Talk:Iraq disarmament crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Venn diagram for the following articles appears unusually crowded:

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Disarmament_of_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Iraq_disarmament_crisis http://en2.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq http://en2.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war http://en2.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Iraq_crisis,_2003

Haukurth 00:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2002/db020915.gif

From the page...

The Plan Makes All the Difference

I have to agree with the recent change to the word "plan". The United States is planning military strikes and strategies against Iraq, as reported on the daily news and CNN, so the word "plan" is a nice subtle revision. Now, The actual motivation(s) for aggressive action, as well as consequences the United States may reap from such, have been speculated for quite some time.
One piece of possible motivation lies in past endeavors unfinished. Rememeber George Bush senior had his qualm with Saddam and, by contrast to popular report that Schwartzkoff had Hussain in dead range, chose not to eradicate the Dictator from power. So, what act of vengence George Jr. has in mind could be a lengthy debate.
Also, if we recall some of the major wars that were initiated by, or fought relentlessly by, the United States of America, i.e. The Revolutionary War and The Civil War, we will undoubteldy see a stark economic trend. The oil of the Middle East is a precious commodity. Is, perhaps, the United States attempting to sieze and control such a fortune?
What about the consequences? Iraq had the scud missle in 1990. As technology has flourished in the past ten years, they are sure to possess more lethal and frightening masses of warfare. The U.S. may not be capable of thwarting every incoming rocket. Then, with Saddam's plea for retalliation coupled with the growing tension against Western policy, is there not a possibility that an all out collaborative assault may be waged against the United States, Israel, and other U.S. interests?? Could we survive such a catastrophic event??
Sometimes we just long to enjoy life for its beauty and tranquility. Yet we are constantly reminded of our impending mortality with every click of the clicker on the Sunday evening news. There is no need for such primitive behavior by pretentious power hungry politicians to put lives at stake over machoism, economics, and the duel for dominion. If every World Leader were isolated on an island and forced to fight their own battles, we would see the exact action we need to rememdy the situation; peace, cooperation, and understanding. Then, and only then, might the world be saved form human destruction. Give peace a chance.



"The projected United States invasion of Iraq..."

Isn't there some other topic heading that we could put this under, as this event has not occurred yet, and it might be confused with war in 1990.


I sure hope so, as the current topic heading makes it sound like an historical event, which to the best of my knowledge as of this writing (12 August 2002) it is not. Perhaps the main material regarding the upcoming/hypothetical invasion should be at Projected United States invasion. This topic could redirect to that one. If the invasion ever actually takes place, then this topic can be used to recount actual history, with a See also link to the "Projected" topic to point to what people thought of it before hand. Would that make sense to everyone? Wesley
Or we could just wait until something actually happens before we write about it. See also Talk:Stock Market Crash of 2002 Rmhermen 11:51 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
Paging Hari Seldon... --AW
I redirected Stock Market Crash of 2002 to Stock Market Downturn of 2002, because the word "crash" in the article title depends on a POV; see the "attack vs. invasion" discussion I'm having with The C. --Ed Poor

I removed (which later accounts have suggested was probably a justified concern). because there was no proof given in the article. -- Zoe

I think we are actually being a little more gentle with Iraq than necessary. They did agree at the close of the Gulf War to destroy weapons of mass destruction. They did not do so and concealed them. One does not need access to top secret information to definitively establish those facts. User:Fredbauder

Fredbauder is right: There is ample evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, that they had and used chemical weapons, and that they lied to UNSCOM from beginning to end. Yet what is most particularly relevant to the current debate is not what capabilities they had, but what capabilities they now have. Does anyone have more information on this subject? More external links? TIA --Fritzlein

Re: the 1998 withdrawal of the inspectors: I'm pretty sure they were withdrawn by Butler, not by Iraq. See, for example, [1] Iraq was not allowing them to search all sites, but they did not expel them from the country. DanKeshet

Bush's threats of invasion are based on nothing more than a child-like insistence on finishing what daddy started in the early 90's. Iraq has proven itself to be a negligible threat. The political impact of an attack on Iraq far outweighs the pittance of armament they possess.

