Jump to content

Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Somebody do something with that ?

The story about polish, danish, italian and spanish divisions fighting in Iraq is still untouched. Even worse - somebody put Danemark to the coalition forces on top of the article. I won't repair it myself, couse my english is weak. Nobody is interested in so extensive acts of vandalism on english wiki ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.69.2 (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody cares. This article is totally useless. Maybe I'll add some stories about Mexican troops storming Baghdad later. Or something about twenty Russian airborne divisions assaulting Kuwait after beginning of hostilities. And still there will be no reaction. Hey, is anybody home? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Denmark and the Philippines from the list in the infobox. If we have to put Denmark (with 50 soldiers), why we don't see Tonga (with 55) then ? I've left the kurdish militias though, it's quite possible if they have participated in combat. - Tourbillon A ? 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Military history of the war

This article's military history section is a bit slim, I propose section 7 be expanded to the following sub-sections:

Invasion
Dora Farms Strike
Opening attack (crossing the border, Umm Qasr, oil fields, Basra)
Air Campaign
Central Iraq (Nasiriyah, Najaf, Karbala, etc)
Northern Front (Kurdish region)
Special Operations (Western Desert ops, covert recon missions, etc)
Fall of Baghdad (Karbala Gap, Baghdad, Tikrit and transition to guerrilla war)WDW Megaraptor (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead/overview

Any reason why these sections are split? It would seem to make more sense to combine the information in each of them, edited down a little, into a single introduction section. For example currently the main lead cites a poll about the attitude of the US public to the war, and the "overview" includes detail about world wide opposition. Not only do these two points hang together conceptually, but the war was hugely controversial (to say the least) and this should be noted properly in any lead. Equally the current lead mentions that no WMD were found, and then repeats this (with a few weaselly attempts to suggest otherwise) in the "overview". It's not as if the lead is absurdly outsized for an article of this length, and merging the two sections would hardly make it much bigger anyway once any repetition is removed. --Nickhh (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

error?

"Although some remnants of pre-1991 production were found after the end of the war..." What? Isn't the war ongoing? --Simpsons fan 66 05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Historic accuracy and neutrality are vacant

I was there for the first 18 months, and many events need to be reviewed vs the released records of the invasion. Also, this article skewers the policy-makers who are admittedly in the wrong at times, but fails to show the positive affects of the actions in the region. Also remains negative like a liberal college student about the governmental figures in relation. 71.227.244.97 (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Ghost 71.227.244.97 (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


"show the positive affects of the actions in the region". Positive effects of an unprovoked offensive war? Would that be USA ensuring control of the oil resources and thousands of civilian muslims/arabs killed monthly? It might surprise you, but some don't call that positive. 79.138.113.94 (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


What a slime ball- I'm sick of you conspirators saying we went in for oil- we have 2 trillion barrels of untouched oil in our own country why would we wage a resource war? it doesn't make sense.

unprovoked? Saddam violated 17 resolutions 160 times. provided 25,000 bounties to promote suicide bombings in Gaza...thats pretty provoking.

Thousands killed monthly by who? please ensure you make note of who killed them, less than 9,000 are attributed to friendly fire innocents, so the 200,000 civilians killed (2008 Iraqi ministry of health- not that damn freak of a 'report' by Lance and his busings buddies that inflated the number so highly had been killed by insurgents and terrorist attacks.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

"we have 2 trillion barrels of untouched oil in our own country" - Even if you actually would have that, far less is accessible for economy or enviromental reasons. If this was not the case, the US wouldnt import >90% of the oil it uses...

"unprovoked? Saddam violated 17 resolutions 160 times..." - USA government brakes at least as many every 24 hours worldwide. So in your opinion anybody is at any time fully in their right to invade and/or bomb the USA, replace it's government, and generally create an instability that would lead to 100.000s of killed American civilians yearly?

"Thousands killed monthly by..." - The chaotic war situation created by USA (yet again...) starting an unlawful war against another country.

79.138.113.94 (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Real problem is it says the US had 248,000 soldiers in the invasion... As far as I know we had about 100,000 less than that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.32.149 (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Death of civillians: Iraq Body Count vs Lancet study

The IraqBody Count figures should be considered as a minimum base line figure for the total number of casualties, as they rely almost exclusively on english language news media, excluding a whole swathe of arabic language news. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php IBC is clear that there are inherent problems with its methodology. In response to the Lancet study, IBC pointed out:

"We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording." (www.iraqbodycount.net/press/archive.php, PR10, November 7, 2004)

But this humility is not consistently expressed. IBC's website also makes quite grand claims: "if journalism is the first draft of history, then this dossier may claim to be an early historical analysis of the military intervention's known human costs". (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of _civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf)

So what are the sources behind the database informing this "early historical analysis"? IBC reveals that these are "predominantly Western", with the "most prevalent" being "the major newswires and US and UK newspapers". (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/ a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf).

