Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T23:09:50Z

PKBear: /* End of first phase */

== Removal ==

I have removed the line: "Under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation." because it is simply untrue. I mean, the foremost example that comes to mind is that Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim nation - elected a female Hindu at its prime minister not too long ago.
[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 03:23, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:This addresses specifically Arab Sunni in Iraq, as the source document states. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, firstly, I mean, it isn't cited; the sentence after it links to somebody's testimony before some kind of Senate or Congress panel, but it isn't actually cited. The second problem is that it's simply untrue; as I pointed out, Indonesia - the largest Muslim country in the world - elected a female Hindu as its prime minister not long ago. A lot of Iraqis - most, perhaps - also have secular inclinations from living under Baathist rule for so long, so I think this claim really needs to be questioned. I mean, is it akin to somebody saying that Christians believe in stoning people who cheat on their wives, even though - in spite of what the Bible may say - Christians obviously do not believe in that?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:20, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::The entire passage is cited to Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on Securing America's Interest in Iraq, 23 January 2007.

:::(a) Nowher does the source document discuss Indonesia; (b) this article is entitled "Iraq War", not "Inodonesia". Context of the source document gives relevency. Obviously, the source document was not reviewed before removing the proper citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Full context:
:::''As all know by now, for even moderately fundamentalist Sunnis, the Shia are disqualified from political power because under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state--while the Shia for them are heretics. '''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow, you're not much of an expert on Islam are you? Salafists are a miniscule, radical minority with little to no support in Iraq, even among the Sunnis, who - being the progenitors of Iraqi Baathism - possess a historical tendency towards forms of secularism. The idea that one American's testimony to some other Americans that "under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" can be held as evidence in the face of mountains of evidence that this claim is totally untrue is utterly insane. I have to wonder: Are you trying to protray this honestly, or do you have a partisan agenda to push with this kind of disinformation?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:56, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::Wow, (1) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam -- I cited a source. (2) What evidence do you have the source, Luttwak, born in Italy & a former Israeli tank commander, holds US citizenship; (3) Why should that matter? (4) Please address issues; assigning motives in does little to further our agenda of writing this encyclopedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sorry, I will try to remain civil and stick to discussing my problems with this passage. The point is, it's a patently untrue statement. As for person making the claims, do you honestly believe that a member of the IDF is a reliable source of information on Islam? I mean, by the sounds of it, he isn't a Muslim, and lives in a society that's in a perpetual state of war with Islamic neighbours and which discriminates against its Islamic members systemically. Is this really who we should be asking? Why not ask Muslims what Islam is about, just as we would ask Christians what Christianity is about? As I said, Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country - elected a female Hindu not too long ago. The claim that Islamic law stipulates that Muslim countries must be ruled by Muslims is either untrue or misleading. I mean, as I said, the Holy Bible may claim that people should be stoned for cheating on their wives, but we all know that Christians don't stone people to death, and we'd be liars if we claimed that they did. This situation seems similar to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 16:36, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::Thank you. In edit conflict yesterday part of my response was ommitted. I intended to include that the statement, ''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'' specifically does what you refer to, the context of all Islam. Mr. Luttwak needs no qualification, and if your not familiar with the source you may wish to check it out. And I'd seriously encourage reading the Testimony which is among the first invited to appear before the newly Democratically controlled Senate Foreign Affairs Committee--for a reason. Mr. Luttwak's testimony gives in detail where US policy was coming from, where it is right now, and where it is going.

:::::::This is a foreign policy discussion, and this article is not a forum for propaganda. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Right, it's not a forum for propaganda. So why are you pasting Zionist propaganda that's demonstrably untrue? The statement that "under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" is a lie. That's what I'm saying. It needs to be removed because it simply is not true.[[User:Accidnets|Accidents]] 18:56, 17 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::::Ok, I clarified it a bit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Citations Needed ==

The following statements are not documented, and so may not be reliable:

"2003 Iraq War (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world" - Is the Iraq War really the largest in the world? Where does this claim come from? There are conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa that probably dwarf it.

"The war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led War on Terrorism." - Is this a documented fact, or a partisan talking-point? The American government certainly casts the Iraq War as related to some kind of "war on terrorism," but seeing as how the war has actually escalated terrorism around the globe, is counter-terrorism really the Americans' objective in Iraq? Let's get critical here, people.

"Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein" - This needs to be linked to a poll or newspaper report that confirms it.

"Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the Jaysh Al-Madhi, have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks." Is this really true? It seems to imply that the United States is acting as a neutral force in trying to prevent an Iraqi Civil War, which is also the American government's claims on the matter. But if that were the case, why would - to quote the USA Today poll linked as number 6 and 7 on the article - "Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents." I mean, the U.S. invaded the country, and is engaged in combat against a popular rebellion; they're a belligerent, not peacekeepers. The wording here just seems off to me.

''"Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to Syria, before the onset of the war." - This needs to be linked to a page in which somebody accuses Syria of harboring Iraq's WMD.''
This has now been done, Mar 2007.

"Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the First Gulf War, and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more." - This needs to be linked to a page which confirms that Iraq was "at least a decade away from producing more".

[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 13:36, 15 March 2007 (PST)

== General Discussion ==

How about using a cite that doesn't require a $30.00 charge to view the article cited? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

For starters, how is the war in Iraq "the largest war operation in the world"? That claim isn't even cited, it's just lazily thrown out there with no substantiated evidence. Can whoever wrote that provide some citations for that claim, or remove it if none can be provided?

Secondly, the Iraqi Body Count website is not "robust surveying techniques"; it's a collection of deaths reported by at least two Western news agencies, and the owners of that website acknowledge that their number is inevitably going to be far below what the actual death count is. Due to this, I've taken the liberty to introduce statistics from an actual academic study that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I've also added an overview of the Iraqi Resistance, and its popularity in Iraq, with several citations to verify what I have written.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 00:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, there is some hard-core censorship occurring here. Everything I've added is true, and has been rightfully cited. Deleting the section on the Iraqi Resistance is straight censorship at its worst.

I can understand disputes about the second Lancet study, as the numbers may be slightly off (either lower or higher) due to the fact that two of the sample zones were merged into 1 in several occasions for the sake of researcher safety on the ground. I think that criticizing that is absolutely valid, but at least acknowledge that the merged sample zones were similar in economic, social and level-of-violence aspects as well. Beyond that please provide your arguments and discuss them in here before simply changing the page. Thank you.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a little more going on here than just some questions about figures and resistance. I think you're trying to inject some liberal bias into this page on the struggle in Iraq. No matter what way you slice it, that's inappropriate. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 04:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:And if User:Accidents had tried to inject some conservative bias into the article on the "struggle" in Iraq (surely a term that indicates a bias), would that have been objectionable, or is that OK? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does providing -documented facts- about Iraqis' opposition to the occupation and support for the resistance/insurgency reflect "liberal bias", unless you're referring to reality itself as suffering from a "liberal bias" (which seems to be the case)? The figures I provided are factual, and cited; you can check the source documents themselves if you want. I stand by all of the information I provided, and I think it's reliable. I'm interested in the truth, not "liberal bias". If, in this case, truth doesn't conform to an "American conservative" viewpoint, it's probably your opinion that needs to shift, not mine.

And if you have any complaints about the Lancet study, I'll gladly discuss that with you. I studied statistics at the university level, and read the entire report - and the methodology behind it - last year. Apart from the doubling-up of certain similar clusters, the math checks out. Feel free to reply with any of your complaints. I am reverting the page to my last edit.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the problem - we're here to state our bias, not to pretend that we're referring to ethereal, disconnected "facts" that are actually used only to bolster a particular argument. Your argument has been made and it is both the dominant and the incorrect argument. You're using the "reputable sources" and "methods" that have been so perverted over the course of the last fifty years. Shaking the voodoo stick of "truth" doesn't alter the fact that what people call "truth" changes based on the perspective of the person who presents statements about a certain subject. All voices are biased, and they need to state that bias. I am a conservative. This is an article for conservatives. I'm reverting the article. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]], It's true that Iraqi opinion was optimistic in 2003/2004. I sure you can add a section on this, including your references, without obliterating the rest of the article. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The degree of self-delusion and doublethink in Affirmlife's above paragraph is absolutely astounding. Facts are what is scientifically verifiable; for instance, the existence and subsequent extinction of the dodo bird is a documented fact, based on mountains of scientific evidence both that the species once existed and that it has since gone extinct. Just because some kook may argue that the dodo never existed does not mean that that person has a valid viewpoint, because there's no scientific evidence to support that view. Similarly, I have provided facts to this article, citing all of them. Two of the three polls that demonstrate the unpopularity of the occupation by Iraqis come from the occupying powers themselves - the British Ministry of Defence and the American State Department, neither of which is particularly renowned as being a source of "liberal bias," but quite the opposite. I mean, if you know something that I don't know about the polls I'm citing, and have reason to believe that the results have been skewed somehow, feel free to share that and we'll discuss it. But as far as I can see, the mathematics and methodology of the polls cited is pretty standard, so I really don't understand why people insist on hiding these facts. I mean, if we want to educate people on the Iraq War (I do), pointing out the fact that 80+% of Iraqis oppose it seems pretty important to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:31, 14 March 2007 (PST)

I added a reference to the bit about Iraqis fleeing the country, though a better one will certainly exist. Also, I can't find anything about a MoD Iraqi poll in the first link? [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Accidents, while I sympathize with you on Affirmlife's editing issues, you shouldn't have wiped HIS sourced comments about initial support for the invasion. Those should be added back. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:41, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:Guys, all I'm trying to do here is remove the liberal bias. This article is meant to give a more nuanced understanding of the Iraq War than that presented in the conventional liberal media. I even responded in good faith to the proposition that instead of deleting liberally biased information outright, I replace it with sounder information that presents a more balanced perspective. So if the goal here is to present an alternative view of the Iraq War, concisely, I think that my direction with the edits is much more appropriate. And I think the goal here is to present that alternative view. That's my bias. Here's my question - what are yours? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Affirm, you are not "adding" your pieces to the article - you are whole-sale deleting and replacing pieces you do not personally like. If you look at the last version Accidents did, he incorporated your poll numbers into the article. You, obviously, did not reciprocate.

::If you have a contrasting view, ADD it. Don't delete and replace sourced pieces simply b/c they conflict with your personal view of the war. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::But you've just done the very thing you accuse me of doing! What's your bias? Why do these liberal edits get privileged simply because they were first out of the gate? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Affirm, Accidents merged your poll data into the article. You simply removed his. Your edit has ad hominem attacks against people opposed to the war, you removed any opposing viewpoints, you removed any alternate casualty data. In other words, you delete what you don't like and replace it with your own stuff.

:::::ADD your data. Quit wiping out other people's work simply b/c you personally don't like it. When you do that, I'll stop reverting the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Affirmlife, how do my contributions reflect a "liberal bias"? You have yet to explain this. I'm providing DOCUMENTED FACTS, and CITING THEM; you're deleting them and replacing them with undocumented statements that appear to be nothing more than conjecture. I don't understand your position here. I even included your initial Zogby poll and wrote that many Iraqis supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:27, 14 March 2007 (PST)

This whole article should be trashed. Huge pieces have been changed then changed back then changed again. I see very little in the way of reliable information coming out of this article if people feel they must delete sections over and over again.

== Bias ==

Folks, let's take this from a different perspective. How about using an alternative viewpoint as a baseline rather than using an article rife with liberal cant as a baseline? Let's take my version as representing a 'conservative' perspective on the Iraq War (which I believe it does). That's my purpose here, and I think that if you are all actually in good faith, you should be attempting to edit the article to hew more closely to a conservative perspective.

If you want conventional, tired liberal wisdom, go check out Wikipedia. We all need to get our thoughts together about this - what is the alternative, unexplored perspective? I don't think any of you would disagree that the framing language to the facts cited in either of the two article versions has a distinct perspective and view. We need to accept that fact, not reject it. The purpose of this article is to present a more nuanced, conservative perspective. If you find that unacceptable, perhaps you should present your perspective on Wikipedia. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think your version reflects a "conservative perspective" so much as it reflects baseless conjecture, claims that aren't cited, and the blatant suppression of documented facts that contradict your preferred political party's talking points on the matter. I mean, you make a statement as absurd as "less than 65,000 Iraqi civilians have died" without citing it. If you're citing the Iraqi Death Count website, you should probably remind yourself that even the people who run and own that site acknowledge that it is far below the actual death count, as it only includes deaths reported in at least 2 mainstream western newspapers. The Lancet study - as the language I used clearly explains - includes all excess deaths, not just violence, but including the proliferation of disease, malnutrition, etc that has occurred since the 2003 invasion. Unlike the website you seem to be citing, further, the Lancet study actually involved teams on the ground in Iraq, and if I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong on this) they received death certificates for 90% of the deaths they wished to confirm. As for the support for the Iraqi resistance/insurgency, the fact that you're suppressing that is nothing short of partisan censorship.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:55, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:::Oh, I don't know. I think that there's more than enough reason to conclude that certain sources of information are selectively utilized or unutilized by people of different social and political perspectives. My unanswered question is - '''why''' would you present this information in this way? Is the purpose of the article to be a web-based sabotage of the war effort, presented as a conservative perspective on the war? I don't think it should be. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 15:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think the Bush administration is doing a FINE job of 'sabotaging the war' just by following their current [[stratergy]]. Even assuming that any criticism of governmental bungling IS, in some bizarre [[voodoo]] way, going to affect the outcome of the war for the worse, at this point, any nasty things said about their blunders on some webpage is the approximate equivalent of one extra drop of water in the middle of Noah's Flood. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've done a bit of a re-write, trying to incorporate all the points that have been put in the previous versions. It's not perfect, but I hope it will help make some progress on this. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! Looks much better now.
-Gasmonkey

:JamesK and RobS, you did a fantastic job. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was suggesting it. Thank you very much. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== WMD ==

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

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

==Psychic predictions==
This statement,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Criticisms==

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

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

== Not-so-current affairs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Duelfer Report ==

Okay this is getting insulting now. The principal finding of the Duelfer report was that Saddam had no WMD or significant WMD production capabilities. Yes it also found that he was endeavoring to get the means to get that potentially running again if the sanctions were removed, but the important thing is that he had no WMD and no significant capacity to produce them. The fact that you're denying this isnt just biased, its insulting to anyone who's actually read the thing. We didnt go to war with Saddam because he was gaming the Oil-for-Food program, we went to war because he was supposed to have these WMDs. It turns out he didnt. Stop pretending otherwise.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:You mischaracterize what the Duelfer Report says; for one "report also found that Hussein's capacity to produce WMDs had deteriorated significantly since 1991", whereas the Report states it was started up again in 1997. Then, the repeated reference to "any remaining WMD-related programs were "not of a militarily significant capability." What? So the coalition was supposed to ''wait'' until Saddam had an operational capability?
:There was much similar discussion in the 9/11 Report; how having all this knowledge, why didn't they act beforehand to avert such a disaster, etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion and its pathetically disingenuous for you to bring it up, though I notice theres a new section about it that quotes Tenet without attmepting to substantiate his claims that even though Osama actively wanted Saddam dead, they were working in joyous collusion. Three cheers for dedication to objective unbiased facts, eh? Although considering I got banned for saying that George W Bush was born in Connecticut and Massachusetts has a relatively low tax rate, its hardly surprising here.
::As far as waiting until Saddam had an operational capacity, given that a necessary condition was removal of the sanctions it can easily be argued that maintaining them would be key to minimizing whatever threat he would ever pose. However, this too is inconsequential to the discussion.
::The existing entry on the Duelfer report contains information that exclusively backs up the patently false claim that Saddam posed an existing or even potential nuclear threat to the United States, which goes against the principal finding of the report itself. Objective, bipartisan analysts concluded that there were existing stockpiles or functional capacity to produce them, and that was the key finding of the report. That the entry on the report should quote it so selectively as to support the purely anecdotal argument that the opposite is true is Intellectual Dishonesty writ large.
::You want to quote a dozen people who said there were WMDs? Be my guest. You're certainly free to present that information in your vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth. Lord knows if you all post enough things with exclamation marks and boldface youre bound to convince the sort of people that impresses. However if youre going to use a report, any report, it is an insult to all intellectual endeavor to ignore the report's principal finding and quote selectively and suggestively to prove that same untruth.
::The report does have information that supports the WMD argument. However the report's principal finding contradicts the core of the argument. Stop pretending.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you should stop worshipping at the shrine of the Duelfer report, Rex. It isn't as though it is definitive for all time. It is one report. When it is raised to the status of the Holy Bible by you so that its findings are indisputable, it makes you sound like a religious "political" fanatic - set like stone in one very uninspired viewpoint. It is a REPORT.. done by fallible men who were trying to compromise so both parties could get along and make a statement which set aside their squabbling. It also could be characterized as a cop-out compromise for political expediency. You mention "The report does have information that supports the WMD argument," then discount the possibility in the very next breath. How objective is that viewpoint? You also dismiss all argument that there were any WMD. The sarin warheads discovered by the Polish troops and the Iraqi Survey group, those who were treated for injuries from the one which exploded in an IED (read the stories).. the finding of mustard gas bombs.. all don't matter? Look at the evidence. Don't just believe one report like it is your Bible. These are FACTS, not flights of fantasy. Set aside your political prejudice and try and look at the evidence. You might also note that the special investigator for the Pentagon stated of your vaunted Iraq Survey Group who made this report that he had heard of "facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions" but the ISG had IGNORED that and not ever gone there, quote, "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond.." How throrough does that make their report's findings then? How definitive?
:If youre trying to argue that the report is worthless then you're also arguing that it shouldnt be included here without that equivocation. The section currently brags about all the things that tangentially support the idea that Saddam could possibly have posed a nuclear threat, and that exclusively. You havent argued that this is representative of the report, so I assume you concede my point that it isnt. The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt. If the report is relevant then the anti-WMD stuff needs to be mentioned. If, as you're arguing, its worthless, then it needs to be removed entirely. You cannot have it both ways.
:Also, keep up the belittling personal attacks, there Skies, really bolsters your argument. Good for you.