I think a better title for this page is US plan to invade Iraq. Until and unless the US actually invades, there is only a plan. Moreover, announcements of the plan might be posturing (sable-rattling?).

I agree entirely. The current title is inaccurate and misleading. I don't think "Threatened United States invation of Iraq" would be too biased, but maybe "Proposed" or "Planned" or "Potential" would be better. Anything to be clear that the invasion hasn't happened yet. I'll move it eventually myself if no one else does.

Perhaps a ? after the title, that's how ABC News handles it, "Road to War?".

Removed line about US law preventing Saddam's assasination. There is no such law. There is an executive order (possibly three different ones) issued by the President which can be repealed by him. And I thought that I heard it was but I cannot find a mention of the repeal on the Web. --rmhermen

MSNBC claims that the Washington Post claimed in the spring of 2002 that Bush had signed an order allowing the CIA to assasinate Saddam. Best I could find. --rmhermen

I changed the title of the article to US plan to invade Iraq, because the proposed invasion hasn't happened yet, and it might even not happen. When and if the US invades Iraq, we can change the title to US Invasion of Iraq with the click of a button. --Ed Poor 14:09 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)

The content of this page needs to be broken up into separate pages (the us plan, UN resolutions on Iraq, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, perhaps) ...I'd do it, but I'm not sure when I'd have the time. --The Cunctator

Almost the entire article is devoted to opposition to the US plan. Shouldn't there be a bit more about why Bush favors an invasion. I have mixed feelings about it, even though I see Iraq as a threat, and I'd like to be able to read a fair summary here.

There should be more stuff like the following:

"Defectors reported in December 2001 and March 2002 the existence of mobile germ laboratories disguised as milk delivery trucks, and a network of underground bunkers for chemical and biological weapons production. U.S. officials released evidence on March 8, 2002, allegedly showing that Iraq has been converting dump trucks bought through a UN humanitarian program into military vehicles, in violation of UN sanctions. An Iraqi defector stated that he had converted Renault trucks into mobile laboratories with incubators for bacteria, microscopes and air conditioning." [2]

--Ed Poor

I added a summary of his allegations made in the recent UN speech as an effort to at least partially address this. I think I heard that Iraq offered to allow weapons inspectors back in under certain conditions; wouldn't hurt to include their counteroffer including details and conditions, if someone can find it. Wesley 16:12 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

This material was excised from War on Terrorism, because of it's War on Iraq-specific nature. We should integrate it if possible with this article:

Common arguments against a war against Iraq include:

  • The death and casualties it will cause among Iraqi civilians who are not complicit in the Saddam regime.
  • Unilateral aggressive warfare is a hazard to international law and to peace among nations in the large.
  • Militarization can be harmful to domestic society, particularly in a time of economic downturn.
  • The importation of more warfare into the Middle East region may lead to its further destabilization, as well as to the continuation of present causes of violence and terrorism.
  • The increasing willingness of the American government to use violence abroad threatens the establishment of a state of perpetual warfare.

DanKeshet 15:33 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

The checkbox marked "This is a minor edit" is for spelling errors, wikifying, and so on. Changes tothe meaning of the article, especially on controversial matters, should not be marked "minor". --Ed Poor

to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction (see regime change).

Why do you keep putting in "alleged", soulpatch? --Ed Poor

Because without that word, the sentence seems to assert as a fact that they have such weapons, but then the very next paragraph points out that this is a point of debate. soulpatch

Can someone provide some documentation for the claim that Powell is grumbling behind the scenes? Else that ought to be removed, since it's so tenuous as it stands... Personally I'm sick to death of "Powell-as-Dove", when he's one of the most hawkish people on the planet. As Normon Solomon says, "Some hawks have polished talons." So, documentation to demonstrate he's dovish on Iraq, or else we should axe it as misleading. Graft 18:25 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

You have a point. Saying that someone is a "dove" within the Bush administration isn't really saying much. In comparison to Bush's extreme warmongering posture, almost anyone would be a "dove" in comparison. soulpatch