The report added:

"We have not made use of Arabic or other non English language sources, except where these have been published in English. The reasons are pragmatic. We consider fluency in the language of the published report to be a key requirement for accurate analysis, and English is the only language in which all team members are fluent. It is possible that our count has excluded some victims as a result." (Ibid) This is a remarkable explanation for such a serious omission, particularly in light of the immense media attention afforded to the IBC figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.144.42 (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

a major conclusion in this article conflicts with other Wiki article

This article states, "Since the invasion, U.S. and British claims concerning Iraqi weapons programs and links to terrorist organizations have been discredited. While the debate of whether Iraq intended to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the future remains open, no WMDs have been found in Iraq since the invasion despite comprehensive inspections lasting more than 18 months.[63] In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Colin Powell had predicted as much, saying "He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."[64] Similarly, assertions of significant operational links[citation needed] between Iraq and al Qaeda have largely been discredited by the intelligence community, and Secretary Powell himself eventually admitted he had no incontrovertible proof.[65

In fact 500 WMDs have been found. See this Wikipedia article here that cites the Iraq Survey Group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction_in_Iraq - Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.[88][89] Also, the article states, "On July 2008, 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake" the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, arrived in Montreal as part of a top-secret U.S. operation. This transport of the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."[90

Given this finding there can be no doubt a nuclear weapons program did exist. Signed slipnfal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipnfal (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the Iraq Survey Group's wiki article, well Kay is saying exactly the opposite. ""I don't think they existed," commented Kay".
The yellowcake sold to the canadian producer was useless for Iraqi regime of 2003 for the only reason they needed an effective complex to change it to an effective nuclear bomb, and this complex they didn't have it anymore.
The statement of "500 weapons munitions" is really different of 500WMDs as you want to say. Weapons munitions is not a weapon of mass destruction.
Plus the article is saying "contain degraded mustard" so in military slang, it does mean useless because those munition needed a new conditioning and Iraq did not have in 2003 another efficient complex to do it.
Well everybody knew that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, the matter was all "was this program still effective in 2003?" ISG answered briefly with a "it did not".

90.9.155.95 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Halliburten

I think That there should be a section about how Halliburten is making money off the Iraq War and many other companys making money off it. This was is corupt and so is The Government of North America. I think that this artical really needs that Information :) Track Seven (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's Halliburton. Lastdingo (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Cruise missiles

Complementing the aerial bombardment were 4 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from at least four ships, including Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the USS Donald Cook, and two submarines in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

Explain how four missiles can be shot from more than four locations, please. Lastdingo (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationale based on faulty evidence

Presumably the purpose of this criticism section is to describe erroneous intelligence about WMD and Al Qaeda. I removed the passage relating to Joseph Wilson because the statement, "Prior to the invasion, Wilson also argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction", is beside the point and serves only to poison the well. In addition, the footnotes do not support the text. (diff) I removed reference to Susan Schmidt not because she makes several claims which are demonstrably false, but because her opinion (which is unattributed) should not be the final word on this topic. A Senate Intelligence Committee report might have concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, but surely the final word belongs to the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which uncovered no such evidence, and considered earlier Intelligence reports unconvincing. Nor do I see the point in fleshing out this controversy when the dispute is described elsewhere so much better. (diff) Finally, the Habbush letter only came to light in December 2003, and played no part in the rationale for war. Comments welcome. Dynablaster (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Cities Surrendering?

I happen to know that certain Iraqi cities (ex. Fallujah) surrendered to U.S. forces in the invasion. I've read through the article, and while it does mention Iraqi military units surrendering, it doesn't appear to mention cities/towns surrendering.--Azncutthroat117 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Bucket needed

I saw a documentary about the war and saw some photos of the vehicle called the bucket which is like a big wheel barrel that offers little to no protection to US troops that was used at least in the start of the war - thanks --89.139.102.28 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably Amphibious Assault Vehicle--Corran.pl (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

this article is a joke

why important critical information is being pushed in secondary articles?