Personal attacks.. like saying my contributions are vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth?? I was just replying in kind. A wise man once said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

As for your saying that the report is worthless, it isn't. It just isn't definitive, as you were stating and trying to defend. The report is mentioned on the page, but I didn't post that section and so I cannot defend how it was stated. You say, "The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt." So, rather than personally attacking those of us who are contributing, what suggestions do you have as to how to modify the entry so that it reflects a more even, balanced and unbiased opinion? The report isn't worthless, it does have some validity (though when it selectively ignores people who plead for them to come and inspect, I do wonder at its veracity, don't you?). I am not arguing for its exclusion, only for it not to be seen as definitive and inspired beyond the pale of "regular" men.. men such as those you deprecate when you say the other information which is posted is only put there and highlighted to "convince the sort of people that impresses." Like the information itself is untruthful and deceptive, perhaps? It is not, and your mockery was what caused the personal reply in kind you received. If you wish to remove it from being personal, why don't you try being civil and discussing methods of improving the information to make it unbiased in a way which refrains from deprecating my contributions.
:That anything here pretends at being "Unbiased" is hilarious. The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion. It is selectively quoted to prove a point that the report itself is at odds with. You dont want to present the fair view, the one where all the report's findings are discussed, only the ones that support a particular argument. The origional entry included information on all topics. It now included a set so small as to not be objective but argumentative. Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument. Do you deny this?
Thank you for being rational and not personal in this post. I appreciate that. You say that conservapedia is "biased" toward conservative viewpoints.. well, it was called CONSERVApedia for a reason, wasn't it? I don't think people coming to this site expect to hear the Liberal viewpoint touted in every article as absolute truth. The site was created to bring out the conservative viewpoint which conservatives see as under-represented at other sites (and edited out at other sites, as well.)
Now, I could point out that the Liberapedia.. called Wikipedia is not without its flaws, either, quote: "The website Conservapedia.com has a long list of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace – even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he’d edited thousands of articles with flair. The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its website’s reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their ten things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/11549 </ref>

I think the Conservapedia strives to be conservative in outlook but with a degree of trust concerning keeping the site as close as it can be to what is factual. Yes, there is a conservative viewpoint expressed in the articles, but that is expected. Do you expect to join the Republican party and then campaign for Democrat issues and viewpoints? You wouldn't get very far doing so, and you won't go far trying to bring non-conservative views out here. But just because a certain viewpoint is unapologetically set forth and adhered to, that does not mean that the articles are all trash or "hilarious" as you called it, and many of us appreciate the refreshing atmosphere where a conservative view is encouraged. You say, "The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion." I shall work on the entry and note that their conclusion was that there are no huge stockpile of WMD in Iraq.. but with caveats because I do not see the point of quoting the report as "gospel truth" when so much of the rest of this entry refutes its conclusion as flawed and leave its conclusions open to disputation.

As for presenting "all the report's findings", this is an entry on Iraq War.. not on the Duelfer Report. They are not synonymous. It is not unfair to discuss only parts of the report rather than the entire thing. For further study the links are given. When you say, "Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument." I do doubt this conclusion. As stated now in the entry, the principle finding was not what the media spun it to be. QUOTE: " Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No." I have noted how the debate has moved to another agenda and away from the central findings under the section "Misreporting the Duelfer Report."

As you know, almost everyone knows what the report was, and perhaps the original poster merely worked from the idea of already known facts and moved forward. It is easy not to state the obvious. As I said, this is not my contribution and I have not touched it, but I will now work to encorporate a mention that the WMD were seen by the report as not existing. I will, however, mention something to the effect that the servicemen who were treated for injuries from the exploding sarin IED bomb would think they did not have a hallucination, and that sarin is actually a WMD. Do you deny that point?
:Firstly, its generally incorrect to assume that anyone researching a subject already knows enough about it. Considering too that half the articles on this site are presented as "proof that everything you knew about Sally Fields' Hairstylist is a lie" its not difficult to see how someone thinking that the Duelfer report refuted major WMD claims that upon coming here they would reach the conclusion that it said nothing of the kind.
:Next, no I dont deny Sarin is a WMD as considered by the UN (and we know how much the UN is to be trusted) the same way I'm sure that you wont deny that, given that the shell predated the 1991 Gulf war that it doesnt prove Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons.
:Also, I care what you're opinion on the Wikipedia is. I entirely do. No, seriously I actually do because the way youve described it is as something that presents facts at odds with conservative views, and that Conservapedia does not think it necessary to incorporate facts that challenge the opinions of Neo-cons. Instead of elaborating on subjects for the purpose of furthering discourse and strengthening everyone's ability to debate productively on such topics, lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else. In the past six hours I've seen people misquoted, called on it, and ignored, Ive seen nonexistant chatroom transcripts mentioned to indict people, and Ive seen, and who is surprised, a desire to have a report correctly represented as blind devotion to the document as though it were a holy book to the pious. After all, why have intellectual discourse when we can pat ourselves on the back for agreeing with each other?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 16:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the wikipedia does not present facts at odds with conservative views. The edit all conservative views out, including the facts conservatives bring up. It is called Censorship. Ask any conservative news site or bloggers.. they try to post there and within minutes, all they post simply disappears. So when you accuse conservapedia of, "lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else", I think that is the pot calling the kettle black. I agree it is incorrect to assume people know what the reports are so I gave a little more background and expanded the section. AND I did mention that both Kay and Duelfer said that no huge stockpiles of WMD were found. I hope you approve (but I somehow think you will find fault.. ??) Just remember, it is all due to you. :)
:I personally wouldn't have phrased the central thesis of the report so tersely and dismissively, but I do thank you for at the very least including some mention of the core thrust of the report in the section intent on discussing it.
:And yes I know all about the 3vil wikipedia's bias, how they use CE, which has no christian basis, instead of AD, which given that most estimates put christs birth at around 5BC, also has no christian basis. And how they insist on providing explanations of how theres no legitimate causal relationship between abortions and breast cancer and alternative explanations of that correlation, oh how dare they try to be objective. Also, did you know that their entry on Ronald Reagan contains no mention of him being the resurrection of Christ, nor how he won the cold war by punching Gorbechev into the sun. The audacity.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::''9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion ''
::No it's not. Not as it relates to process, or how these reports are covered in the press or perceived by the public. "Failure to contect the dots...", Remember that one? The Duelfer Report says things quite different than how it was being used here. The Duelfer Report clearly states Saddam was pursing WMD programs, and it extensively details complicity with non-Iraqi companies, governments, NGOs, & individuals. As the report said, Iraq is only half the story.

::WMD does not singularly refer to (a) stockpiles, and/or (b) production facilities. A simple illustration: when we says "United States Army", we are not talking about tanks, guns & hardware, we are talking about persons employed in the enterprise. Same is true about NASA; we are not talking about the end result of manufactured rockets and satellites, we are speaking about persons. The same is true about NSA. We are not talking about sophisticated communications technolgy, we are refering to the persons employed in the business. When WMD programs were discussed in 2003 as one reason, among several reasons, for pursuing the object of regime change, nobody ever said it was just stockpiles and production facilities.

::Later on, partisan critics and journalists, for whatever reason, tried to make light of the popular misconceptions regarding what WMD programs are--and used this misinformation to invent mindless partisan arguements that serve no discernable purpose other than some domestic political agenda totally unrelated to US securtity needs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts and contributions, RobS, appreciate it. Rex, I see you bring to the discussion on Iraq War a bunch of baggage from the other site about dates and previous administrations (Reagan), etc. I don't feel they merit any response when the topic is Iraq and that appears to be truly covered now. Thank you both for the discussion, Skies.

== No Casus Belli? ==

Is there some REASON we're not supposed to talk about how President Bush led us into war in Iraq?
----

:We should talk about it. But edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 this] belong on the talk page - not in the body of the article.

:When there are opposing views, shall we just enshrine one as The Truth? That will degrade trust, and that's the weakness of Wikipedia. It (1) says it won't take sides but (2) routinely takes sides.

:I suggest we here acknowledge the existence of opposing views. It's ridiculously easy to detect them, when they are dimetrically opposed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::You oppose me adding a few FACTS to the article? My [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 edit] was nothing but documented truth and when I have more time, I will add more. This may be a conservative site, but truth knows not philosophical bounds. If you cannot accept the WHOLE story, do not read ANY of it - history is not YOURS to decide. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 16:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"just enshrine one as The Truth" You realise that is horrendously hypocritical? By removing the edits which gave that point of view, you have merely left the original one by itself, enshrining '''it''' as truth. Don't accuse Wikipedia of taking sides when articles such as [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] exist. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:
:Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war.

Got a source for this "acknowledgment"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's all on sites CONTAMINATED WITH HIDEOUS LIBERAL COOTIES, so I'm sure it'll all be rejected out of hand.
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
:http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1916
:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

:On the other hand, Bush Said So, so it must be True: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html (Whatever happened to that mistrust for government that the Right nurtured when the Evil One was President? Did it all get shed like a burning coat on January 21th, 2001?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::Of course it did. Intellectual honesty is for suckers...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of first phase==

Was did Bush's May 1, 2003 claim, of "Mission Accomplished," really mean?
#That the US won the war - and that it is supposedly over
#That [[major combat operations]] had ended - and the war was in a (milder) new phase

What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A "milder" phase? How in the name of all that's holy does something in a "milder" phase have an higher average death rate than the actual war itself?

an accomplished mission is one that has gotten to a point that American men and women no longer come home in a box. Res Ipso Loquitor. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why do you Hate America(tm)? Don't you understand that REAL Patriots '''don't ask questions'''. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: It wasn't Bush's claim, I don't think. It was a military sign. The obvious meaning was that the USA won the Battle of Baghdad. It did not mean "war over" or "all problems solved". The word "mission" doesn't mean the whole war, just an operation within the war. So I say that both of Ed's interpretations are wrong and contrary to plain english. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I just reverts AmesG's change, because he overrode my edit and also inserted a silly and misleading comment about the "Mission Accomplished" sign. He is welcome to discuss it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for clarifying that, and knocking down those two straw men I had put up. As a former military man, I followed the progress of the war as closely as I could from unclassified sources. Bush was praising the troops for destroying Iraqi sovereignty (or "toppling the dictatorship"). When the Iraqi troops took off their uniforms and went home, that was a victory of sorts.

:::Nonetheless, one operation is not a war - and no victory has been achieved. The next phase is [[counter-insurgency]], which is not being done the way I would do it. But since I never even made Corporal (let alone an officer rank), it's probably not my place to criticize. Anyone can be an armchair quarterback.

:::The conduct of the [[Iraq War]] will undoubtedly be an issue in the [[2008 US presidential election]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

False premise. (a) Bush never said "mission accomplished"; (b) no evidence Bush implied "mission accomplished" as to objective of regime change; (c) Tommy Franks explained that incident. (d) This is just another gross lie Bush and Iraqi War critics complain about. Now, if critics could find some valid basis other than provable, manufactured lies of this nature that there is over reliance upon, they could develope credibilty. Til then, it's not worth the time responding to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: He may not have said it, but that was the message [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
: What he ''did'' say can be read - the opening was "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::(a) That is the point. Bush did not say it. And rational, intelligent, logical analysis exposes the fraud of trying to make something out of it other than what the objective of the war is.

::(b) The War's objective, '''stated clearly''', is '''regime change'''. Removing the old regime is not regime change. Removing and replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, '''is regime change'''.

::(c) At the time that banner was hung, the old regime had been removed, but there wasn't even an interrim government established yet. Thus, it is pure [[unadulterated]] [[fraud]] to imply that that doing half the job, i.e. only removing the old regime, and not finishing the job, i.e. replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, is accomplishing the objective of regime change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Whether Bush said it or not, he should NOT have stepped foot in front of that banner! What the incident amounts to is another moment of typical Bush machismo - "I'ma get everybody fired up about U.S. military might - nevermind that bin Laden is still alive and free, Hussein isn't in custody, American boys are still dyin', and I STILL haven't stood firm on a unified platform for war - WE WON!"

Face it, if Bill Clinton stood in front a banner saying "I hate Iowa", Fox Noise would crucify him. wouldn't matter WHO put the banner there or whether Clinton believed it - it'd be his fault for letting it stay up.

Now, in Bush's case he didn't only let the banner stay up, he went on to say '''"major combat operations...have ended"''' and '''"[we] have prevailed"''' - both blatant lies whose sole aim was to garner popular support for a very untimely war. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 17:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''''"major combat operations...have ended"''' and '''"[we] have prevailed"''' - both blatant lies ''
::Right. Like we're going to use airstrikes from aircraft carriers to defend the Bagdad museum from looters. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2942449.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would suppose your logic makes sense, in that it's really George Washington and the Founding Fathers fault for the Iraqi mess, in that they failed to foresee that someday the Constitution they had written would lead to the election of George W. Bush, hence the threat to civiliaztion as we know it. Yes indeed, you've convinced me. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You are being argumentative and childish in your remarks. I suggest you ask Gen. Petraeus or any of the 150k-odd soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines engaging in daily combat operations over there if they are not ''major''. And, as a matter of fact, we ARE still using airstrikes. I guess those are just ''minor'' bombs being dropped, right?

:::Oh, and just where in the world did the Founding Fathers comment come from? Are you even replying to the right conversation? In the abstract, GWB wouldn't make a bad President. His problem is, and always has been, that he's out of touch with reality and trying ever-so-hard to excel beyond some imaginary boundary set by his father (just my opinion, of course). He does what he wants, when he wants, and to whom he wants - and you're a traitor if you ask "why". He does not appreciate that a successful society NEEDS people asking "why". Absence of challenge leads to atrophy.

:::Surely, 9/11 demanded action. The action required, though, was not against Iraq. Frankly, North Korea was far more deserving of action taken but Bush had his eye on Iraq even before the Towers came down. The focus of our energies should have stayed on al-Qaeda and bin Laden - yet he STILL RUNS FREE! '''And what does Bush say when confronted about bin Laden's location?'''

:::'''"I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."''' http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 19:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bob Parks ==

This entire article (copy-pasted in near entirety) is pure conjecture from a site that proclaims it's opinion-based nature directly. Commandment 5 rules out use of this. I know it's tough for some of you, but opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia - even a right-slanted internet-o-pedia. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 17:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is an EXPERT opinion by Professor of History at the University of Dayton who is a military historian.. He was also consulted by the Whitehouse in the article.. it is not just anyone's opinion. AND I shortened it. It should be allowed in.

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T21:36:57Z

PKBear: /* End of first phase */

== Removal ==

I have removed the line: "Under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation." because it is simply untrue. I mean, the foremost example that comes to mind is that Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim nation - elected a female Hindu at its prime minister not too long ago.
[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 03:23, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:This addresses specifically Arab Sunni in Iraq, as the source document states. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, firstly, I mean, it isn't cited; the sentence after it links to somebody's testimony before some kind of Senate or Congress panel, but it isn't actually cited. The second problem is that it's simply untrue; as I pointed out, Indonesia - the largest Muslim country in the world - elected a female Hindu as its prime minister not long ago. A lot of Iraqis - most, perhaps - also have secular inclinations from living under Baathist rule for so long, so I think this claim really needs to be questioned. I mean, is it akin to somebody saying that Christians believe in stoning people who cheat on their wives, even though - in spite of what the Bible may say - Christians obviously do not believe in that?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:20, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::The entire passage is cited to Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on Securing America's Interest in Iraq, 23 January 2007.

:::(a) Nowher does the source document discuss Indonesia; (b) this article is entitled "Iraq War", not "Inodonesia". Context of the source document gives relevency. Obviously, the source document was not reviewed before removing the proper citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Full context:
:::''As all know by now, for even moderately fundamentalist Sunnis, the Shia are disqualified from political power because under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state--while the Shia for them are heretics. '''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow, you're not much of an expert on Islam are you? Salafists are a miniscule, radical minority with little to no support in Iraq, even among the Sunnis, who - being the progenitors of Iraqi Baathism - possess a historical tendency towards forms of secularism. The idea that one American's testimony to some other Americans that "under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" can be held as evidence in the face of mountains of evidence that this claim is totally untrue is utterly insane. I have to wonder: Are you trying to protray this honestly, or do you have a partisan agenda to push with this kind of disinformation?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:56, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::Wow, (1) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam -- I cited a source. (2) What evidence do you have the source, Luttwak, born in Italy & a former Israeli tank commander, holds US citizenship; (3) Why should that matter? (4) Please address issues; assigning motives in does little to further our agenda of writing this encyclopedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sorry, I will try to remain civil and stick to discussing my problems with this passage. The point is, it's a patently untrue statement. As for person making the claims, do you honestly believe that a member of the IDF is a reliable source of information on Islam? I mean, by the sounds of it, he isn't a Muslim, and lives in a society that's in a perpetual state of war with Islamic neighbours and which discriminates against its Islamic members systemically. Is this really who we should be asking? Why not ask Muslims what Islam is about, just as we would ask Christians what Christianity is about? As I said, Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country - elected a female Hindu not too long ago. The claim that Islamic law stipulates that Muslim countries must be ruled by Muslims is either untrue or misleading. I mean, as I said, the Holy Bible may claim that people should be stoned for cheating on their wives, but we all know that Christians don't stone people to death, and we'd be liars if we claimed that they did. This situation seems similar to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 16:36, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::Thank you. In edit conflict yesterday part of my response was ommitted. I intended to include that the statement, ''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'' specifically does what you refer to, the context of all Islam. Mr. Luttwak needs no qualification, and if your not familiar with the source you may wish to check it out. And I'd seriously encourage reading the Testimony which is among the first invited to appear before the newly Democratically controlled Senate Foreign Affairs Committee--for a reason. Mr. Luttwak's testimony gives in detail where US policy was coming from, where it is right now, and where it is going.

:::::::This is a foreign policy discussion, and this article is not a forum for propaganda. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Right, it's not a forum for propaganda. So why are you pasting Zionist propaganda that's demonstrably untrue? The statement that "under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" is a lie. That's what I'm saying. It needs to be removed because it simply is not true.[[User:Accidnets|Accidents]] 18:56, 17 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::::Ok, I clarified it a bit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Citations Needed ==

The following statements are not documented, and so may not be reliable:

"2003 Iraq War (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world" - Is the Iraq War really the largest in the world? Where does this claim come from? There are conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa that probably dwarf it.