"..to overthrow Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and replace it with a government which respects the standard of human rights which the US requires"" Is that a publically stated aim? Mintguy 14:40 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Ed Poor - The opening paragraph seems alright, but it should be mentioned that other reasons for an invasion could exist, that the Bush administration isn't admitting to... i.e. oil or regional military hegemony. Greg Godwin

I agree with your point, so I tweaked the opening paragraph to make clear that the reasons cited are the official, public reasons being given. It would be appropriate to discuss possible any of the other possible reasons you cited that might lie behind Bush's push for war. soulpatch

I moved some stuff that had been hiding in Opposition up into the introductory section, because it has nothing to do with opposition and in fact discusses the meat of the invasion plan. However, there's some problems with it:

  • In the section discussing the Senate Foreign Relations committee, there is a lot of wishy-washy stuff that doesn't get cleanly spelled out (like projected costs) that would be nice.
  • There is a lot of unattributed analysis, which does not belong in Wikipedia.

Graft

Hi VC, I don't think it's apt to call it "threatening", since the U.S. has never explicitly said it will use nuclear weapons against Iraq. It has made vague pronouncements in policy documents about using "all of our available options" (or some such), it has talked a lot about bunker-busters, which is not-so-subtle. Can we consense on "made veiled threats"? Graft

It announced about a month ago that if Iraq uses chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons then there will be an immediate US nuclear retaliation. Ive never heard about the bunker-busters... Vera Cruz

The bunker-busters been known among the military press for some time. However, they may be thermobaric bombs instead of nukes.
The war plans have also been discussed in the press, such as the London Daily Telegraph, the Times of London, the New York Times, and in military journals such as Air Chronicles. --GABaker

Why is it necessary to say, critics, especially the iraqis, which makes it sound as if the iraqis are the only critics. I don't think Ive heard a criticism yet where somebody hasn't brought up oil. Vera Cruz

I didn't add the "especially the iraqi's" thing, but - just my 2 cents... I've heard very few people (other than the Iraqi government and maybe far, far left wing democrats) suggest that oil really has anything to do with it. Most crtics I've heard dismiss the oil argument as just a political argument. One reason being that no one said anything about oil when Pres. Clinton was talking about removing Saddam from power in '98. -Jazz77

Well, we most move in different circles because where Im at, left-wing democrats are considered to be right wing fascists... All I hear is oil, and I believe it too. Bush=Oil Exec Cheney=Oil Exec Saddam=Oil Exec Karzai=Oil Exec Rice=Oil Exec doesnt take much to figure it outVera Cruz

Yeah, just look how daddy Bush took over the oil fields after the Gulf war... (I heard the same thing said back then.. and a lot more often. The whole argument proved to be nonsense) ... I'd suggest finding new circles to move in. -Jazz77


The U.S.'s saying it's considering military action against Iraq is a "threat" not a "plan". As a matter of NPOV, we can't know if the U.S. even has a plan, much less whether it has any intention to implement it. So could we please change the title of this article to something more accurate, more neutral, and more specific (so we can tell this one from all the others there have been and will be in the future)? -- isis 04:37 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

If you have something to criticize, then bring it up specifically. I hardly think this article is full of nonsense speculation, nor do I feel it fails to touch upon the US plan of invading and occupying Iraq. Vera Cruz

Specifically, there is a total absence of any factual information about any "plan" the U.S. supposedly has for invading Iraq. This is an editorial, not an encyclopedia article. -- isis 08:05 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
If it helps, we also have articles on World War III--GABaker

The US has more than a threat, they do have a plan. They have published it and it involves attacking Iraq and killing a lot of people. As to whether they intend to execute said plan...well who knows but apparently they seem hellbent on it. We should link to WWIII from this... Vera Cruz

But this article doesn't describe any such plan. If it did, it would say something like, "The plan is to . . . " All we have so far is a lot of speculation by unidentified persons as to what could happen or what they "expect" to see happen. That doesn't tell a reader what the U.S.'s plan is, so the title of this article is false advertising and undercuts the Wikipedia's credibility. -- isis 05:58 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

The only elements of the plan that we know are

  • Iraq
    • Attack
    • Defeat
    • Occupy

Everything else is speculation...Vera Cruz

That's not a plan -- a plan is an algorithm or a flow-chart. A grocery list is not a plan, but this is: 1) Get in car and go to store. 2) Buy items on list. 3) Bring them home. An encyclopedia article titled "U.S. plan to invade Iraq" should describe a U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Ours doesn't. -- isis 06:42 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