Public_relations_preparations_for_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Orchestrated_deception_campaign

there are quite a few mainstream accounts of administration's deception, for example this one


will someone place relevant info into this article, with appropriate words being used: deception, lies, etc. ?

93.86.164.168 (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"voters, once deceived, tend to stay that way despite all evidence."

Any objection to including this? If it was from some left-wing magazine or a blog or an Op-Ed I wouldn't, but this is Factcheck.org we're talking about. And there's is an important and notable study with a post-Iraq war retrospective viewpoint. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really possible according to the chart of Wikipedia. Factcheck already had criticism concerning another article. 90.9.155.95 (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

what does it mean 'chart of wikipedia'? also, could you give a link for this criticism you talk about? thanks. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Given the title of the article, shouldn't the actual invasion be discussed in the lead? There are two paragraphs dedicated to reasoning and critism, one about national involvement, but no information about the actual invasion. For example, from whence it came, its strategy, its success or failure, or any significant battles or actions. If I had just landed from Mars, and read the lead - I would not know whether the invasion was repulsed, whether or not there were massive casualites, and the like. According to WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the entire article. As it is now, I feel that WP:UNDUE weight is placed on the protest and reasoning, while almost no information at all is given about the actual title of the article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)



How about instead of using invasion putting liberation? As many Iraquis especially the Kurds regard it as such.Tannim1 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Start Date of War

We know now that the beginning of military operations in Iraq started at 5:25AM, March 19th 2003, with the bombing of the Presidential Palace and the address of the nation by Pres. George W. Bush that same day, as this report shows. Why is the start date of the war still March 20th? Outback the koala (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no comment in the next day or two, then I will go ahead and change the date. Outback the koala (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It's probably because of the name of the article; "2003 invasion of Iraq". While hostilities started on 19 March, ground forces didn't invade until the next day. The lead does specifically already state that "The invasion was preceded by an air strike on the Iraqi Presidential Palace on 19 March 2003." Hohum (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. thank you, that answers my question completely. Outback the koala (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It may have been March 19 in the US, but it was March 20 in Iraq when the first air strike on Baghdad happened, I think it was somewhere after 2 or 3 am. Here [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],[6], all six aniversaries of the war clearly celebrated (if you can call it that) on March 20, not 19. And here [7] the BBC news in it's timeline clearly states the bombing started on March 20.89.216.239.108 (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Coalition KIAs inaccurate?

This article's "Casualties and Losses" box mentions that 171 Coalition soldiers were KIA'd during the initial invasion of Iraq (March 20 to May 1st 2003). However, there are three problems with this. One, the link to icasualties.com to source that number is dead, as it is plain to see under citation 9 ([8]).

Two, the actual number, as is mentioned later in this article is actually either 172 (U.S.: 139 and U.K.: 33), which the Wikipedia article implies under the "Death Toll" section, or 173 (U.S.: 140 and U.K.: 33), which is what the source for the previous number says (citation note 139 in the article: [9]). I've also found that on the icasualties website for Iraq([10]) it shows 172 total casualties for March and April 2003, of which when you filter it down to the U.S. shows 139, and 33 for the U.K. I haven't been able to find many other sites that go into this much detail, as they either do not distinguish deaths month by month, or they just lump all total deaths from the war together.

However, that leads to the third problem. The number under the "Hostile Fatalities" filter on the icasualties site shows only 135 hostile fatalities (which I assume is the basis for "KIA") for March and April 2003, while the number of non-hostile fatalities is 37. This is broken down further to 108 hostile fatalities and 139 total fatalities for the U.S., and 27 hostile fatalities and 33 total fatalities for the U.K.

This leads me to believe that the number should be changed in the "Casualties and Losses" box from the "171 KIA" currently listed to something like: "135 KIA (108 U.S., 27 U.K.); 172 Total Dead (139 U.S., 33 U.K.)". This way there is a clear separation between hostile and non-hostile deaths. The way it is right now just seems to be inaccurate.

