or anyone had made statements prior to the invasion that they intended/did not intend to occupy. Those statements would be relevant to this article. But I would question the relevance of some of the points in the "overview" section about the grounds for the invasion -- that the U.S. government supplied Saddam arms to fight Iran (not relevant to the occupation and has no citation); that the chemical weapons used against the Kurds were supplied by the U.S. (not relevant to the occupation and has no citation); that the U.N. did not authorize the invasion (not directly relevant, though it could be argued it is relevant because, if the U.N. did not authorize the invasion, then ipso facto it did not authorize the occupation); and that Arab states asserted the war was illegal (again, this belongs in the invasion section, though again it could be argued that, if the Arab states found the war illegal, they similarly find the occupation illegal).

Hope this helps in some way. I'm going to do a bit of a copy-edit of the article. Hope no one minds. I won't make major changes unless I find something I believe is factually wrong. Slim 00:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence about America supplying the chemical weapons Saddam used against the Kurds, because I don't know of any evidence (and couldn't find any) that shows the Americans supplied these chemicals any more than a number of other countries did. I know that Germany, U.K., India, Italy and the U.S. supplied chemicals to Saddam. I don't know which chemicals exactly were used against the Kurds and whether there's evidence of precisely where these came from. I think if this is to be in the article, there should be more detail and it should be attributed (but I would say this article is not the place for that information). I also added some more precise figures about casualties and left those in the introduction rather than having the 100,000 figure mentioned in the Intro, then the lesser figure mentioned at the end of Overview. Slim 02:02, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

External links section

The external links section is a mess. Many links are narrow, dated, and biased to the left. (I don't disagree with many of these links, but they are still biased.) I tried to at least improve it by generalizing and consolidating links and removing dated links. Some links were traced back to more original sources. For example, there is a remarkable volunteer page that tracks coalition casualities in Iraq and that is better than the CNN and Washington Post pages.

The separate section on Amnesty International suffers from the same problems and I may work on that too.

--Greg Kuperberg 16:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iraqi civilian opinion - should US stay or leave?

Shouldn't this be in the article? Iraqi Public Opinion:

• Only 33 percent of Iraqis think they're better off now than before the war, as a Gallup poll discovered.
• Just 36 percent believe the interim government shares their values.
• 94 percent say Baghdad is more dangerous than it was before the war.
• 66.6 believe the US occupation could start a civil war.
• 80 percent want the US to leave directly after the January elections. "

[http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2028 http://www.thenation.com

--Jawed 19:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the methodology of the Gallup poll? There didn't seem to be a link in the article you cited. Also, the poll just determines popular sentiment, not facts. For instance the US occupation is more likely to prevent a civil war than start one. The US forces have already taken a toll on the anti-democratic foreign insurgents who have preventing the Shiite majority from gaining power as a goal even if it means starting a civil war. They would be free to do so if the U.S.A left. The possibility of starting a civil war is not news, the U.S. agrees that was a key risk, even during the first Gulf War, and a strategic goal of the occupation was to prevent it, and that has been successful so far. Some of the questions may also have been poorly worded, for instance, if the values of the interim government were enumerated, to see which ones those polled shared and which ones they didn't, it would be far more informative. I'd be particularly interested in whether those polled shared the value of having democratic elections. It would be a good way to identify and capture the anti-democratic forces.--Silverback 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Gallup poll does relate facts, facts about public opinion. Much of what you write here however is not fact but opinion. Here's another one:

A civil war in Iraq is obviously much more likely now than it was before the occupation, therefore the occupation cannot be said to be likely to prevent one. If there hadn't been an occupation it would not have been necessary to have preventing a civil war as a goal of that occupation. See the CIA analysis on this. The US occupation is itself profoundly anti-democratic, as are all military occupations, so it can hardly be encouraging democracy. How exactly would a poll help to identify and capture "anti-democratic forces" (i.e., the resistance)? By targetting those that disagree with the occupation? Talk about anti-democratic forces.

It is a moot point now, the U.S. occupation is over and there way no civil war. The poll would help to identify and capture anti-democratic forces, if the poll takers were bugged or CIA agents. --Silverback 13:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

too may damn footnotes

wikipedia is an encyclopedia which stands on its own merit. we should not have all these footnotes within the body of the text. please consider removing as many as possible. if need be, place them in the TALK area or under the list of External links. Kingturtle 09:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV title

Given continuing dispute, both on this talk page and and in the world at large, as to whether the occupation of Iraq is continuing or has ended, I think we can do with a completely neutral, descriptive title and discuss the issue in the article (where amazingly the dispute as to current status is not mentioned at all), rather than just arguing about it on the talk page, where it cannot enlighten the casual reader. So I propose Post-Invasion Iraq, 2003-2004, which makes no judgement at all on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claimed 'handover of power'. Also I cast my vote with Conflict in Iraq, 2003-2004 as the title for an overarching article.--Pharos 03:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)