"The war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led War on Terrorism." - Is this a documented fact, or a partisan talking-point? The American government certainly casts the Iraq War as related to some kind of "war on terrorism," but seeing as how the war has actually escalated terrorism around the globe, is counter-terrorism really the Americans' objective in Iraq? Let's get critical here, people.

"Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein" - This needs to be linked to a poll or newspaper report that confirms it.

"Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the Jaysh Al-Madhi, have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks." Is this really true? It seems to imply that the United States is acting as a neutral force in trying to prevent an Iraqi Civil War, which is also the American government's claims on the matter. But if that were the case, why would - to quote the USA Today poll linked as number 6 and 7 on the article - "Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents." I mean, the U.S. invaded the country, and is engaged in combat against a popular rebellion; they're a belligerent, not peacekeepers. The wording here just seems off to me.

''"Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to Syria, before the onset of the war." - This needs to be linked to a page in which somebody accuses Syria of harboring Iraq's WMD.''
This has now been done, Mar 2007.

"Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the First Gulf War, and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more." - This needs to be linked to a page which confirms that Iraq was "at least a decade away from producing more".

[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 13:36, 15 March 2007 (PST)

== General Discussion ==

How about using a cite that doesn't require a $30.00 charge to view the article cited? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

For starters, how is the war in Iraq "the largest war operation in the world"? That claim isn't even cited, it's just lazily thrown out there with no substantiated evidence. Can whoever wrote that provide some citations for that claim, or remove it if none can be provided?

Secondly, the Iraqi Body Count website is not "robust surveying techniques"; it's a collection of deaths reported by at least two Western news agencies, and the owners of that website acknowledge that their number is inevitably going to be far below what the actual death count is. Due to this, I've taken the liberty to introduce statistics from an actual academic study that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I've also added an overview of the Iraqi Resistance, and its popularity in Iraq, with several citations to verify what I have written.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 00:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, there is some hard-core censorship occurring here. Everything I've added is true, and has been rightfully cited. Deleting the section on the Iraqi Resistance is straight censorship at its worst.

I can understand disputes about the second Lancet study, as the numbers may be slightly off (either lower or higher) due to the fact that two of the sample zones were merged into 1 in several occasions for the sake of researcher safety on the ground. I think that criticizing that is absolutely valid, but at least acknowledge that the merged sample zones were similar in economic, social and level-of-violence aspects as well. Beyond that please provide your arguments and discuss them in here before simply changing the page. Thank you.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a little more going on here than just some questions about figures and resistance. I think you're trying to inject some liberal bias into this page on the struggle in Iraq. No matter what way you slice it, that's inappropriate. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 04:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:And if User:Accidents had tried to inject some conservative bias into the article on the "struggle" in Iraq (surely a term that indicates a bias), would that have been objectionable, or is that OK? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does providing -documented facts- about Iraqis' opposition to the occupation and support for the resistance/insurgency reflect "liberal bias", unless you're referring to reality itself as suffering from a "liberal bias" (which seems to be the case)? The figures I provided are factual, and cited; you can check the source documents themselves if you want. I stand by all of the information I provided, and I think it's reliable. I'm interested in the truth, not "liberal bias". If, in this case, truth doesn't conform to an "American conservative" viewpoint, it's probably your opinion that needs to shift, not mine.

And if you have any complaints about the Lancet study, I'll gladly discuss that with you. I studied statistics at the university level, and read the entire report - and the methodology behind it - last year. Apart from the doubling-up of certain similar clusters, the math checks out. Feel free to reply with any of your complaints. I am reverting the page to my last edit.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the problem - we're here to state our bias, not to pretend that we're referring to ethereal, disconnected "facts" that are actually used only to bolster a particular argument. Your argument has been made and it is both the dominant and the incorrect argument. You're using the "reputable sources" and "methods" that have been so perverted over the course of the last fifty years. Shaking the voodoo stick of "truth" doesn't alter the fact that what people call "truth" changes based on the perspective of the person who presents statements about a certain subject. All voices are biased, and they need to state that bias. I am a conservative. This is an article for conservatives. I'm reverting the article. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]], It's true that Iraqi opinion was optimistic in 2003/2004. I sure you can add a section on this, including your references, without obliterating the rest of the article. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The degree of self-delusion and doublethink in Affirmlife's above paragraph is absolutely astounding. Facts are what is scientifically verifiable; for instance, the existence and subsequent extinction of the dodo bird is a documented fact, based on mountains of scientific evidence both that the species once existed and that it has since gone extinct. Just because some kook may argue that the dodo never existed does not mean that that person has a valid viewpoint, because there's no scientific evidence to support that view. Similarly, I have provided facts to this article, citing all of them. Two of the three polls that demonstrate the unpopularity of the occupation by Iraqis come from the occupying powers themselves - the British Ministry of Defence and the American State Department, neither of which is particularly renowned as being a source of "liberal bias," but quite the opposite. I mean, if you know something that I don't know about the polls I'm citing, and have reason to believe that the results have been skewed somehow, feel free to share that and we'll discuss it. But as far as I can see, the mathematics and methodology of the polls cited is pretty standard, so I really don't understand why people insist on hiding these facts. I mean, if we want to educate people on the Iraq War (I do), pointing out the fact that 80+% of Iraqis oppose it seems pretty important to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:31, 14 March 2007 (PST)

I added a reference to the bit about Iraqis fleeing the country, though a better one will certainly exist. Also, I can't find anything about a MoD Iraqi poll in the first link? [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Accidents, while I sympathize with you on Affirmlife's editing issues, you shouldn't have wiped HIS sourced comments about initial support for the invasion. Those should be added back. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:41, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:Guys, all I'm trying to do here is remove the liberal bias. This article is meant to give a more nuanced understanding of the Iraq War than that presented in the conventional liberal media. I even responded in good faith to the proposition that instead of deleting liberally biased information outright, I replace it with sounder information that presents a more balanced perspective. So if the goal here is to present an alternative view of the Iraq War, concisely, I think that my direction with the edits is much more appropriate. And I think the goal here is to present that alternative view. That's my bias. Here's my question - what are yours? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Affirm, you are not "adding" your pieces to the article - you are whole-sale deleting and replacing pieces you do not personally like. If you look at the last version Accidents did, he incorporated your poll numbers into the article. You, obviously, did not reciprocate.

::If you have a contrasting view, ADD it. Don't delete and replace sourced pieces simply b/c they conflict with your personal view of the war. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::But you've just done the very thing you accuse me of doing! What's your bias? Why do these liberal edits get privileged simply because they were first out of the gate? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Affirm, Accidents merged your poll data into the article. You simply removed his. Your edit has ad hominem attacks against people opposed to the war, you removed any opposing viewpoints, you removed any alternate casualty data. In other words, you delete what you don't like and replace it with your own stuff.

:::::ADD your data. Quit wiping out other people's work simply b/c you personally don't like it. When you do that, I'll stop reverting the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Affirmlife, how do my contributions reflect a "liberal bias"? You have yet to explain this. I'm providing DOCUMENTED FACTS, and CITING THEM; you're deleting them and replacing them with undocumented statements that appear to be nothing more than conjecture. I don't understand your position here. I even included your initial Zogby poll and wrote that many Iraqis supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:27, 14 March 2007 (PST)

This whole article should be trashed. Huge pieces have been changed then changed back then changed again. I see very little in the way of reliable information coming out of this article if people feel they must delete sections over and over again.

== Bias ==

Folks, let's take this from a different perspective. How about using an alternative viewpoint as a baseline rather than using an article rife with liberal cant as a baseline? Let's take my version as representing a 'conservative' perspective on the Iraq War (which I believe it does). That's my purpose here, and I think that if you are all actually in good faith, you should be attempting to edit the article to hew more closely to a conservative perspective.

If you want conventional, tired liberal wisdom, go check out Wikipedia. We all need to get our thoughts together about this - what is the alternative, unexplored perspective? I don't think any of you would disagree that the framing language to the facts cited in either of the two article versions has a distinct perspective and view. We need to accept that fact, not reject it. The purpose of this article is to present a more nuanced, conservative perspective. If you find that unacceptable, perhaps you should present your perspective on Wikipedia. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think your version reflects a "conservative perspective" so much as it reflects baseless conjecture, claims that aren't cited, and the blatant suppression of documented facts that contradict your preferred political party's talking points on the matter. I mean, you make a statement as absurd as "less than 65,000 Iraqi civilians have died" without citing it. If you're citing the Iraqi Death Count website, you should probably remind yourself that even the people who run and own that site acknowledge that it is far below the actual death count, as it only includes deaths reported in at least 2 mainstream western newspapers. The Lancet study - as the language I used clearly explains - includes all excess deaths, not just violence, but including the proliferation of disease, malnutrition, etc that has occurred since the 2003 invasion. Unlike the website you seem to be citing, further, the Lancet study actually involved teams on the ground in Iraq, and if I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong on this) they received death certificates for 90% of the deaths they wished to confirm. As for the support for the Iraqi resistance/insurgency, the fact that you're suppressing that is nothing short of partisan censorship.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:55, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:::Oh, I don't know. I think that there's more than enough reason to conclude that certain sources of information are selectively utilized or unutilized by people of different social and political perspectives. My unanswered question is - '''why''' would you present this information in this way? Is the purpose of the article to be a web-based sabotage of the war effort, presented as a conservative perspective on the war? I don't think it should be. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 15:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think the Bush administration is doing a FINE job of 'sabotaging the war' just by following their current [[stratergy]]. Even assuming that any criticism of governmental bungling IS, in some bizarre [[voodoo]] way, going to affect the outcome of the war for the worse, at this point, any nasty things said about their blunders on some webpage is the approximate equivalent of one extra drop of water in the middle of Noah's Flood. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've done a bit of a re-write, trying to incorporate all the points that have been put in the previous versions. It's not perfect, but I hope it will help make some progress on this. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! Looks much better now.
-Gasmonkey

:JamesK and RobS, you did a fantastic job. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was suggesting it. Thank you very much. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== WMD ==

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

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

==Psychic predictions==
This statement,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Criticisms==

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

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

== Not-so-current affairs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Duelfer Report ==

Okay this is getting insulting now. The principal finding of the Duelfer report was that Saddam had no WMD or significant WMD production capabilities. Yes it also found that he was endeavoring to get the means to get that potentially running again if the sanctions were removed, but the important thing is that he had no WMD and no significant capacity to produce them. The fact that you're denying this isnt just biased, its insulting to anyone who's actually read the thing. We didnt go to war with Saddam because he was gaming the Oil-for-Food program, we went to war because he was supposed to have these WMDs. It turns out he didnt. Stop pretending otherwise.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:You mischaracterize what the Duelfer Report says; for one "report also found that Hussein's capacity to produce WMDs had deteriorated significantly since 1991", whereas the Report states it was started up again in 1997. Then, the repeated reference to "any remaining WMD-related programs were "not of a militarily significant capability." What? So the coalition was supposed to ''wait'' until Saddam had an operational capability?
:There was much similar discussion in the 9/11 Report; how having all this knowledge, why didn't they act beforehand to avert such a disaster, etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion and its pathetically disingenuous for you to bring it up, though I notice theres a new section about it that quotes Tenet without attmepting to substantiate his claims that even though Osama actively wanted Saddam dead, they were working in joyous collusion. Three cheers for dedication to objective unbiased facts, eh? Although considering I got banned for saying that George W Bush was born in Connecticut and Massachusetts has a relatively low tax rate, its hardly surprising here.
::As far as waiting until Saddam had an operational capacity, given that a necessary condition was removal of the sanctions it can easily be argued that maintaining them would be key to minimizing whatever threat he would ever pose. However, this too is inconsequential to the discussion.
::The existing entry on the Duelfer report contains information that exclusively backs up the patently false claim that Saddam posed an existing or even potential nuclear threat to the United States, which goes against the principal finding of the report itself. Objective, bipartisan analysts concluded that there were existing stockpiles or functional capacity to produce them, and that was the key finding of the report. That the entry on the report should quote it so selectively as to support the purely anecdotal argument that the opposite is true is Intellectual Dishonesty writ large.
::You want to quote a dozen people who said there were WMDs? Be my guest. You're certainly free to present that information in your vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth. Lord knows if you all post enough things with exclamation marks and boldface youre bound to convince the sort of people that impresses. However if youre going to use a report, any report, it is an insult to all intellectual endeavor to ignore the report's principal finding and quote selectively and suggestively to prove that same untruth.
::The report does have information that supports the WMD argument. However the report's principal finding contradicts the core of the argument. Stop pretending.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you should stop worshipping at the shrine of the Duelfer report, Rex. It isn't as though it is definitive for all time. It is one report. When it is raised to the status of the Holy Bible by you so that its findings are indisputable, it makes you sound like a religious "political" fanatic - set like stone in one very uninspired viewpoint. It is a REPORT.. done by fallible men who were trying to compromise so both parties could get along and make a statement which set aside their squabbling. It also could be characterized as a cop-out compromise for political expediency. You mention "The report does have information that supports the WMD argument," then discount the possibility in the very next breath. How objective is that viewpoint? You also dismiss all argument that there were any WMD. The sarin warheads discovered by the Polish troops and the Iraqi Survey group, those who were treated for injuries from the one which exploded in an IED (read the stories).. the finding of mustard gas bombs.. all don't matter? Look at the evidence. Don't just believe one report like it is your Bible. These are FACTS, not flights of fantasy. Set aside your political prejudice and try and look at the evidence. You might also note that the special investigator for the Pentagon stated of your vaunted Iraq Survey Group who made this report that he had heard of "facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions" but the ISG had IGNORED that and not ever gone there, quote, "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond.." How throrough does that make their report's findings then? How definitive?
:If youre trying to argue that the report is worthless then you're also arguing that it shouldnt be included here without that equivocation. The section currently brags about all the things that tangentially support the idea that Saddam could possibly have posed a nuclear threat, and that exclusively. You havent argued that this is representative of the report, so I assume you concede my point that it isnt. The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt. If the report is relevant then the anti-WMD stuff needs to be mentioned. If, as you're arguing, its worthless, then it needs to be removed entirely. You cannot have it both ways.
:Also, keep up the belittling personal attacks, there Skies, really bolsters your argument. Good for you.

Personal attacks.. like saying my contributions are vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth?? I was just replying in kind. A wise man once said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

As for your saying that the report is worthless, it isn't. It just isn't definitive, as you were stating and trying to defend. The report is mentioned on the page, but I didn't post that section and so I cannot defend how it was stated. You say, "The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt." So, rather than personally attacking those of us who are contributing, what suggestions do you have as to how to modify the entry so that it reflects a more even, balanced and unbiased opinion? The report isn't worthless, it does have some validity (though when it selectively ignores people who plead for them to come and inspect, I do wonder at its veracity, don't you?). I am not arguing for its exclusion, only for it not to be seen as definitive and inspired beyond the pale of "regular" men.. men such as those you deprecate when you say the other information which is posted is only put there and highlighted to "convince the sort of people that impresses." Like the information itself is untruthful and deceptive, perhaps? It is not, and your mockery was what caused the personal reply in kind you received. If you wish to remove it from being personal, why don't you try being civil and discussing methods of improving the information to make it unbiased in a way which refrains from deprecating my contributions.
:That anything here pretends at being "Unbiased" is hilarious. The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion. It is selectively quoted to prove a point that the report itself is at odds with. You dont want to present the fair view, the one where all the report's findings are discussed, only the ones that support a particular argument. The origional entry included information on all topics. It now included a set so small as to not be objective but argumentative. Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument. Do you deny this?
Thank you for being rational and not personal in this post. I appreciate that. You say that conservapedia is "biased" toward conservative viewpoints.. well, it was called CONSERVApedia for a reason, wasn't it? I don't think people coming to this site expect to hear the Liberal viewpoint touted in every article as absolute truth. The site was created to bring out the conservative viewpoint which conservatives see as under-represented at other sites (and edited out at other sites, as well.)
Now, I could point out that the Liberapedia.. called Wikipedia is not without its flaws, either, quote: "The website Conservapedia.com has a long list of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace – even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he’d edited thousands of articles with flair. The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its website’s reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their ten things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/11549 </ref>

I think the Conservapedia strives to be conservative in outlook but with a degree of trust concerning keeping the site as close as it can be to what is factual. Yes, there is a conservative viewpoint expressed in the articles, but that is expected. Do you expect to join the Republican party and then campaign for Democrat issues and viewpoints? You wouldn't get very far doing so, and you won't go far trying to bring non-conservative views out here. But just because a certain viewpoint is unapologetically set forth and adhered to, that does not mean that the articles are all trash or "hilarious" as you called it, and many of us appreciate the refreshing atmosphere where a conservative view is encouraged. You say, "The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion." I shall work on the entry and note that their conclusion was that there are no huge stockpile of WMD in Iraq.. but with caveats because I do not see the point of quoting the report as "gospel truth" when so much of the rest of this entry refutes its conclusion as flawed and leave its conclusions open to disputation.

As for presenting "all the report's findings", this is an entry on Iraq War.. not on the Duelfer Report. They are not synonymous. It is not unfair to discuss only parts of the report rather than the entire thing. For further study the links are given. When you say, "Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument." I do doubt this conclusion. As stated now in the entry, the principle finding was not what the media spun it to be. QUOTE: " Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No." I have noted how the debate has moved to another agenda and away from the central findings under the section "Misreporting the Duelfer Report."