You missed my flowchart

  • Iraq
    • Attack
    • Defeat
    • Occupy


Speculation is encyclopedic. Just check out the section on religion, it's got a lot of speculation. Vera Cruz

Religion is speculation. The article doesn't say, "The U.S. has a plan now. It is to attack, defeat, and occupy Iraq. We know that is its plan because . . . " If it doesn't assert there's a plan and doesn't describe the plan and doesn't document those facts, it isn't an encyclopedia article about a plan. -- isis 07:05 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
I completely agree with isis, and I just want to register before I start editing that the reason I'm editing and not moving the page to U.S. threat to invade Iraq is because I'm too chickenshit, not because I disagree. DanKeshet 15:37 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'd prefer a title akin to "Iraq crisis 2002-2003", since it is an issue bigger than just the threatened invasion by the US. - Khendon 15:31 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

At some point in the article it says that France Germany and Russia are opposed to the US plan at all levels. Is this correct? I thought Russia and China were allying themselves with the US. I just saw this on Yahoo recently. dgrant. Oops, I just checked, I was wrong: "China and Russia, as well as Canada, joined France and Germany Thursday in opposing any rush to war.". I realized why I got confused. There was another section of the text where it called China and Russia allies of the U.S. Hmm, it doesn't sound like they are allies.

However, the U.S. government has claimed that some of these countries have showed support in private, asserting that they are affraid to do so in a public way. Some of the countries that are the strongest critics of a planned invasion in 2002, like France, also opposed to the Gulf War up until the start of the war.

Isn't this like a discussion among loyal friends? You're about to do something your friends consider ill-advised (like Marlon Brando going against Johnny Friendly in On the Waterfront). So they try to talk you out of it. Some may tell you privately not to do it, others may voice their concerns publicly.

But when you finally decide to do it, your loyal friends drop all talk of opposition and give you their support: some whole-heartedly, others within limits.

Why?

Because, before the commencement of hostilities, there are two choices:

  1. Attack
  2. Do not attack

But after the hostilities have begun, the choices are different:

  1. Strive for victory
  2. Surrender

There's a big difference between these 2 sets of choices. --Ed Poor

This shouldn't necessarily be put into the article because it's just speculation, but some have suggested that (at least in France's case) it's a pride thing.. That in fact they do support us, but refuse to act like they do until they have to. One news program I watched a few days ago went back over the last 20-30 years of history showing how France almost always goes against the U.S. publically, and then supports the U.S. when the shit hits the fan.
And of course with Arab countries, most of them don't want to publically support the U.S. for obvious reasons. Even if they dislike Saddam and would love to see him kicked removed, they don't want to be seen publically supporting "the great Satan". -Jazz77


It's also possible to stay neutral after the hostilities have begun. Tokerboy
Not to mention the fact that there have been lots of wars that ended with neither "victory" nor "surrender"; for one thing, a lot of wars ended in stalemates. Which side "won"? Of course, war in Iraq will not be a stalemate, because it is the case where one side is overwhelmingly more powerful than the other. And if the vastly m ore powerful side calls off its war then it is only "surrender" by the wildest stretch of the definition as to make the word meaningless. Whether France has the balls to stick to its convictions and continue to take the moral high road on the question of war in Iraq is a big question. Right now, France is acting as the conscience of Europe, but, like most of Europe, they are afraid to to piss of the world's only superpower too much. It would be nice to believe that they will not knuckle under the weight of the US's superpower diplomatic muscle, but if history is any guide, they probably will cave in like they did in the matter of the previous UN resolution. soulpatch
It is a gross over simplification to view the other countries as 'loyal friends' of the U.S Of A. It denies the possibility that other nations have different political objectives than the Bush administration. Further the assertion that there are only binary options in this conflict undercuts the lack of critical thought displayed in this talk page. This article is even handed even with the limitations of the editors and writers so far. When one is living through a propaganda war, designed to marshall support for another hot war where the Bush Family and their associates stand to gain financially, it is paramount that Americans use thye internet to access direct voices from political commentary in other lands. (In fact High ranking cabinet members of Bush 2 are already turning a profit from war preparation to date.) If every American who was able, investigated the arguements for war with a critical eye, the war would not happen.