As you know, almost everyone knows what the report was, and perhaps the original poster merely worked from the idea of already known facts and moved forward. It is easy not to state the obvious. As I said, this is not my contribution and I have not touched it, but I will now work to encorporate a mention that the WMD were seen by the report as not existing. I will, however, mention something to the effect that the servicemen who were treated for injuries from the exploding sarin IED bomb would think they did not have a hallucination, and that sarin is actually a WMD. Do you deny that point?
:Firstly, its generally incorrect to assume that anyone researching a subject already knows enough about it. Considering too that half the articles on this site are presented as "proof that everything you knew about Sally Fields' Hairstylist is a lie" its not difficult to see how someone thinking that the Duelfer report refuted major WMD claims that upon coming here they would reach the conclusion that it said nothing of the kind.
:Next, no I dont deny Sarin is a WMD as considered by the UN (and we know how much the UN is to be trusted) the same way I'm sure that you wont deny that, given that the shell predated the 1991 Gulf war that it doesnt prove Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons.
:Also, I care what you're opinion on the Wikipedia is. I entirely do. No, seriously I actually do because the way youve described it is as something that presents facts at odds with conservative views, and that Conservapedia does not think it necessary to incorporate facts that challenge the opinions of Neo-cons. Instead of elaborating on subjects for the purpose of furthering discourse and strengthening everyone's ability to debate productively on such topics, lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else. In the past six hours I've seen people misquoted, called on it, and ignored, Ive seen nonexistant chatroom transcripts mentioned to indict people, and Ive seen, and who is surprised, a desire to have a report correctly represented as blind devotion to the document as though it were a holy book to the pious. After all, why have intellectual discourse when we can pat ourselves on the back for agreeing with each other?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 16:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the wikipedia does not present facts at odds with conservative views. The edit all conservative views out, including the facts conservatives bring up. It is called Censorship. Ask any conservative news site or bloggers.. they try to post there and within minutes, all they post simply disappears. So when you accuse conservapedia of, "lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else", I think that is the pot calling the kettle black. I agree it is incorrect to assume people know what the reports are so I gave a little more background and expanded the section. AND I did mention that both Kay and Duelfer said that no huge stockpiles of WMD were found. I hope you approve (but I somehow think you will find fault.. ??) Just remember, it is all due to you. :)
:I personally wouldn't have phrased the central thesis of the report so tersely and dismissively, but I do thank you for at the very least including some mention of the core thrust of the report in the section intent on discussing it.
:And yes I know all about the 3vil wikipedia's bias, how they use CE, which has no christian basis, instead of AD, which given that most estimates put christs birth at around 5BC, also has no christian basis. And how they insist on providing explanations of how theres no legitimate causal relationship between abortions and breast cancer and alternative explanations of that correlation, oh how dare they try to be objective. Also, did you know that their entry on Ronald Reagan contains no mention of him being the resurrection of Christ, nor how he won the cold war by punching Gorbechev into the sun. The audacity.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::''9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion ''
::No it's not. Not as it relates to process, or how these reports are covered in the press or perceived by the public. "Failure to contect the dots...", Remember that one? The Duelfer Report says things quite different than how it was being used here. The Duelfer Report clearly states Saddam was pursing WMD programs, and it extensively details complicity with non-Iraqi companies, governments, NGOs, & individuals. As the report said, Iraq is only half the story.

::WMD does not singularly refer to (a) stockpiles, and/or (b) production facilities. A simple illustration: when we says "United States Army", we are not talking about tanks, guns & hardware, we are talking about persons employed in the enterprise. Same is true about NASA; we are not talking about the end result of manufactured rockets and satellites, we are speaking about persons. The same is true about NSA. We are not talking about sophisticated communications technolgy, we are refering to the persons employed in the business. When WMD programs were discussed in 2003 as one reason, among several reasons, for pursuing the object of regime change, nobody ever said it was just stockpiles and production facilities.

::Later on, partisan critics and journalists, for whatever reason, tried to make light of the popular misconceptions regarding what WMD programs are--and used this misinformation to invent mindless partisan arguements that serve no discernable purpose other than some domestic political agenda totally unrelated to US securtity needs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts and contributions, RobS, appreciate it. Rex, I see you bring to the discussion on Iraq War a bunch of baggage from the other site about dates and previous administrations (Reagan), etc. I don't feel they merit any response when the topic is Iraq and that appears to be truly covered now. Thank you both for the discussion, Skies.

== No Casus Belli? ==

Is there some REASON we're not supposed to talk about how President Bush led us into war in Iraq?
----

:We should talk about it. But edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 this] belong on the talk page - not in the body of the article.

:When there are opposing views, shall we just enshrine one as The Truth? That will degrade trust, and that's the weakness of Wikipedia. It (1) says it won't take sides but (2) routinely takes sides.

:I suggest we here acknowledge the existence of opposing views. It's ridiculously easy to detect them, when they are dimetrically opposed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::You oppose me adding a few FACTS to the article? My [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 edit] was nothing but documented truth and when I have more time, I will add more. This may be a conservative site, but truth knows not philosophical bounds. If you cannot accept the WHOLE story, do not read ANY of it - history is not YOURS to decide. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 16:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"just enshrine one as The Truth" You realise that is horrendously hypocritical? By removing the edits which gave that point of view, you have merely left the original one by itself, enshrining '''it''' as truth. Don't accuse Wikipedia of taking sides when articles such as [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] exist. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:
:Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war.

Got a source for this "acknowledgment"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's all on sites CONTAMINATED WITH HIDEOUS LIBERAL COOTIES, so I'm sure it'll all be rejected out of hand.
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
:http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1916
:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

:On the other hand, Bush Said So, so it must be True: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html (Whatever happened to that mistrust for government that the Right nurtured when the Evil One was President? Did it all get shed like a burning coat on January 21th, 2001?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::Of course it did. Intellectual honesty is for suckers...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of first phase==

Was did Bush's May 1, 2003 claim, of "Mission Accomplished," really mean?
#That the US won the war - and that it is supposedly over
#That [[major combat operations]] had ended - and the war was in a (milder) new phase

What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A "milder" phase? How in the name of all that's holy does something in a "milder" phase have an higher average death rate than the actual war itself?

an accomplished mission is one that has gotten to a point that American men and women no longer come home in a box. Res Ipso Loquitor. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why do you Hate America(tm)? Don't you understand that REAL Patriots '''don't ask questions'''. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: It wasn't Bush's claim, I don't think. It was a military sign. The obvious meaning was that the USA won the Battle of Baghdad. It did not mean "war over" or "all problems solved". The word "mission" doesn't mean the whole war, just an operation within the war. So I say that both of Ed's interpretations are wrong and contrary to plain english. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I just reverts AmesG's change, because he overrode my edit and also inserted a silly and misleading comment about the "Mission Accomplished" sign. He is welcome to discuss it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for clarifying that, and knocking down those two straw men I had put up. As a former military man, I followed the progress of the war as closely as I could from unclassified sources. Bush was praising the troops for destroying Iraqi sovereignty (or "toppling the dictatorship"). When the Iraqi troops took off their uniforms and went home, that was a victory of sorts.

:::Nonetheless, one operation is not a war - and no victory has been achieved. The next phase is [[counter-insurgency]], which is not being done the way I would do it. But since I never even made Corporal (let alone an officer rank), it's probably not my place to criticize. Anyone can be an armchair quarterback.

:::The conduct of the [[Iraq War]] will undoubtedly be an issue in the [[2008 US presidential election]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

False premise. (a) Bush never said "mission accomplished"; (b) no evidence Bush implied "mission accomplished" as to objective of regime change; (c) Tommy Franks explained that incident. (d) This is just another gross lie Bush and Iraqi War critics complain about. Now, if critics could find some valid basis other than provable, manufactured lies of this nature that there is over reliance upon, they could develope credibilty. Til then, it's not worth the time responding to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: He may not have said it, but that was the message [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
: What he ''did'' say can be read - the opening was "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::(a) That is the point. Bush did not say it. And rational, intelligent, logical analysis exposes the fraud of trying to make something out of it other than what the objective of the war is.

::(b) The War's objective, '''stated clearly''', is '''regime change'''. Removing the old regime is not regime change. Removing and replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, '''is regime change'''.

::(c) At the time that banner was hung, the old regime had been removed, but there wasn't even an interrim government established yet. Thus, it is pure [[unadulterated]] [[fraud]] to imply that that doing half the job, i.e. only removing the old regime, and not finishing the job, i.e. replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, is accomplishing the objective of regime change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Whether Bush said it or not, he should NOT have stepped foot in front of that banner! What the incident amounts to is another moment of typical Bush machismo - "I'ma get everybody fired up about U.S. military might - nevermind that bin Laden is still alive and free, Hussein isn't in custody, American boys are still dyin', and I STILL haven't stood firm on a unified platform for war - WE WON!"

Face it, if Bill Clinton stood in front a banner saying "I hate Iowa", Fox Noise would crucify him. wouldn't matter WHO put the banner there or whether Clinton believed it - it'd be his fault for letting it stay up.

Now, in Bush's case he didn't only let the banner stay up, he went on to say '''"major combat operations...have ended"''' and '''"[we] have prevailed"''' - both blatant lies whose sole aim was to garner popular support for a very untimely war. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 17:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bob Parks ==

This entire article (copy-pasted in near entirety) is pure conjecture from a site that proclaims it's opinion-based nature directly. Commandment 5 rules out use of this. I know it's tough for some of you, but opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia - even a right-slanted internet-o-pedia. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 17:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T21:15:39Z

PKBear: /* Bob Parks */

== Removal ==

I have removed the line: "Under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation." because it is simply untrue. I mean, the foremost example that comes to mind is that Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim nation - elected a female Hindu at its prime minister not too long ago.
[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 03:23, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:This addresses specifically Arab Sunni in Iraq, as the source document states. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, firstly, I mean, it isn't cited; the sentence after it links to somebody's testimony before some kind of Senate or Congress panel, but it isn't actually cited. The second problem is that it's simply untrue; as I pointed out, Indonesia - the largest Muslim country in the world - elected a female Hindu as its prime minister not long ago. A lot of Iraqis - most, perhaps - also have secular inclinations from living under Baathist rule for so long, so I think this claim really needs to be questioned. I mean, is it akin to somebody saying that Christians believe in stoning people who cheat on their wives, even though - in spite of what the Bible may say - Christians obviously do not believe in that?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:20, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::The entire passage is cited to Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on Securing America's Interest in Iraq, 23 January 2007.

:::(a) Nowher does the source document discuss Indonesia; (b) this article is entitled "Iraq War", not "Inodonesia". Context of the source document gives relevency. Obviously, the source document was not reviewed before removing the proper citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Full context:
:::''As all know by now, for even moderately fundamentalist Sunnis, the Shia are disqualified from political power because under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state--while the Shia for them are heretics. '''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow, you're not much of an expert on Islam are you? Salafists are a miniscule, radical minority with little to no support in Iraq, even among the Sunnis, who - being the progenitors of Iraqi Baathism - possess a historical tendency towards forms of secularism. The idea that one American's testimony to some other Americans that "under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" can be held as evidence in the face of mountains of evidence that this claim is totally untrue is utterly insane. I have to wonder: Are you trying to protray this honestly, or do you have a partisan agenda to push with this kind of disinformation?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:56, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::Wow, (1) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam -- I cited a source. (2) What evidence do you have the source, Luttwak, born in Italy & a former Israeli tank commander, holds US citizenship; (3) Why should that matter? (4) Please address issues; assigning motives in does little to further our agenda of writing this encyclopedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sorry, I will try to remain civil and stick to discussing my problems with this passage. The point is, it's a patently untrue statement. As for person making the claims, do you honestly believe that a member of the IDF is a reliable source of information on Islam? I mean, by the sounds of it, he isn't a Muslim, and lives in a society that's in a perpetual state of war with Islamic neighbours and which discriminates against its Islamic members systemically. Is this really who we should be asking? Why not ask Muslims what Islam is about, just as we would ask Christians what Christianity is about? As I said, Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country - elected a female Hindu not too long ago. The claim that Islamic law stipulates that Muslim countries must be ruled by Muslims is either untrue or misleading. I mean, as I said, the Holy Bible may claim that people should be stoned for cheating on their wives, but we all know that Christians don't stone people to death, and we'd be liars if we claimed that they did. This situation seems similar to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 16:36, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::Thank you. In edit conflict yesterday part of my response was ommitted. I intended to include that the statement, ''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'' specifically does what you refer to, the context of all Islam. Mr. Luttwak needs no qualification, and if your not familiar with the source you may wish to check it out. And I'd seriously encourage reading the Testimony which is among the first invited to appear before the newly Democratically controlled Senate Foreign Affairs Committee--for a reason. Mr. Luttwak's testimony gives in detail where US policy was coming from, where it is right now, and where it is going.

:::::::This is a foreign policy discussion, and this article is not a forum for propaganda. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Right, it's not a forum for propaganda. So why are you pasting Zionist propaganda that's demonstrably untrue? The statement that "under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" is a lie. That's what I'm saying. It needs to be removed because it simply is not true.[[User:Accidnets|Accidents]] 18:56, 17 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::::Ok, I clarified it a bit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Citations Needed ==

The following statements are not documented, and so may not be reliable:

"2003 Iraq War (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world" - Is the Iraq War really the largest in the world? Where does this claim come from? There are conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa that probably dwarf it.

"The war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led War on Terrorism." - Is this a documented fact, or a partisan talking-point? The American government certainly casts the Iraq War as related to some kind of "war on terrorism," but seeing as how the war has actually escalated terrorism around the globe, is counter-terrorism really the Americans' objective in Iraq? Let's get critical here, people.

"Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein" - This needs to be linked to a poll or newspaper report that confirms it.

"Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the Jaysh Al-Madhi, have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks." Is this really true? It seems to imply that the United States is acting as a neutral force in trying to prevent an Iraqi Civil War, which is also the American government's claims on the matter. But if that were the case, why would - to quote the USA Today poll linked as number 6 and 7 on the article - "Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents." I mean, the U.S. invaded the country, and is engaged in combat against a popular rebellion; they're a belligerent, not peacekeepers. The wording here just seems off to me.

''"Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to Syria, before the onset of the war." - This needs to be linked to a page in which somebody accuses Syria of harboring Iraq's WMD.''
This has now been done, Mar 2007.

"Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the First Gulf War, and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more." - This needs to be linked to a page which confirms that Iraq was "at least a decade away from producing more".

[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 13:36, 15 March 2007 (PST)

== General Discussion ==

How about using a cite that doesn't require a $30.00 charge to view the article cited? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

For starters, how is the war in Iraq "the largest war operation in the world"? That claim isn't even cited, it's just lazily thrown out there with no substantiated evidence. Can whoever wrote that provide some citations for that claim, or remove it if none can be provided?

Secondly, the Iraqi Body Count website is not "robust surveying techniques"; it's a collection of deaths reported by at least two Western news agencies, and the owners of that website acknowledge that their number is inevitably going to be far below what the actual death count is. Due to this, I've taken the liberty to introduce statistics from an actual academic study that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I've also added an overview of the Iraqi Resistance, and its popularity in Iraq, with several citations to verify what I have written.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 00:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, there is some hard-core censorship occurring here. Everything I've added is true, and has been rightfully cited. Deleting the section on the Iraqi Resistance is straight censorship at its worst.

I can understand disputes about the second Lancet study, as the numbers may be slightly off (either lower or higher) due to the fact that two of the sample zones were merged into 1 in several occasions for the sake of researcher safety on the ground. I think that criticizing that is absolutely valid, but at least acknowledge that the merged sample zones were similar in economic, social and level-of-violence aspects as well. Beyond that please provide your arguments and discuss them in here before simply changing the page. Thank you.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a little more going on here than just some questions about figures and resistance. I think you're trying to inject some liberal bias into this page on the struggle in Iraq. No matter what way you slice it, that's inappropriate. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 04:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:And if User:Accidents had tried to inject some conservative bias into the article on the "struggle" in Iraq (surely a term that indicates a bias), would that have been objectionable, or is that OK? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does providing -documented facts- about Iraqis' opposition to the occupation and support for the resistance/insurgency reflect "liberal bias", unless you're referring to reality itself as suffering from a "liberal bias" (which seems to be the case)? The figures I provided are factual, and cited; you can check the source documents themselves if you want. I stand by all of the information I provided, and I think it's reliable. I'm interested in the truth, not "liberal bias". If, in this case, truth doesn't conform to an "American conservative" viewpoint, it's probably your opinion that needs to shift, not mine.

And if you have any complaints about the Lancet study, I'll gladly discuss that with you. I studied statistics at the university level, and read the entire report - and the methodology behind it - last year. Apart from the doubling-up of certain similar clusters, the math checks out. Feel free to reply with any of your complaints. I am reverting the page to my last edit.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the problem - we're here to state our bias, not to pretend that we're referring to ethereal, disconnected "facts" that are actually used only to bolster a particular argument. Your argument has been made and it is both the dominant and the incorrect argument. You're using the "reputable sources" and "methods" that have been so perverted over the course of the last fifty years. Shaking the voodoo stick of "truth" doesn't alter the fact that what people call "truth" changes based on the perspective of the person who presents statements about a certain subject. All voices are biased, and they need to state that bias. I am a conservative. This is an article for conservatives. I'm reverting the article. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]], It's true that Iraqi opinion was optimistic in 2003/2004. I sure you can add a section on this, including your references, without obliterating the rest of the article. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The degree of self-delusion and doublethink in Affirmlife's above paragraph is absolutely astounding. Facts are what is scientifically verifiable; for instance, the existence and subsequent extinction of the dodo bird is a documented fact, based on mountains of scientific evidence both that the species once existed and that it has since gone extinct. Just because some kook may argue that the dodo never existed does not mean that that person has a valid viewpoint, because there's no scientific evidence to support that view. Similarly, I have provided facts to this article, citing all of them. Two of the three polls that demonstrate the unpopularity of the occupation by Iraqis come from the occupying powers themselves - the British Ministry of Defence and the American State Department, neither of which is particularly renowned as being a source of "liberal bias," but quite the opposite. I mean, if you know something that I don't know about the polls I'm citing, and have reason to believe that the results have been skewed somehow, feel free to share that and we'll discuss it. But as far as I can see, the mathematics and methodology of the polls cited is pretty standard, so I really don't understand why people insist on hiding these facts. I mean, if we want to educate people on the Iraq War (I do), pointing out the fact that 80+% of Iraqis oppose it seems pretty important to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:31, 14 March 2007 (PST)

I added a reference to the bit about Iraqis fleeing the country, though a better one will certainly exist. Also, I can't find anything about a MoD Iraqi poll in the first link? [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Accidents, while I sympathize with you on Affirmlife's editing issues, you shouldn't have wiped HIS sourced comments about initial support for the invasion. Those should be added back. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:41, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:Guys, all I'm trying to do here is remove the liberal bias. This article is meant to give a more nuanced understanding of the Iraq War than that presented in the conventional liberal media. I even responded in good faith to the proposition that instead of deleting liberally biased information outright, I replace it with sounder information that presents a more balanced perspective. So if the goal here is to present an alternative view of the Iraq War, concisely, I think that my direction with the edits is much more appropriate. And I think the goal here is to present that alternative view. That's my bias. Here's my question - what are yours? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Affirm, you are not "adding" your pieces to the article - you are whole-sale deleting and replacing pieces you do not personally like. If you look at the last version Accidents did, he incorporated your poll numbers into the article. You, obviously, did not reciprocate.

::If you have a contrasting view, ADD it. Don't delete and replace sourced pieces simply b/c they conflict with your personal view of the war. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::But you've just done the very thing you accuse me of doing! What's your bias? Why do these liberal edits get privileged simply because they were first out of the gate? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Affirm, Accidents merged your poll data into the article. You simply removed his. Your edit has ad hominem attacks against people opposed to the war, you removed any opposing viewpoints, you removed any alternate casualty data. In other words, you delete what you don't like and replace it with your own stuff.

:::::ADD your data. Quit wiping out other people's work simply b/c you personally don't like it. When you do that, I'll stop reverting the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Affirmlife, how do my contributions reflect a "liberal bias"? You have yet to explain this. I'm providing DOCUMENTED FACTS, and CITING THEM; you're deleting them and replacing them with undocumented statements that appear to be nothing more than conjecture. I don't understand your position here. I even included your initial Zogby poll and wrote that many Iraqis supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:27, 14 March 2007 (PST)

This whole article should be trashed. Huge pieces have been changed then changed back then changed again. I see very little in the way of reliable information coming out of this article if people feel they must delete sections over and over again.

== Bias ==

Folks, let's take this from a different perspective. How about using an alternative viewpoint as a baseline rather than using an article rife with liberal cant as a baseline? Let's take my version as representing a 'conservative' perspective on the Iraq War (which I believe it does). That's my purpose here, and I think that if you are all actually in good faith, you should be attempting to edit the article to hew more closely to a conservative perspective.

If you want conventional, tired liberal wisdom, go check out Wikipedia. We all need to get our thoughts together about this - what is the alternative, unexplored perspective? I don't think any of you would disagree that the framing language to the facts cited in either of the two article versions has a distinct perspective and view. We need to accept that fact, not reject it. The purpose of this article is to present a more nuanced, conservative perspective. If you find that unacceptable, perhaps you should present your perspective on Wikipedia. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think your version reflects a "conservative perspective" so much as it reflects baseless conjecture, claims that aren't cited, and the blatant suppression of documented facts that contradict your preferred political party's talking points on the matter. I mean, you make a statement as absurd as "less than 65,000 Iraqi civilians have died" without citing it. If you're citing the Iraqi Death Count website, you should probably remind yourself that even the people who run and own that site acknowledge that it is far below the actual death count, as it only includes deaths reported in at least 2 mainstream western newspapers. The Lancet study - as the language I used clearly explains - includes all excess deaths, not just violence, but including the proliferation of disease, malnutrition, etc that has occurred since the 2003 invasion. Unlike the website you seem to be citing, further, the Lancet study actually involved teams on the ground in Iraq, and if I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong on this) they received death certificates for 90% of the deaths they wished to confirm. As for the support for the Iraqi resistance/insurgency, the fact that you're suppressing that is nothing short of partisan censorship.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:55, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:::Oh, I don't know. I think that there's more than enough reason to conclude that certain sources of information are selectively utilized or unutilized by people of different social and political perspectives. My unanswered question is - '''why''' would you present this information in this way? Is the purpose of the article to be a web-based sabotage of the war effort, presented as a conservative perspective on the war? I don't think it should be. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 15:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think the Bush administration is doing a FINE job of 'sabotaging the war' just by following their current [[stratergy]]. Even assuming that any criticism of governmental bungling IS, in some bizarre [[voodoo]] way, going to affect the outcome of the war for the worse, at this point, any nasty things said about their blunders on some webpage is the approximate equivalent of one extra drop of water in the middle of Noah's Flood. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've done a bit of a re-write, trying to incorporate all the points that have been put in the previous versions. It's not perfect, but I hope it will help make some progress on this. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! Looks much better now.
-Gasmonkey

:JamesK and RobS, you did a fantastic job. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was suggesting it. Thank you very much. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== WMD ==

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

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

==Psychic predictions==
This statement,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Criticisms==

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

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

== Not-so-current affairs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Duelfer Report ==

Okay this is getting insulting now. The principal finding of the Duelfer report was that Saddam had no WMD or significant WMD production capabilities. Yes it also found that he was endeavoring to get the means to get that potentially running again if the sanctions were removed, but the important thing is that he had no WMD and no significant capacity to produce them. The fact that you're denying this isnt just biased, its insulting to anyone who's actually read the thing. We didnt go to war with Saddam because he was gaming the Oil-for-Food program, we went to war because he was supposed to have these WMDs. It turns out he didnt. Stop pretending otherwise.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:You mischaracterize what the Duelfer Report says; for one "report also found that Hussein's capacity to produce WMDs had deteriorated significantly since 1991", whereas the Report states it was started up again in 1997. Then, the repeated reference to "any remaining WMD-related programs were "not of a militarily significant capability." What? So the coalition was supposed to ''wait'' until Saddam had an operational capability?
:There was much similar discussion in the 9/11 Report; how having all this knowledge, why didn't they act beforehand to avert such a disaster, etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion and its pathetically disingenuous for you to bring it up, though I notice theres a new section about it that quotes Tenet without attmepting to substantiate his claims that even though Osama actively wanted Saddam dead, they were working in joyous collusion. Three cheers for dedication to objective unbiased facts, eh? Although considering I got banned for saying that George W Bush was born in Connecticut and Massachusetts has a relatively low tax rate, its hardly surprising here.
::As far as waiting until Saddam had an operational capacity, given that a necessary condition was removal of the sanctions it can easily be argued that maintaining them would be key to minimizing whatever threat he would ever pose. However, this too is inconsequential to the discussion.
::The existing entry on the Duelfer report contains information that exclusively backs up the patently false claim that Saddam posed an existing or even potential nuclear threat to the United States, which goes against the principal finding of the report itself. Objective, bipartisan analysts concluded that there were existing stockpiles or functional capacity to produce them, and that was the key finding of the report. That the entry on the report should quote it so selectively as to support the purely anecdotal argument that the opposite is true is Intellectual Dishonesty writ large.
::You want to quote a dozen people who said there were WMDs? Be my guest. You're certainly free to present that information in your vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth. Lord knows if you all post enough things with exclamation marks and boldface youre bound to convince the sort of people that impresses. However if youre going to use a report, any report, it is an insult to all intellectual endeavor to ignore the report's principal finding and quote selectively and suggestively to prove that same untruth.
::The report does have information that supports the WMD argument. However the report's principal finding contradicts the core of the argument. Stop pretending.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you should stop worshipping at the shrine of the Duelfer report, Rex. It isn't as though it is definitive for all time. It is one report. When it is raised to the status of the Holy Bible by you so that its findings are indisputable, it makes you sound like a religious "political" fanatic - set like stone in one very uninspired viewpoint. It is a REPORT.. done by fallible men who were trying to compromise so both parties could get along and make a statement which set aside their squabbling. It also could be characterized as a cop-out compromise for political expediency. You mention "The report does have information that supports the WMD argument," then discount the possibility in the very next breath. How objective is that viewpoint? You also dismiss all argument that there were any WMD. The sarin warheads discovered by the Polish troops and the Iraqi Survey group, those who were treated for injuries from the one which exploded in an IED (read the stories).. the finding of mustard gas bombs.. all don't matter? Look at the evidence. Don't just believe one report like it is your Bible. These are FACTS, not flights of fantasy. Set aside your political prejudice and try and look at the evidence. You might also note that the special investigator for the Pentagon stated of your vaunted Iraq Survey Group who made this report that he had heard of "facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions" but the ISG had IGNORED that and not ever gone there, quote, "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond.." How throrough does that make their report's findings then? How definitive?
:If youre trying to argue that the report is worthless then you're also arguing that it shouldnt be included here without that equivocation. The section currently brags about all the things that tangentially support the idea that Saddam could possibly have posed a nuclear threat, and that exclusively. You havent argued that this is representative of the report, so I assume you concede my point that it isnt. The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt. If the report is relevant then the anti-WMD stuff needs to be mentioned. If, as you're arguing, its worthless, then it needs to be removed entirely. You cannot have it both ways.
:Also, keep up the belittling personal attacks, there Skies, really bolsters your argument. Good for you.

Personal attacks.. like saying my contributions are vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth?? I was just replying in kind. A wise man once said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

As for your saying that the report is worthless, it isn't. It just isn't definitive, as you were stating and trying to defend. The report is mentioned on the page, but I didn't post that section and so I cannot defend how it was stated. You say, "The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt." So, rather than personally attacking those of us who are contributing, what suggestions do you have as to how to modify the entry so that it reflects a more even, balanced and unbiased opinion? The report isn't worthless, it does have some validity (though when it selectively ignores people who plead for them to come and inspect, I do wonder at its veracity, don't you?). I am not arguing for its exclusion, only for it not to be seen as definitive and inspired beyond the pale of "regular" men.. men such as those you deprecate when you say the other information which is posted is only put there and highlighted to "convince the sort of people that impresses." Like the information itself is untruthful and deceptive, perhaps? It is not, and your mockery was what caused the personal reply in kind you received. If you wish to remove it from being personal, why don't you try being civil and discussing methods of improving the information to make it unbiased in a way which refrains from deprecating my contributions.
:That anything here pretends at being "Unbiased" is hilarious. The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion. It is selectively quoted to prove a point that the report itself is at odds with. You dont want to present the fair view, the one where all the report's findings are discussed, only the ones that support a particular argument. The origional entry included information on all topics. It now included a set so small as to not be objective but argumentative. Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument. Do you deny this?
Thank you for being rational and not personal in this post. I appreciate that. You say that conservapedia is "biased" toward conservative viewpoints.. well, it was called CONSERVApedia for a reason, wasn't it? I don't think people coming to this site expect to hear the Liberal viewpoint touted in every article as absolute truth. The site was created to bring out the conservative viewpoint which conservatives see as under-represented at other sites (and edited out at other sites, as well.)
Now, I could point out that the Liberapedia.. called Wikipedia is not without its flaws, either, quote: "The website Conservapedia.com has a long list of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace – even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he’d edited thousands of articles with flair. The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its website’s reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their ten things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/11549 </ref>

I think the Conservapedia strives to be conservative in outlook but with a degree of trust concerning keeping the site as close as it can be to what is factual. Yes, there is a conservative viewpoint expressed in the articles, but that is expected. Do you expect to join the Republican party and then campaign for Democrat issues and viewpoints? You wouldn't get very far doing so, and you won't go far trying to bring non-conservative views out here. But just because a certain viewpoint is unapologetically set forth and adhered to, that does not mean that the articles are all trash or "hilarious" as you called it, and many of us appreciate the refreshing atmosphere where a conservative view is encouraged. You say, "The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion." I shall work on the entry and note that their conclusion was that there are no huge stockpile of WMD in Iraq.. but with caveats because I do not see the point of quoting the report as "gospel truth" when so much of the rest of this entry refutes its conclusion as flawed and leave its conclusions open to disputation.

As for presenting "all the report's findings", this is an entry on Iraq War.. not on the Duelfer Report. They are not synonymous. It is not unfair to discuss only parts of the report rather than the entire thing. For further study the links are given. When you say, "Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument." I do doubt this conclusion. As stated now in the entry, the principle finding was not what the media spun it to be. QUOTE: " Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No." I have noted how the debate has moved to another agenda and away from the central findings under the section "Misreporting the Duelfer Report."

As you know, almost everyone knows what the report was, and perhaps the original poster merely worked from the idea of already known facts and moved forward. It is easy not to state the obvious. As I said, this is not my contribution and I have not touched it, but I will now work to encorporate a mention that the WMD were seen by the report as not existing. I will, however, mention something to the effect that the servicemen who were treated for injuries from the exploding sarin IED bomb would think they did not have a hallucination, and that sarin is actually a WMD. Do you deny that point?
:Firstly, its generally incorrect to assume that anyone researching a subject already knows enough about it. Considering too that half the articles on this site are presented as "proof that everything you knew about Sally Fields' Hairstylist is a lie" its not difficult to see how someone thinking that the Duelfer report refuted major WMD claims that upon coming here they would reach the conclusion that it said nothing of the kind.
:Next, no I dont deny Sarin is a WMD as considered by the UN (and we know how much the UN is to be trusted) the same way I'm sure that you wont deny that, given that the shell predated the 1991 Gulf war that it doesnt prove Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons.
:Also, I care what you're opinion on the Wikipedia is. I entirely do. No, seriously I actually do because the way youve described it is as something that presents facts at odds with conservative views, and that Conservapedia does not think it necessary to incorporate facts that challenge the opinions of Neo-cons. Instead of elaborating on subjects for the purpose of furthering discourse and strengthening everyone's ability to debate productively on such topics, lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else. In the past six hours I've seen people misquoted, called on it, and ignored, Ive seen nonexistant chatroom transcripts mentioned to indict people, and Ive seen, and who is surprised, a desire to have a report correctly represented as blind devotion to the document as though it were a holy book to the pious. After all, why have intellectual discourse when we can pat ourselves on the back for agreeing with each other?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 16:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the wikipedia does not present facts at odds with conservative views. The edit all conservative views out, including the facts conservatives bring up. It is called Censorship. Ask any conservative news site or bloggers.. they try to post there and within minutes, all they post simply disappears. So when you accuse conservapedia of, "lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else", I think that is the pot calling the kettle black. I agree it is incorrect to assume people know what the reports are so I gave a little more background and expanded the section. AND I did mention that both Kay and Duelfer said that no huge stockpiles of WMD were found. I hope you approve (but I somehow think you will find fault.. ??) Just remember, it is all due to you. :)
:I personally wouldn't have phrased the central thesis of the report so tersely and dismissively, but I do thank you for at the very least including some mention of the core thrust of the report in the section intent on discussing it.
:And yes I know all about the 3vil wikipedia's bias, how they use CE, which has no christian basis, instead of AD, which given that most estimates put christs birth at around 5BC, also has no christian basis. And how they insist on providing explanations of how theres no legitimate causal relationship between abortions and breast cancer and alternative explanations of that correlation, oh how dare they try to be objective. Also, did you know that their entry on Ronald Reagan contains no mention of him being the resurrection of Christ, nor how he won the cold war by punching Gorbechev into the sun. The audacity.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::''9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion ''
::No it's not. Not as it relates to process, or how these reports are covered in the press or perceived by the public. "Failure to contect the dots...", Remember that one? The Duelfer Report says things quite different than how it was being used here. The Duelfer Report clearly states Saddam was pursing WMD programs, and it extensively details complicity with non-Iraqi companies, governments, NGOs, & individuals. As the report said, Iraq is only half the story.

::WMD does not singularly refer to (a) stockpiles, and/or (b) production facilities. A simple illustration: when we says "United States Army", we are not talking about tanks, guns & hardware, we are talking about persons employed in the enterprise. Same is true about NASA; we are not talking about the end result of manufactured rockets and satellites, we are speaking about persons. The same is true about NSA. We are not talking about sophisticated communications technolgy, we are refering to the persons employed in the business. When WMD programs were discussed in 2003 as one reason, among several reasons, for pursuing the object of regime change, nobody ever said it was just stockpiles and production facilities.

::Later on, partisan critics and journalists, for whatever reason, tried to make light of the popular misconceptions regarding what WMD programs are--and used this misinformation to invent mindless partisan arguements that serve no discernable purpose other than some domestic political agenda totally unrelated to US securtity needs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts and contributions, RobS, appreciate it. Rex, I see you bring to the discussion on Iraq War a bunch of baggage from the other site about dates and previous administrations (Reagan), etc. I don't feel they merit any response when the topic is Iraq and that appears to be truly covered now. Thank you both for the discussion, Skies.

== No Casus Belli? ==

Is there some REASON we're not supposed to talk about how President Bush led us into war in Iraq?
----

:We should talk about it. But edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 this] belong on the talk page - not in the body of the article.

:When there are opposing views, shall we just enshrine one as The Truth? That will degrade trust, and that's the weakness of Wikipedia. It (1) says it won't take sides but (2) routinely takes sides.

:I suggest we here acknowledge the existence of opposing views. It's ridiculously easy to detect them, when they are dimetrically opposed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::You oppose me adding a few FACTS to the article? My [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 edit] was nothing but documented truth and when I have more time, I will add more. This may be a conservative site, but truth knows not philosophical bounds. If you cannot accept the WHOLE story, do not read ANY of it - history is not YOURS to decide. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 16:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"just enshrine one as The Truth" You realise that is horrendously hypocritical? By removing the edits which gave that point of view, you have merely left the original one by itself, enshrining '''it''' as truth. Don't accuse Wikipedia of taking sides when articles such as [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] exist. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:
:Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war.

Got a source for this "acknowledgment"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's all on sites CONTAMINATED WITH HIDEOUS LIBERAL COOTIES, so I'm sure it'll all be rejected out of hand.
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
:http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1916
:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

:On the other hand, Bush Said So, so it must be True: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html (Whatever happened to that mistrust for government that the Right nurtured when the Evil One was President? Did it all get shed like a burning coat on January 21th, 2001?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::Of course it did. Intellectual honesty is for suckers...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of first phase==

Was did Bush's May 1, 2003 claim, of "Mission Accomplished," really mean?
#That the US won the war - and that it is supposedly over
#That [[major combat operations]] had ended - and the war was in a (milder) new phase

What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A "milder" phase? How in the name of all that's holy does something in a "milder" phase have an higher average death rate than the actual war itself?

an accomplished mission is one that has gotten to a point that American men and women no longer come home in a box. Res Ipso Loquitor. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why do you Hate America(tm)? Don't you understand that REAL Patriots '''don't ask questions'''. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: It wasn't Bush's claim, I don't think. It was a military sign. The obvious meaning was that the USA won the Battle of Baghdad. It did not mean "war over" or "all problems solved". The word "mission" doesn't mean the whole war, just an operation within the war. So I say that both of Ed's interpretations are wrong and contrary to plain english. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I just reverts AmesG's change, because he overrode my edit and also inserted a silly and misleading comment about the "Mission Accomplished" sign. He is welcome to discuss it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for clarifying that, and knocking down those two straw men I had put up. As a former military man, I followed the progress of the war as closely as I could from unclassified sources. Bush was praising the troops for destroying Iraqi sovereignty (or "toppling the dictatorship"). When the Iraqi troops took off their uniforms and went home, that was a victory of sorts.