Canadains get exposed to American propaganda: it simply is not as effective without the childhood indoctrination of the American Civil Religon. Americans swim in a soup of propaganda from birth and that makes critical thinking about America and Its place in the world, impossible except for the dedicated. User:Two16

People! This article is getting huge again. Please refrain from updating it every time there is any news development: most news stories go nowhere and Wikipedia is not a news report. In a few minutes I'm going to spin-off the Public Opinion section into a daughter article since it is not directly related to the plan. --mav

Done. --mav

Don't panic, very soon I'll be removing the redirect from United States invasion of Iraq Fred Bauder 21:10 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

there is no evidence that Iraq made use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War

Huh? I thought the massive Iraqi campaign against the Kurds was the main reason Bush wants Iraq to give up its chemical weapons!

The whole section seems one-sided. It sounds as if Iraq has no WMD, and as if everyone knows this, and as if the US has some ulterior motive. Sheer propaganda.

I just removed this. Now that the speech has been made, this information should be presented differently if at all: ...disclose newly unclassified information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and connections between the country and the plotters of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US. An anonymous senior U.S. official told reporters that Powell has material showing that Iraq not only was hiding chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors, but smuggling in technology for long-range missile and nuclear weapons programs. Loisel 21:32 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Excuse me, Powell did not even MENTION al qaida in the presentation...it was avoided altogether

He mentioned the Al Queda group that is based in Norther Iraq, he mentioned that the leader of that group visisted Baghdad on many occasions and even received medical treatment in the city. did you fall asleep?

Mr Powell said Iraq "harbours" a terrorist network headed by al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawi. This network helped establish another poison and explosives training camp in north-east Iraq. Powell showed a picture he said was of this camp. 

Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaeda together

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2728545.stm

Colin Powell

Analysis: 'Al-Qaeda link'

Mr Powell said some al-Qaeda groups were operating in northern areas of Iraq. Although they were in Kurdish areas outside the direct control of Baghdad, he said Iraqi agents were working with the groups.

Iraqis visited Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members. He said Iraq maintained active links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, using its embassy in Pakistan as a "liaison office".

Lol I must have fallen asleep! My bad -- jeejee

The UK won't be having a vote before attacking Iraq (if they do) because of the need to maintain the "element of surprise". Picture the scene, in a bunker somewhere in Iraq:

Qusay: "We're being attacked!"
Saddam: "I didn't expect that..."
{Three uniformed men break through the door and leap dramatically into the room. Their leader speaks:}
Tony Blair: Nobody expects the British armed forces! Our chief weapon is surprise!

Martin

Just a shame you were wrong, eh? ;-) -- Khendon 15:11 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Iraq crisis of 2003 still has a fair bit of information not over here yet. Someone should complete that job and turn that article into a redirect.

Calling it a 'disarmament crisis' is a nice cop-out. It was an 'invasion crisis' just a week ago, until it became obvious the invasion was globally so unpopular that 'regime change' wasn't a popular goal. It's just a 'crisis', and the only NPOV thing that can be said about it is that it's the Iraq crisis of 2003. Shifting to this title is a POV move. An honest title would admit that the US invasion plan played a role in the crisis as much as disarmament failure.

Also, alleged impacts of invading Iraq have been so important in forming the debate on this issue, that it deserves at least a one-liner in this article. To dodge around *why* the US plan was so unpopular seems like an absolute cop-out - we are talking about world majority opinion here (that the cons outweigh pros).

I agree. This is poorly conceived and poorly written. --The Cunctator

Still a messy, messy entry. What's Wolfowitz doing in the same breath as Clinton? What Wolfowitz did during the Clinton administration wasn't important then; it has only become important in retrospect. --The Cunctator

Um, commenting about how messy you think an article is on a talk page doesn't really seem to achieve anything. This is wiki after all, if you don't like it - change it. --snoyes 17:30 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)