:::Nonetheless, one operation is not a war - and no victory has been achieved. The next phase is [[counter-insurgency]], which is not being done the way I would do it. But since I never even made Corporal (let alone an officer rank), it's probably not my place to criticize. Anyone can be an armchair quarterback.

:::The conduct of the [[Iraq War]] will undoubtedly be an issue in the [[2008 US presidential election]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

False premise. (a) Bush never said "mission accomplished"; (b) no evidence Bush implied "mission accomplished" as to objective of regime change; (c) Tommy Franks explained that incident. (d) This is just another gross lie Bush and Iraqi War critics complain about. Now, if critics could find some valid basis other than provable, manufactured lies of this nature that there is over reliance upon, they could develope credibilty. Til then, it's not worth the time responding to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: He may not have said it, but that was the message [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
: What he ''did'' say can be read - the opening was "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::(a) That is the point. Bush did not say it. And rational, intelligent, logical analysis exposes the fraud of trying to make something out of it other than what the objective of the war is.

::(b) The War's objective, '''stated clearly''', is '''regime change'''. Removing the old regime is not regime change. Removing and replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, '''is regime change'''.

::(c) At the time that banner was hung, the old regime had been removed, but there wasn't even an interrim government established yet. Thus, it is pure [[unadulterated]] [[fraud]] to imply that that doing half the job, i.e. only removing the old regime, and not finishing the job, i.e. replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, is accomplishing the objective of regime change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bob Parks ==

This entire article (copy-pasted in near entirety) is pure conjecture from a site that proclaims it's opinion-based nature directly. Commandment 5 rules out use of this. I know it's tough for some of you, but opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia - even a right-slanted internet-o-pedia. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 17:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T21:15:23Z

PKBear: Bob Parks

== Removal ==

I have removed the line: "Under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation." because it is simply untrue. I mean, the foremost example that comes to mind is that Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim nation - elected a female Hindu at its prime minister not too long ago.
[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 03:23, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:This addresses specifically Arab Sunni in Iraq, as the source document states. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, firstly, I mean, it isn't cited; the sentence after it links to somebody's testimony before some kind of Senate or Congress panel, but it isn't actually cited. The second problem is that it's simply untrue; as I pointed out, Indonesia - the largest Muslim country in the world - elected a female Hindu as its prime minister not long ago. A lot of Iraqis - most, perhaps - also have secular inclinations from living under Baathist rule for so long, so I think this claim really needs to be questioned. I mean, is it akin to somebody saying that Christians believe in stoning people who cheat on their wives, even though - in spite of what the Bible may say - Christians obviously do not believe in that?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:20, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::The entire passage is cited to Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on Securing America's Interest in Iraq, 23 January 2007.

:::(a) Nowher does the source document discuss Indonesia; (b) this article is entitled "Iraq War", not "Inodonesia". Context of the source document gives relevency. Obviously, the source document was not reviewed before removing the proper citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Full context:
:::''As all know by now, for even moderately fundamentalist Sunnis, the Shia are disqualified from political power because under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state--while the Shia for them are heretics. '''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow, you're not much of an expert on Islam are you? Salafists are a miniscule, radical minority with little to no support in Iraq, even among the Sunnis, who - being the progenitors of Iraqi Baathism - possess a historical tendency towards forms of secularism. The idea that one American's testimony to some other Americans that "under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" can be held as evidence in the face of mountains of evidence that this claim is totally untrue is utterly insane. I have to wonder: Are you trying to protray this honestly, or do you have a partisan agenda to push with this kind of disinformation?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:56, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::Wow, (1) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam -- I cited a source. (2) What evidence do you have the source, Luttwak, born in Italy & a former Israeli tank commander, holds US citizenship; (3) Why should that matter? (4) Please address issues; assigning motives in does little to further our agenda of writing this encyclopedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sorry, I will try to remain civil and stick to discussing my problems with this passage. The point is, it's a patently untrue statement. As for person making the claims, do you honestly believe that a member of the IDF is a reliable source of information on Islam? I mean, by the sounds of it, he isn't a Muslim, and lives in a society that's in a perpetual state of war with Islamic neighbours and which discriminates against its Islamic members systemically. Is this really who we should be asking? Why not ask Muslims what Islam is about, just as we would ask Christians what Christianity is about? As I said, Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country - elected a female Hindu not too long ago. The claim that Islamic law stipulates that Muslim countries must be ruled by Muslims is either untrue or misleading. I mean, as I said, the Holy Bible may claim that people should be stoned for cheating on their wives, but we all know that Christians don't stone people to death, and we'd be liars if we claimed that they did. This situation seems similar to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 16:36, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::Thank you. In edit conflict yesterday part of my response was ommitted. I intended to include that the statement, ''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'' specifically does what you refer to, the context of all Islam. Mr. Luttwak needs no qualification, and if your not familiar with the source you may wish to check it out. And I'd seriously encourage reading the Testimony which is among the first invited to appear before the newly Democratically controlled Senate Foreign Affairs Committee--for a reason. Mr. Luttwak's testimony gives in detail where US policy was coming from, where it is right now, and where it is going.

:::::::This is a foreign policy discussion, and this article is not a forum for propaganda. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Right, it's not a forum for propaganda. So why are you pasting Zionist propaganda that's demonstrably untrue? The statement that "under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" is a lie. That's what I'm saying. It needs to be removed because it simply is not true.[[User:Accidnets|Accidents]] 18:56, 17 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::::Ok, I clarified it a bit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Citations Needed ==

The following statements are not documented, and so may not be reliable:

"2003 Iraq War (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world" - Is the Iraq War really the largest in the world? Where does this claim come from? There are conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa that probably dwarf it.

"The war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led War on Terrorism." - Is this a documented fact, or a partisan talking-point? The American government certainly casts the Iraq War as related to some kind of "war on terrorism," but seeing as how the war has actually escalated terrorism around the globe, is counter-terrorism really the Americans' objective in Iraq? Let's get critical here, people.

"Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein" - This needs to be linked to a poll or newspaper report that confirms it.

"Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the Jaysh Al-Madhi, have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks." Is this really true? It seems to imply that the United States is acting as a neutral force in trying to prevent an Iraqi Civil War, which is also the American government's claims on the matter. But if that were the case, why would - to quote the USA Today poll linked as number 6 and 7 on the article - "Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents." I mean, the U.S. invaded the country, and is engaged in combat against a popular rebellion; they're a belligerent, not peacekeepers. The wording here just seems off to me.

''"Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to Syria, before the onset of the war." - This needs to be linked to a page in which somebody accuses Syria of harboring Iraq's WMD.''
This has now been done, Mar 2007.

"Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the First Gulf War, and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more." - This needs to be linked to a page which confirms that Iraq was "at least a decade away from producing more".

[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 13:36, 15 March 2007 (PST)

== General Discussion ==

How about using a cite that doesn't require a $30.00 charge to view the article cited? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

For starters, how is the war in Iraq "the largest war operation in the world"? That claim isn't even cited, it's just lazily thrown out there with no substantiated evidence. Can whoever wrote that provide some citations for that claim, or remove it if none can be provided?

Secondly, the Iraqi Body Count website is not "robust surveying techniques"; it's a collection of deaths reported by at least two Western news agencies, and the owners of that website acknowledge that their number is inevitably going to be far below what the actual death count is. Due to this, I've taken the liberty to introduce statistics from an actual academic study that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I've also added an overview of the Iraqi Resistance, and its popularity in Iraq, with several citations to verify what I have written.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 00:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, there is some hard-core censorship occurring here. Everything I've added is true, and has been rightfully cited. Deleting the section on the Iraqi Resistance is straight censorship at its worst.

I can understand disputes about the second Lancet study, as the numbers may be slightly off (either lower or higher) due to the fact that two of the sample zones were merged into 1 in several occasions for the sake of researcher safety on the ground. I think that criticizing that is absolutely valid, but at least acknowledge that the merged sample zones were similar in economic, social and level-of-violence aspects as well. Beyond that please provide your arguments and discuss them in here before simply changing the page. Thank you.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a little more going on here than just some questions about figures and resistance. I think you're trying to inject some liberal bias into this page on the struggle in Iraq. No matter what way you slice it, that's inappropriate. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 04:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:And if User:Accidents had tried to inject some conservative bias into the article on the "struggle" in Iraq (surely a term that indicates a bias), would that have been objectionable, or is that OK? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does providing -documented facts- about Iraqis' opposition to the occupation and support for the resistance/insurgency reflect "liberal bias", unless you're referring to reality itself as suffering from a "liberal bias" (which seems to be the case)? The figures I provided are factual, and cited; you can check the source documents themselves if you want. I stand by all of the information I provided, and I think it's reliable. I'm interested in the truth, not "liberal bias". If, in this case, truth doesn't conform to an "American conservative" viewpoint, it's probably your opinion that needs to shift, not mine.

And if you have any complaints about the Lancet study, I'll gladly discuss that with you. I studied statistics at the university level, and read the entire report - and the methodology behind it - last year. Apart from the doubling-up of certain similar clusters, the math checks out. Feel free to reply with any of your complaints. I am reverting the page to my last edit.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the problem - we're here to state our bias, not to pretend that we're referring to ethereal, disconnected "facts" that are actually used only to bolster a particular argument. Your argument has been made and it is both the dominant and the incorrect argument. You're using the "reputable sources" and "methods" that have been so perverted over the course of the last fifty years. Shaking the voodoo stick of "truth" doesn't alter the fact that what people call "truth" changes based on the perspective of the person who presents statements about a certain subject. All voices are biased, and they need to state that bias. I am a conservative. This is an article for conservatives. I'm reverting the article. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]], It's true that Iraqi opinion was optimistic in 2003/2004. I sure you can add a section on this, including your references, without obliterating the rest of the article. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The degree of self-delusion and doublethink in Affirmlife's above paragraph is absolutely astounding. Facts are what is scientifically verifiable; for instance, the existence and subsequent extinction of the dodo bird is a documented fact, based on mountains of scientific evidence both that the species once existed and that it has since gone extinct. Just because some kook may argue that the dodo never existed does not mean that that person has a valid viewpoint, because there's no scientific evidence to support that view. Similarly, I have provided facts to this article, citing all of them. Two of the three polls that demonstrate the unpopularity of the occupation by Iraqis come from the occupying powers themselves - the British Ministry of Defence and the American State Department, neither of which is particularly renowned as being a source of "liberal bias," but quite the opposite. I mean, if you know something that I don't know about the polls I'm citing, and have reason to believe that the results have been skewed somehow, feel free to share that and we'll discuss it. But as far as I can see, the mathematics and methodology of the polls cited is pretty standard, so I really don't understand why people insist on hiding these facts. I mean, if we want to educate people on the Iraq War (I do), pointing out the fact that 80+% of Iraqis oppose it seems pretty important to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:31, 14 March 2007 (PST)

I added a reference to the bit about Iraqis fleeing the country, though a better one will certainly exist. Also, I can't find anything about a MoD Iraqi poll in the first link? [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Accidents, while I sympathize with you on Affirmlife's editing issues, you shouldn't have wiped HIS sourced comments about initial support for the invasion. Those should be added back. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:41, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:Guys, all I'm trying to do here is remove the liberal bias. This article is meant to give a more nuanced understanding of the Iraq War than that presented in the conventional liberal media. I even responded in good faith to the proposition that instead of deleting liberally biased information outright, I replace it with sounder information that presents a more balanced perspective. So if the goal here is to present an alternative view of the Iraq War, concisely, I think that my direction with the edits is much more appropriate. And I think the goal here is to present that alternative view. That's my bias. Here's my question - what are yours? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Affirm, you are not "adding" your pieces to the article - you are whole-sale deleting and replacing pieces you do not personally like. If you look at the last version Accidents did, he incorporated your poll numbers into the article. You, obviously, did not reciprocate.

::If you have a contrasting view, ADD it. Don't delete and replace sourced pieces simply b/c they conflict with your personal view of the war. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::But you've just done the very thing you accuse me of doing! What's your bias? Why do these liberal edits get privileged simply because they were first out of the gate? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Affirm, Accidents merged your poll data into the article. You simply removed his. Your edit has ad hominem attacks against people opposed to the war, you removed any opposing viewpoints, you removed any alternate casualty data. In other words, you delete what you don't like and replace it with your own stuff.

:::::ADD your data. Quit wiping out other people's work simply b/c you personally don't like it. When you do that, I'll stop reverting the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Affirmlife, how do my contributions reflect a "liberal bias"? You have yet to explain this. I'm providing DOCUMENTED FACTS, and CITING THEM; you're deleting them and replacing them with undocumented statements that appear to be nothing more than conjecture. I don't understand your position here. I even included your initial Zogby poll and wrote that many Iraqis supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:27, 14 March 2007 (PST)

This whole article should be trashed. Huge pieces have been changed then changed back then changed again. I see very little in the way of reliable information coming out of this article if people feel they must delete sections over and over again.

== Bias ==

Folks, let's take this from a different perspective. How about using an alternative viewpoint as a baseline rather than using an article rife with liberal cant as a baseline? Let's take my version as representing a 'conservative' perspective on the Iraq War (which I believe it does). That's my purpose here, and I think that if you are all actually in good faith, you should be attempting to edit the article to hew more closely to a conservative perspective.

If you want conventional, tired liberal wisdom, go check out Wikipedia. We all need to get our thoughts together about this - what is the alternative, unexplored perspective? I don't think any of you would disagree that the framing language to the facts cited in either of the two article versions has a distinct perspective and view. We need to accept that fact, not reject it. The purpose of this article is to present a more nuanced, conservative perspective. If you find that unacceptable, perhaps you should present your perspective on Wikipedia. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think your version reflects a "conservative perspective" so much as it reflects baseless conjecture, claims that aren't cited, and the blatant suppression of documented facts that contradict your preferred political party's talking points on the matter. I mean, you make a statement as absurd as "less than 65,000 Iraqi civilians have died" without citing it. If you're citing the Iraqi Death Count website, you should probably remind yourself that even the people who run and own that site acknowledge that it is far below the actual death count, as it only includes deaths reported in at least 2 mainstream western newspapers. The Lancet study - as the language I used clearly explains - includes all excess deaths, not just violence, but including the proliferation of disease, malnutrition, etc that has occurred since the 2003 invasion. Unlike the website you seem to be citing, further, the Lancet study actually involved teams on the ground in Iraq, and if I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong on this) they received death certificates for 90% of the deaths they wished to confirm. As for the support for the Iraqi resistance/insurgency, the fact that you're suppressing that is nothing short of partisan censorship.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:55, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:::Oh, I don't know. I think that there's more than enough reason to conclude that certain sources of information are selectively utilized or unutilized by people of different social and political perspectives. My unanswered question is - '''why''' would you present this information in this way? Is the purpose of the article to be a web-based sabotage of the war effort, presented as a conservative perspective on the war? I don't think it should be. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 15:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think the Bush administration is doing a FINE job of 'sabotaging the war' just by following their current [[stratergy]]. Even assuming that any criticism of governmental bungling IS, in some bizarre [[voodoo]] way, going to affect the outcome of the war for the worse, at this point, any nasty things said about their blunders on some webpage is the approximate equivalent of one extra drop of water in the middle of Noah's Flood. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've done a bit of a re-write, trying to incorporate all the points that have been put in the previous versions. It's not perfect, but I hope it will help make some progress on this. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! Looks much better now.
-Gasmonkey

:JamesK and RobS, you did a fantastic job. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was suggesting it. Thank you very much. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== WMD ==

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

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

==Psychic predictions==
This statement,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Criticisms==

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

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

== Not-so-current affairs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Duelfer Report ==

Okay this is getting insulting now. The principal finding of the Duelfer report was that Saddam had no WMD or significant WMD production capabilities. Yes it also found that he was endeavoring to get the means to get that potentially running again if the sanctions were removed, but the important thing is that he had no WMD and no significant capacity to produce them. The fact that you're denying this isnt just biased, its insulting to anyone who's actually read the thing. We didnt go to war with Saddam because he was gaming the Oil-for-Food program, we went to war because he was supposed to have these WMDs. It turns out he didnt. Stop pretending otherwise.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:You mischaracterize what the Duelfer Report says; for one "report also found that Hussein's capacity to produce WMDs had deteriorated significantly since 1991", whereas the Report states it was started up again in 1997. Then, the repeated reference to "any remaining WMD-related programs were "not of a militarily significant capability." What? So the coalition was supposed to ''wait'' until Saddam had an operational capability?
:There was much similar discussion in the 9/11 Report; how having all this knowledge, why didn't they act beforehand to avert such a disaster, etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion and its pathetically disingenuous for you to bring it up, though I notice theres a new section about it that quotes Tenet without attmepting to substantiate his claims that even though Osama actively wanted Saddam dead, they were working in joyous collusion. Three cheers for dedication to objective unbiased facts, eh? Although considering I got banned for saying that George W Bush was born in Connecticut and Massachusetts has a relatively low tax rate, its hardly surprising here.
::As far as waiting until Saddam had an operational capacity, given that a necessary condition was removal of the sanctions it can easily be argued that maintaining them would be key to minimizing whatever threat he would ever pose. However, this too is inconsequential to the discussion.
::The existing entry on the Duelfer report contains information that exclusively backs up the patently false claim that Saddam posed an existing or even potential nuclear threat to the United States, which goes against the principal finding of the report itself. Objective, bipartisan analysts concluded that there were existing stockpiles or functional capacity to produce them, and that was the key finding of the report. That the entry on the report should quote it so selectively as to support the purely anecdotal argument that the opposite is true is Intellectual Dishonesty writ large.
::You want to quote a dozen people who said there were WMDs? Be my guest. You're certainly free to present that information in your vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth. Lord knows if you all post enough things with exclamation marks and boldface youre bound to convince the sort of people that impresses. However if youre going to use a report, any report, it is an insult to all intellectual endeavor to ignore the report's principal finding and quote selectively and suggestively to prove that same untruth.
::The report does have information that supports the WMD argument. However the report's principal finding contradicts the core of the argument. Stop pretending.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you should stop worshipping at the shrine of the Duelfer report, Rex. It isn't as though it is definitive for all time. It is one report. When it is raised to the status of the Holy Bible by you so that its findings are indisputable, it makes you sound like a religious "political" fanatic - set like stone in one very uninspired viewpoint. It is a REPORT.. done by fallible men who were trying to compromise so both parties could get along and make a statement which set aside their squabbling. It also could be characterized as a cop-out compromise for political expediency. You mention "The report does have information that supports the WMD argument," then discount the possibility in the very next breath. How objective is that viewpoint? You also dismiss all argument that there were any WMD. The sarin warheads discovered by the Polish troops and the Iraqi Survey group, those who were treated for injuries from the one which exploded in an IED (read the stories).. the finding of mustard gas bombs.. all don't matter? Look at the evidence. Don't just believe one report like it is your Bible. These are FACTS, not flights of fantasy. Set aside your political prejudice and try and look at the evidence. You might also note that the special investigator for the Pentagon stated of your vaunted Iraq Survey Group who made this report that he had heard of "facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions" but the ISG had IGNORED that and not ever gone there, quote, "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond.." How throrough does that make their report's findings then? How definitive?
:If youre trying to argue that the report is worthless then you're also arguing that it shouldnt be included here without that equivocation. The section currently brags about all the things that tangentially support the idea that Saddam could possibly have posed a nuclear threat, and that exclusively. You havent argued that this is representative of the report, so I assume you concede my point that it isnt. The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt. If the report is relevant then the anti-WMD stuff needs to be mentioned. If, as you're arguing, its worthless, then it needs to be removed entirely. You cannot have it both ways.
:Also, keep up the belittling personal attacks, there Skies, really bolsters your argument. Good for you.

Personal attacks.. like saying my contributions are vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth?? I was just replying in kind. A wise man once said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

As for your saying that the report is worthless, it isn't. It just isn't definitive, as you were stating and trying to defend. The report is mentioned on the page, but I didn't post that section and so I cannot defend how it was stated. You say, "The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt." So, rather than personally attacking those of us who are contributing, what suggestions do you have as to how to modify the entry so that it reflects a more even, balanced and unbiased opinion? The report isn't worthless, it does have some validity (though when it selectively ignores people who plead for them to come and inspect, I do wonder at its veracity, don't you?). I am not arguing for its exclusion, only for it not to be seen as definitive and inspired beyond the pale of "regular" men.. men such as those you deprecate when you say the other information which is posted is only put there and highlighted to "convince the sort of people that impresses." Like the information itself is untruthful and deceptive, perhaps? It is not, and your mockery was what caused the personal reply in kind you received. If you wish to remove it from being personal, why don't you try being civil and discussing methods of improving the information to make it unbiased in a way which refrains from deprecating my contributions.
:That anything here pretends at being "Unbiased" is hilarious. The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion. It is selectively quoted to prove a point that the report itself is at odds with. You dont want to present the fair view, the one where all the report's findings are discussed, only the ones that support a particular argument. The origional entry included information on all topics. It now included a set so small as to not be objective but argumentative. Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument. Do you deny this?
Thank you for being rational and not personal in this post. I appreciate that. You say that conservapedia is "biased" toward conservative viewpoints.. well, it was called CONSERVApedia for a reason, wasn't it? I don't think people coming to this site expect to hear the Liberal viewpoint touted in every article as absolute truth. The site was created to bring out the conservative viewpoint which conservatives see as under-represented at other sites (and edited out at other sites, as well.)
Now, I could point out that the Liberapedia.. called Wikipedia is not without its flaws, either, quote: "The website Conservapedia.com has a long list of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace – even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he’d edited thousands of articles with flair. The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its website’s reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their ten things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/11549 </ref>

I think the Conservapedia strives to be conservative in outlook but with a degree of trust concerning keeping the site as close as it can be to what is factual. Yes, there is a conservative viewpoint expressed in the articles, but that is expected. Do you expect to join the Republican party and then campaign for Democrat issues and viewpoints? You wouldn't get very far doing so, and you won't go far trying to bring non-conservative views out here. But just because a certain viewpoint is unapologetically set forth and adhered to, that does not mean that the articles are all trash or "hilarious" as you called it, and many of us appreciate the refreshing atmosphere where a conservative view is encouraged. You say, "The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion." I shall work on the entry and note that their conclusion was that there are no huge stockpile of WMD in Iraq.. but with caveats because I do not see the point of quoting the report as "gospel truth" when so much of the rest of this entry refutes its conclusion as flawed and leave its conclusions open to disputation.

As for presenting "all the report's findings", this is an entry on Iraq War.. not on the Duelfer Report. They are not synonymous. It is not unfair to discuss only parts of the report rather than the entire thing. For further study the links are given. When you say, "Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument." I do doubt this conclusion. As stated now in the entry, the principle finding was not what the media spun it to be. QUOTE: " Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No." I have noted how the debate has moved to another agenda and away from the central findings under the section "Misreporting the Duelfer Report."

As you know, almost everyone knows what the report was, and perhaps the original poster merely worked from the idea of already known facts and moved forward. It is easy not to state the obvious. As I said, this is not my contribution and I have not touched it, but I will now work to encorporate a mention that the WMD were seen by the report as not existing. I will, however, mention something to the effect that the servicemen who were treated for injuries from the exploding sarin IED bomb would think they did not have a hallucination, and that sarin is actually a WMD. Do you deny that point?
:Firstly, its generally incorrect to assume that anyone researching a subject already knows enough about it. Considering too that half the articles on this site are presented as "proof that everything you knew about Sally Fields' Hairstylist is a lie" its not difficult to see how someone thinking that the Duelfer report refuted major WMD claims that upon coming here they would reach the conclusion that it said nothing of the kind.
:Next, no I dont deny Sarin is a WMD as considered by the UN (and we know how much the UN is to be trusted) the same way I'm sure that you wont deny that, given that the shell predated the 1991 Gulf war that it doesnt prove Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons.
:Also, I care what you're opinion on the Wikipedia is. I entirely do. No, seriously I actually do because the way youve described it is as something that presents facts at odds with conservative views, and that Conservapedia does not think it necessary to incorporate facts that challenge the opinions of Neo-cons. Instead of elaborating on subjects for the purpose of furthering discourse and strengthening everyone's ability to debate productively on such topics, lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else. In the past six hours I've seen people misquoted, called on it, and ignored, Ive seen nonexistant chatroom transcripts mentioned to indict people, and Ive seen, and who is surprised, a desire to have a report correctly represented as blind devotion to the document as though it were a holy book to the pious. After all, why have intellectual discourse when we can pat ourselves on the back for agreeing with each other?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 16:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the wikipedia does not present facts at odds with conservative views. The edit all conservative views out, including the facts conservatives bring up. It is called Censorship. Ask any conservative news site or bloggers.. they try to post there and within minutes, all they post simply disappears. So when you accuse conservapedia of, "lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else", I think that is the pot calling the kettle black. I agree it is incorrect to assume people know what the reports are so I gave a little more background and expanded the section. AND I did mention that both Kay and Duelfer said that no huge stockpiles of WMD were found. I hope you approve (but I somehow think you will find fault.. ??) Just remember, it is all due to you. :)
:I personally wouldn't have phrased the central thesis of the report so tersely and dismissively, but I do thank you for at the very least including some mention of the core thrust of the report in the section intent on discussing it.
:And yes I know all about the 3vil wikipedia's bias, how they use CE, which has no christian basis, instead of AD, which given that most estimates put christs birth at around 5BC, also has no christian basis. And how they insist on providing explanations of how theres no legitimate causal relationship between abortions and breast cancer and alternative explanations of that correlation, oh how dare they try to be objective. Also, did you know that their entry on Ronald Reagan contains no mention of him being the resurrection of Christ, nor how he won the cold war by punching Gorbechev into the sun. The audacity.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::''9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion ''
::No it's not. Not as it relates to process, or how these reports are covered in the press or perceived by the public. "Failure to contect the dots...", Remember that one? The Duelfer Report says things quite different than how it was being used here. The Duelfer Report clearly states Saddam was pursing WMD programs, and it extensively details complicity with non-Iraqi companies, governments, NGOs, & individuals. As the report said, Iraq is only half the story.

::WMD does not singularly refer to (a) stockpiles, and/or (b) production facilities. A simple illustration: when we says "United States Army", we are not talking about tanks, guns & hardware, we are talking about persons employed in the enterprise. Same is true about NASA; we are not talking about the end result of manufactured rockets and satellites, we are speaking about persons. The same is true about NSA. We are not talking about sophisticated communications technolgy, we are refering to the persons employed in the business. When WMD programs were discussed in 2003 as one reason, among several reasons, for pursuing the object of regime change, nobody ever said it was just stockpiles and production facilities.

::Later on, partisan critics and journalists, for whatever reason, tried to make light of the popular misconceptions regarding what WMD programs are--and used this misinformation to invent mindless partisan arguements that serve no discernable purpose other than some domestic political agenda totally unrelated to US securtity needs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts and contributions, RobS, appreciate it. Rex, I see you bring to the discussion on Iraq War a bunch of baggage from the other site about dates and previous administrations (Reagan), etc. I don't feel they merit any response when the topic is Iraq and that appears to be truly covered now. Thank you both for the discussion, Skies.

== No Casus Belli? ==

Is there some REASON we're not supposed to talk about how President Bush led us into war in Iraq?
----

:We should talk about it. But edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 this] belong on the talk page - not in the body of the article.

:When there are opposing views, shall we just enshrine one as The Truth? That will degrade trust, and that's the weakness of Wikipedia. It (1) says it won't take sides but (2) routinely takes sides.

:I suggest we here acknowledge the existence of opposing views. It's ridiculously easy to detect them, when they are dimetrically opposed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::You oppose me adding a few FACTS to the article? My [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 edit] was nothing but documented truth and when I have more time, I will add more. This may be a conservative site, but truth knows not philosophical bounds. If you cannot accept the WHOLE story, do not read ANY of it - history is not YOURS to decide. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 16:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"just enshrine one as The Truth" You realise that is horrendously hypocritical? By removing the edits which gave that point of view, you have merely left the original one by itself, enshrining '''it''' as truth. Don't accuse Wikipedia of taking sides when articles such as [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] exist. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:
:Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war.

Got a source for this "acknowledgment"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's all on sites CONTAMINATED WITH HIDEOUS LIBERAL COOTIES, so I'm sure it'll all be rejected out of hand.
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
:http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1916
:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

:On the other hand, Bush Said So, so it must be True: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html (Whatever happened to that mistrust for government that the Right nurtured when the Evil One was President? Did it all get shed like a burning coat on January 21th, 2001?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::Of course it did. Intellectual honesty is for suckers...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of first phase==

Was did Bush's May 1, 2003 claim, of "Mission Accomplished," really mean?
#That the US won the war - and that it is supposedly over
#That [[major combat operations]] had ended - and the war was in a (milder) new phase

What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A "milder" phase? How in the name of all that's holy does something in a "milder" phase have an higher average death rate than the actual war itself?

an accomplished mission is one that has gotten to a point that American men and women no longer come home in a box. Res Ipso Loquitor. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why do you Hate America(tm)? Don't you understand that REAL Patriots '''don't ask questions'''. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: It wasn't Bush's claim, I don't think. It was a military sign. The obvious meaning was that the USA won the Battle of Baghdad. It did not mean "war over" or "all problems solved". The word "mission" doesn't mean the whole war, just an operation within the war. So I say that both of Ed's interpretations are wrong and contrary to plain english. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I just reverts AmesG's change, because he overrode my edit and also inserted a silly and misleading comment about the "Mission Accomplished" sign. He is welcome to discuss it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for clarifying that, and knocking down those two straw men I had put up. As a former military man, I followed the progress of the war as closely as I could from unclassified sources. Bush was praising the troops for destroying Iraqi sovereignty (or "toppling the dictatorship"). When the Iraqi troops took off their uniforms and went home, that was a victory of sorts.

:::Nonetheless, one operation is not a war - and no victory has been achieved. The next phase is [[counter-insurgency]], which is not being done the way I would do it. But since I never even made Corporal (let alone an officer rank), it's probably not my place to criticize. Anyone can be an armchair quarterback.

:::The conduct of the [[Iraq War]] will undoubtedly be an issue in the [[2008 US presidential election]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

False premise. (a) Bush never said "mission accomplished"; (b) no evidence Bush implied "mission accomplished" as to objective of regime change; (c) Tommy Franks explained that incident. (d) This is just another gross lie Bush and Iraqi War critics complain about. Now, if critics could find some valid basis other than provable, manufactured lies of this nature that there is over reliance upon, they could develope credibilty. Til then, it's not worth the time responding to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: He may not have said it, but that was the message [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
: What he ''did'' say can be read - the opening was "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::(a) That is the point. Bush did not say it. And rational, intelligent, logical analysis exposes the fraud of trying to make something out of it other than what the objective of the war is.

::(b) The War's objective, '''stated clearly''', is '''regime change'''. Removing the old regime is not regime change. Removing and replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, '''is regime change'''.

::(c) At the time that banner was hung, the old regime had been removed, but there wasn't even an interrim government established yet. Thus, it is pure [[unadulterated]] [[fraud]] to imply that that doing half the job, i.e. only removing the old regime, and not finishing the job, i.e. replacing the old regime with a stable new regime, is accomplishing the objective of regime change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bob Parks ==

This entire article (copy-pasted in near entirety) is pure conjecture from a site that proclaims it's opinion-based nature directly. Commandment 5 rules out use of this. I know it's tough for some of you, but opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia - even a right-slanted internet-o-pedia.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T21:12:03Z

PKBear:

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, started when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with several stated goals, one of which being the removal of dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], and another being the goal of bringing Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]].

The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that, although there are no links between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 attacks, the war in Iraq is crucial to the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]]. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for perceived blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

===Iraqi Liberation===
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]
Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

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

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

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

==The Surge==
[[Image:Cuncil.jpg|right|thumb|Iraqi governing council as of July 15, 2003]]
Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. This finding was updated 2 days later though, as further testing showed that the warheads did not contain chemical agents of any sort.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref>

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> Undeniable is the fact that the true cost of the war cannot be measured by a simple dollar amount.

==Casualties==

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,200 U.S. troops have died in the war.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

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

[[Category:Wars]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T21:11:32Z

PKBear: Deleted the Bob Park piece as it violates Commandment #5. And for pete's sake, if you censor me, at least don't revert back the typos I fix! Use some moderation in your censorship!

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, started when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with several stated goals, one of which being the removal of dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], and another being the goal of bringing Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] (which, to this date, have not been found).

The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that, although there are no links between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 attacks, the war in Iraq is crucial to the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]]. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for perceived blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

===Iraqi Liberation===
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]
Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

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

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

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

==The Surge==
[[Image:Cuncil.jpg|right|thumb|Iraqi governing council as of July 15, 2003]]
Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. This finding was updated 2 days later though, as further testing showed that the warheads did not contain chemical agents of any sort.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref>

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> Undeniable is the fact that the true cost of the war cannot be measured by a simple dollar amount.

==Casualties==

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,200 U.S. troops have died in the war.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

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

[[Category:Wars]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-29T21:21:36Z

PKBear: ONCE AGAIN: THERE IS NO REASON TO REVERT FACT. QUESTIONS? SEE TALK PAGE.

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, began when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with President Bush stating various objectives - one of which was deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and also to bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] (although no such weapons have been found). The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as disengagement of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that the war is crucial to the larger U.S.-led [[War on Terrorism]]. Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for perceived the administration for percieved blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

===Iraqi Liberation===
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]
Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

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

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

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

==The Surge==

Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighbouring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defence” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all." Another dozen were found later in June and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> Again, finding WMD, whether usable or not, constitutes finding WMD and refutes those who say there never were any in Iraq. "Partly usable" means it kills only half the intended amount of people? So that means the public may safely ignore any threat these weapons could have posed?

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

==Costs==

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

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

[[Category:Wars]]

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-29T20:57:37Z

PKBear: /* No Casus Belli? */

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-29T20:57:08Z

PKBear: /* No Casus Belli? */

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-29T18:06:45Z

PKBear: There is no reason to revert FACTS, Dew.

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, began when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with President Bush stating various objectives - one of which was deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and also to bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] (although no such weapons have been found). The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as disengagement of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that the war is crucial to the larger U.S.-led [[War on Terrorism]]. Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for perceived blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

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

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

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

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

==The Surge==

Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighbouring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defence” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all." Another dozen were found later in June and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> Again, finding WMD, whether usable or not, constitutes finding WMD and refutes those who say there never were any in Iraq. "Partly usable" means it kills only half the intended amount of people? So that means the public may safely ignore any threat these weapons could have posed?

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

==Costs==

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

==Casualties==

According to the [[Iraq body Count Project]], over 60,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war<ref> [www.iraqbodycount.org Iraq Body Count Project] </ref>, though other sources put the toll much higher. According to Department of Defense, over 3,200 U.S. soldiers have died during the war. <ref> [www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense] </ref>

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

[[Category:Wars]]

User:Saved

2007-03-28T22:33:49Z

PKBear:

Hi.
I am only alive through the grace of Our Lord. I was a homosexual and drug addict, but after many failed attempts at rehab, I was taken in by my new Christian family, and now I am married with children, working, and spreading The Word.

User:Saved

2007-03-28T22:33:16Z

PKBear: Removing all content from page

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-28T22:31:37Z

PKBear:

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, began when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with various stated objectives - one of which was deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and also to bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] (although no such weapons have been found). The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as disengagement of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that the war is crucial to the larger U.S.-led [[War on Terrorism]]. Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for perceived blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

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

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

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

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

==The Surge==

Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighbouring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defence” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all." Another dozen were found later in June and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> Again, finding WMD, whether usable or not, constitutes finding WMD and refutes those who say there never were any in Iraq. "Partly usable" means it kills only half the intended amount of people? So that means the public may safely ignore any threat these weapons could have posed?

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

==Costs==

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

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

[[Category:Wars]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-28T22:22:16Z

PKBear:

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, began when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with various stated objectives - one of which was deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and also to bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] (although no such weapons have been found). The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as disengagement of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that the war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]]. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for percieved blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

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

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

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

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

==The Surge==

Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighbouring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defence” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all." Another dozen were found later in June and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> Again, finding WMD, whether usable or not, constitutes finding WMD and refutes those who say there never were any in Iraq. "Partly usable" means it kills only half the intended amount of people? So that means the public may safely ignore any threat these weapons could have posed?

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

==Costs==

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

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

[[Category:Wars]]

The Crusades

2007-03-23T05:08:59Z

PKBear:

[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning [[Crusader]]]]
The Crusades lasted 176 years from 1095 until 1271

The most famous military activity in the feudal period was the “Crusades”, a
series of wars covering nearly 200 years, from A.D. 1096-1291. Only the First
Crusade and to a lesser extent the Third Crusade were successful. One of the
main purposes of the crusades was to make [[Jerusalem]] safe for Christian
pilgrimages. At the request of the Byzantine Emperor, who wished fro a
mercenary force to aid his reconquest of his lands, in 1095 [[Pope Urban II]]
called for feudal [[knights]] to retake the [[Holy Land]] from the [[Seljuk
Turks]]. The Seljuk Turks seemed almost invincible as fighters, having
conquered [[Asia Minor]] and even beating the once-mighty [[Byzantine Empire]].
The Seljuk Turks ruled from the 1000s to the 1200s, and did particularly well under one particular ruler, [[Malik Shah]], who died in 1092. But some Muslims
were unhappy with being ruled by the Turks, and once Malik died dissension in
the Islamic world grew.

The Byzantine emperor, [[Alexius Comnenus]], had inherited an empire that had
been destroyed by Seljuk and Patzinak Turks and he asked the pope for mercenary
help to defeat the Muslims. He promised a reunion of the [[Eastern Orthodox
Church]] and the [[Western Church]] and to give Byzantine lands (“[[fiefs]]”)
to victorious knights from the [[feudal]] west.

At the [[Council at Clermont]] in southern France, Pope Urban II gave a famous
speech. Promising [[absolution]] and assurance of salvation to anyone who died
in the crusade, he urged a huge crowd to protect Christian pilgrims from the
Turks. He demanded that all internal feuds end and he threatened
[[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally. Those who
decided to fight in the crusades were said to be “taking up the cross,” because
they would stitch small crosses onto their tunics.

At first [[Peter the Hermit]] answered the call of Pope Urban and led an
unprepared group of peasants in the first mission, which failed. But news of
its failure led to renewed determination by the Christians, and a well-equipped
religious mission led by the Normans was formed. This became known as the First
Crusade.

When the western forces reached [[Constantinople]] to join with Alexius’
soldiers, the western army was almost 20,000 men. It proceeded to capture
[[Nicaea]] in 1097, and went onward to Jerusalem despite intense fighting,
mostly between the various factions within the Crusade as opposed to with any
Muslim enemies and hardship.

In 1099 the First Crusade invaded and succeeded in capturing Jerusalem, and set
up four feudal kingdoms that would remain for nearly 100 years. However, the
Christian crusaders massacred the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and many other
towns in the process. But it was a huge military victory and Jerusalem was
temporarily made safe for the pilgrims.

A mixture of Christian spirituality and military adventure motivated the
participants in the Crusades like never before in history and perhaps never
since. Genovese Merchants participated also in the hope of undermining
Venice's trade links with Muslim Egypt. Many of the crusaders were acting to
advance the cause of Christianity. This was not necessarily true for all of
the crusaders. Criminals who fought were pardoned, and a crusader was exempt
from taxation from the time that he “took up the cross,” until he returned from
the war.

A Second Crusade in 1147-49 was a failure, owing to the French King's insistence
on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, Damascus. In 1187 the Muslims
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], and the Third Crusade
(1189-92) had the limited success of obtaining a truce from Saladin that
promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That Crusade was led by
the leaders of [[France]] and the [[Holy Roman Empire]] and [[King Richard]]
the Lion-Hearted of England. The first returned home after an argument with
Richard at Acre, and the second drowned; only King Richard saw the mission
through.

Two subsequent crusades were tragic. The Fourth Crusade (1202-04) Never reached
the Holy Land and ended with the crusaders’ sacking Constantinople — a Christian
City — wounding it forever and embittering the East against the West further
than the previous Crusades had done. A Children’s Crusade (1212) consisted of
peasants leading up to a thousand children on a mission of love to Jerusalem,
but the children were captured by Christian Genovese merchants and sold as
slaves to, ironically, the Muslim powers of North Africa. The later Crusades
saw a revival in religious motivation, indeed, the Fifth Crusade and the
Crusade of St. Louis both nearly succeeded in regaining Jerusalem by way of
attacking Egypt and failed only through the greed of men like Robert of Artois.

It seems that the Christian armies lost sight of our goals to bring and spread
love and Christianity along the way, got drunk with power and glory and decided
to pillage towns and murder people (note that this is breaking many commandments
“thou shalt not murder.” “thou shalt not steal”), although this murder and
pillage did, in it's own perverse way, spread the faith through fear, and
focused instead on founding feudal states instead of the Catholic Theocracy
dreamed of by Diambert of Pisa, the second Patriarch of Jerusalem.

The Crusades went against our Christian teachings and the words of Christ, “love
thy neighbor as thyself” “turn the other cheek” etc.

Talk:Democracy

2007-03-23T04:55:30Z

PKBear: New page: Nothing in the definition of democracy includes "liberal". Lets not get flustered just because democracy and democrat share the same linguistic root. Please feel free to expand the article...

Nothing in the definition of democracy includes "liberal". Lets not get flustered just because democracy and democrat share the same linguistic root. Please feel free to expand the article if you would like to define "liberal democracy".[[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 00:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Democracy

2007-03-23T04:53:35Z

PKBear:

'''Democracy''' is a form of government. The origin of the term is [[Greek]], from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (rule). Although many forms of government fall under this broad classification, the defining characteristic of a democracy is that the citizenry of a nation decides upon their form of government.

The United States of American is an example of a [[representative]] democracy, in which the populace elects ''representatives'', who are charged with the protection of ''liberties''.

Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state.

House of Hapsburg

2007-03-23T00:16:06Z

PKBear:

The Habsburg ruling family was a powerful ruling dynasty throughout Europe, especially in Austria where it ruled from 1278 to 1918. This family served as Kings of Germany for several centuries (until 1806), as Holy Roman Emperors, and as Kings of Croatia, Hungary, Portugal, Spain and Bohemia. They even installed the Emperor of Mexico from 1864 to 1867!

Agnostic

2007-03-22T05:13:37Z

PKBear:

In religious terms, an '''Agnostic''' is:

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

AND/OR

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.<ref>Agnostic. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Scopes Trial

2007-03-21T22:44:52Z

PKBear: /* Gore? */

This is so atrociously biased that I need not say more than this.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 16:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you cite actual examples of bias or are you making things up?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

there has in fact been a lot of dialouge left out, quote mining if you will. [[User:Albyiscool|Albyiscool]] 12:02, 21 March

:Can you cite actual examples of quote mining or are you making things up?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transcript conveniently leaves out the parts that appear in favour of Darrow, in an effort to make Bryan seem perfect. He may have been the better in the case, but not to the degree the article makes it seem. For a copy of the transcipt, google "scopes trial transcript." Choose the free one that says excerpts. It pretty much has the entire thing.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 15:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gore? ==
It might be nice if there were some explanation for how Gore's loss is relevant here. I'm not necessarily saying it's not, I don't know either way, but the leap from TN views on evolution (which needs a cite) to Gore losing is a big one and it's not clear why that should be here.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I deleted it, Asch keeps restoring it :-/ --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, the Gore line is shockingly irrelevant.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It's completely relevant to the aftermath section, it is factual, it is not widely known, and it is undisputed. We report, the reader decides. Do not censor factual material that comply with our rules. This is not Wikipedia, where factual material disliked by liberals is censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, can you actually show a correlation between Al Gore, evolution and losing the state in 2000? He represented TN in the Congress for close to 16 years. Did something change that you're privy to that validates the sentence being here?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How is Al Gore's loss relevant to the Scopes Trial? They DID both take place in Tennessee and relate to overall Tennessee politics. I could link you to good scholarly articles on Tennessee politics so you could paste ''a full treatment of the entirety of Tennessee politics'' in the "aftermath" discussion, if you want.
:::: I have no problem with your statement about Al Gore, it just doesn't belong here. Practice good editing and put it in the [[Al Gore]] article. And I won't bring up the other problems with this article.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, I wonder how many voters in Tennessee in 2000 said to themselves before pulling the lever, '''"Wow, I have the chance to help elect a Tennessean to the Presidency...if only he wasn't a Godless Evolutionist!"''' Certianly it belongs on the Tennessee page, the Gore page, the 2000 election page but here?

:::::Then again, the [[User:Aschlafly|Boss]] says it stays so it stays. If though, this is the tip o' the iceberg of "might makes right" then there might be porblems larger than this in [[Conservapedia| Conservapedialand.]]

::::::If you think this is the tip of iceberg, then [[theory of evolution|you should go here]].-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly created this website, so we should defer to his judgment on whether Al Gore's loss in Tennessee in 2000 AD is relevant to the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 AD. It is not our place to question the Creator.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 13:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Are we really going to make a comparison between the "Creator" and a Webmaster? The point of a community-driven site is DEMOCRATIC (of the people; nothing about politics) INPUT, and the people have spoken - several times. Seriously, if the only purpose for this site is to trash other groups, nothing will be accomplished here. Facts are facts, and relevant is relevant - conservative and liberal play no part in that. Ignoring fact does not validate fiction. The Gore/2000 comment plays no part here, and some insecurities are being bared by this insistence to include it in this article. Take it to where it is valid information - there are several articles that fit.

==Is there a cite==

Is there a citation for the sentence '''"The textbook also featured the fraudulent Piltdown Man."'''?
I believe the only use of Piltdown Man was in an affidavit by an (or two) "expert" witness. Piltdown was only "discovered" in 1912, the Hunter's ''Civic Biology'' text was published in 1914.
:::--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of Trial==

My understanding has always been that the judge considered the whole Darrow/Byran exchange pointless and called it to a halt. So rather than Darrow ducking out, the judge stopped it b/f he could be examined by Bryan.

Also, this whole article needs to be re-examined. The bias is overwhelming.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your understanding is based on the erroneous liberal spin. In fact, everyone was stunned (including the NY Times) that Darrow reneged on his deal to take the stand.

: Everything in the content page is well-supported. There is enormous liberal misinformation about the trial that has misled everyone who fails to look at the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, I can't agree with you. I've read in multiple places that Raulston cut off Bryan's questioning and didn't allow the cross-exam. He decided the whole sequence wasn't germane to the trial. So Darrow didn't "chicken out" Further, Darrow called for a guilty verdict not to "save his own skin" but so he could appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

::Again, my issue isn't with the fawning pro-Bryan tone. It's with the blatant mis-statement of fact. It should be corrected.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Here is Darrow asking for a guilty verdict. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm]
:::: I am frank to say, while we think it is wrong, and we ought to have been permitted to put in our evidence, the court felt otherwise, as he had a right to hold. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given by the court--we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence. I guess that is plain enough.
::: I am not sure that Darrow's motives can be deduced from this. I guess that you are questioning the sentence, "To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!" It is certainly very rare to ask for a guilty verdict like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree; it is rare. But if you look at what Darrow says towards the end: "We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence." Darrow is asking for a guilty verdict so he can appeal it. Hardly the act of a "chicken."--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Scopes Trial

2007-03-21T15:44:23Z

PKBear: Removed non-pertinent info. Let's remain relevant to the topic, please.

The trial in 1925 of John Scopes for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of Darwinism. The [[ACLU]] and liberal trial lawyer Clarence Darrow brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]], the liberal three-time Democratic presidential candidate, decisively beat them.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in public school that man descended from more primitive life forms. The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of evolution. The textbook at issue in the case taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The textbook also featured the fraudulent [[Piltdown Man]]. At the time, Darwinists claimed that this and eugenics were indisputable science to be taught to students. The Hollywood version heaped mockery on any argument that teaching evolution could be socially harmful.

In the real trial, Bryan quoted for the court how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was Nietzche's atheistic philosophy. Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ... Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history. Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-examine Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.

A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage on cross-examination, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. On cross-examination, Attorneys are allowed to ask leading(yes or no) questions to force the desired response, unlike on direct examination. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.

Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. As the transcript reveals, however, Bryan got the better of his accuser. Bryan repeatedly turned the tables on Darrow's questions, which the large courtroom audience found amusing at Darrow's expense. Here is a sample:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>

Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.

Judge--All right. (Applause in audience.) …

Bryan--Those [the audience] are the people whom you insult.

Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion. ....

Darrow: Wait until you get to me [N.B. this apparently refers to Darrow's agreement to be a witness]. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?

Bryan --No.

Darrow--Have you ever tried to find out?

Bryan--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter)

Darrow--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?

Bryan--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.

Darrow--Where have you lived all your life?

Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause).

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, but struck out each time. A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing:

Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?

Bryan--I believe that.

Darrow--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?

Bryan--No, sir.

Darrow--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?

Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But Darrow stunned the public by giving up rather than upholding his end of the bargain. Darrow took the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes. To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!

After 8 days of trial, the jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested, after 9 minutes of deliberation. Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a fine of $100 US, which was eliminated on a technicality on appeal.

== The movie and play ==
The play ''Inherit the Wind'', and the adapted movie, were loosely based on the Scopes Trial.<ref>http://www.themonkeytrial.com/</ref> Several modifications were made; characters names were changed, and many crucial facts were changed. The authors have said that the play was really an attempt to mock Senator Joseph McCarthy, and to equate anti-communism with anti-intellectualism.<ref>http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2005/07/08/07</ref> It featured the popular Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and even garnered a few Academy Award nominations.

The movie features an angry mob trying to lynch a jailed teacher; in fact, the ACLU ran advertisements with offers to pay expenses for a teacher to volunteer for the case, and Scopes was never jailed and never paid even a fine.

The movie portrayed the character based on Bryan as a complete buffoon. Bryan's death was also portrayed as happening in the courthouse, when in fact he was an elderly man suffering from diabetes who died peacefully in his sleep.

American history books often describe this case as a catalyst for evolution supporters.<ref>The Enduring Vision, Fifth Edition, Chapter 23: The 1920s: Coping with Change, Paul S. Boyer, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Carleton College; et al. (a commonly used American history textbook for Advanced Placement US History classes).</ref>

== Aftermath ==
Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial. Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref> Scopes never had to pay the fine - the judge had set the amount but Tennessee law at the time prohibited judges from setting fines over $50.

The law challenged by the [[ACLU]] in the Scopes Trial remained in effect for over 50 more years. In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', 393 U.S. 97, that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional if they are primarily religious in intent.

Tennessee continues to downplay evolution in its schools.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

Al Gore

2007-03-21T05:34:06Z

PKBear: "Irregularities" comes from the existing citation, read please.

Albert "Al" Gore was the 45th Vice President of the [[United States]](1993-2001), following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.
==Before Politics==
In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]], served in the [[United States Army]], and worked as a journalist.
==Senate==
In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues. In 1992 he wrote "Earth in the Balance" and in May 2007 another of his books is set to be published, "Assault on Reason."
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is custom, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote. In light of alleged voting irregularities, the results of the election were contested, with Gore accepting Bush's nomination on December 13.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. He also starred in a keynote presentation about the climate crisis, "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an [[Oscar]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate.
== Hypocrisy ==
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his considerable hypocrisy on environmental issues. It was discovered that Gore's utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's.<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore, Hypocrite]</ref> Also, the irony of flying around in a highly inefficient private jet in order to spread his message about the dangers of [[global warming]] is of note.<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref> Information has also arisen which calls attention to Gore profiting from the mining of zinc on his property, which has released millions of pounds of toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref>
 
<references/>

[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-21T04:13:56Z

PKBear: Conservative does not = Christian

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

Talk:Al Gore

2007-03-21T02:28:47Z

PKBear:

3/20/07 - Intended to do considerable work to correct spelling and grammatical errors, but time flies. Will return when I have more time. In the interim, I have updated some info and worked to maintain the encyclopedic nature of the entry (attempting to resolve some "opinion" matter which had existed).

Talk:Al Gore

2007-03-21T02:24:50Z

PKBear: New page: 3/20/07 - Intended to do considerable work to correct speling and grammatical errors, but time flies. Will return when I have more time. In the interim, I have updated some info and worked...

3/20/07 - Intended to do considerable work to correct speling and grammatical errors, but time flies. Will return when I have more time. In the interim, I have updated some info and worked to maintain the encyclopedic nature of the entry (attempting to resolve some "opinion" matter which had existed).

Al Gore

2007-03-21T02:21:49Z

PKBear: Some revision, mainly proofreading.

Albert "Al" Gore was the 45th Vice President of the [[United States]](1993-2001), following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.
==Before Politics==
In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]], served in the [[United States Army]], and worked as a journalist.
==Senate==
In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues. In 1992 he wrote "Earth in the Balance" and in May 2007 another of his books is set to be published, "Assault on Reason."
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is custom, he was nominated to the [[Democratic] ticket. In the 2000 Presidential election he lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote even though Gore won the popular vote. In light of alleged voting irregularities, the results of the election were contested , with Gore accepting Bush's nomination on December 13.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>
==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. He also starred in a keynote presentation about the climate crisis, "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an [[Oscar]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible 2008 candidate.
== Hypocrisy ==
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his considerable hypocrisy on environmental issues. It was discovered that Gore's utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's.<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore, Hypocrite]</ref> Also, the irony of flying around in a highly inefficient private jet in order to spread his message about the dangers of [[global warming]] is of note.<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref> Information has also arisen which calls attention to Gore profiting from the mining of zinc on his property, which has released millions of pounds of toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref>
 
<references/>

[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]