Does anyone else find this to be a problem and that it should be changed? Jetpower45 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not bleive tahyt we should split up the deaths into those killed by hostile action or those killed by allies. I can't think of nay other war where this is done.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Even so, the idea that all (172) were "KIA" is misleading. Perhaps that should just be changed to "172 killed (139 U.S., 33 U.K.)" then, as the sources say? Jetpower45 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that the terem KIA means killed by the enamey. It means Killed in action, they were. That said I msee no problom overall with changing it to killed, rhater then KIA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, according to the DoD definition as cited in Wikipedia's own "Killed in Action" article ([11]), "A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or who dies as a result of wounds or other injuries before reaching a medical treatment facility. Also called KIA". That is what I am basing my reasoning on, that a KIA does not mean just anyone killed serving in a theater or area under warfare.
I am sorry if I am sounding like I am nitpicking, but the difference between a KIA and someone dying in or near an active combat zone of nonhostile causes is a definite and valid one.Jetpower45 (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The US DOD doe indead seem to differentiate between KIA and non hostile deaths.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm disputing the neutrality of this article

This article seems to have way too much content intended to castigate the US or bring up percieved crimes compared to actual coverage of the subject. Jtrainor (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

and yet, no-one moans when atrocities by the Iraquis are listed in the article. I'll assume you missed that part, and that you are not trying to tip the article in favour of one side over another, specifically the American forces. JackorKnave (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I want the thing to be balanced. Spurious claims of atrocities are not balanced. Jtrainor (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. Reread the article and see if no atrocities by the Iraquis are mentioned.JackorKnave (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scanning through it the balance to me appears to be as follows - 1) a small section here about alleged US atrocities, relating only to Fallujah; 2) a large and wide-ranging section headed "War Crimes" here which is a long list of alleged abuses by Iraqi forces in various places, mostly directed against individual members of the invading US/UK forces. So who was responsible for the deaths of all the 1000s of (unnamed) civilians killed during the invasion itself? Many were killed by cluster bombs, random shooting by troops etc. See this article, for one. Unless we believe that the US & UK military are organisationally and genetically incapable of killing civilians or committing war crimes, the fact that the article doesn't mention any such incidents demonstrates that it is if anything whitewashed and biased in favour of the US rather than against it. In any event I'm not sure tagging an article as not neutral and then vaguely saying not much more than that you don't think it's balanced helps. Isn't that referred to as "drive by tagging", per WP:NPOVD? --Nickhh (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about balance, it's about facts. In the case of war crimes, it means war crimes. That's it. Not by your definition, that's just what it covers. If you can improve the article by adding factual information about war crimes, whatever the side, please do so, if you can list a reliable source. Remember, this article will only cover war crimes from during the period from March 20, 2003 to May 1, 2003. Any war crimes after that can be found on the Iraq War page. Civilian casualties do not qualify as war crimes, we're looking for documented war crimes. As long as the information has a reliable source, it is relevant. If you think the tone of the article has a non-neutral slant, feel free to improve it as you see fit, as long as you do not delete sourced information. The war crimes commited by the US or Coalition all took place after the period of time this article covers. It is not an intentional lack of information to slant the article, it is a well written section that describes facts. If you feel that certain information is being left out intentionally, feel free to add it to the section.--Abusing (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting we invent stuff, I am well aware that any additions would have to be properly sourced and identified as being alleged war crimes, that took place during the relevant period. My point was merely a general one in response to the neutrality tagging and allegations of lack of balance posted above by another editor (it wasn't me that raised the issue). I simply observed that "if anything" the lack of balance appears to be the other way from that claimed. Nor did I say that the killing of civilians is a war crime per se - I very specifically talked, for example, about the use of cluster bombs etc. I guess I or someone else might get round to doing a bit of research and pulling some sources together, so that any relevant information can be added at some point. --Nickhh (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think people's complaints of bias are primarily directed at the war crimes section. Also, the use of cluster bombs is not a war crime because the United States has not signed the treaty banning cluster bombs, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions was not adopted until 2008.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
US law does not decide what is and is not a war crime for the purposes of wikipedia. That is the very definition of a slanted POV, as no country ever thinks it is committing war crimes. On the topic of balance, to this (australian) reader, the article reads as very slanted toward the US. I think the article would benefit greatly from balancing out the pro-US POV to reflect a more international consensus. Mjharrison (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well actually the editor who posted the neutrality tag (I note that it has since been removed) was very clearly complaining above about the article bringing up "perceived [US] crimes" and "spurious claims of [US] atrocities". On the cluster bombs point - a) I like the idea that war crimes are not committed by a nation's armed forces when that nation hasn't signed up to the relevant conventions or legal frameworks (on that basis a country could claim it was doing nothing wrong by executing POWs, if it had never agreed not to); and b) even prior to the Convention aimed at banning them altogether, the use of cluster bombs in built up areas - which would have the effect of causing indiscriminate civilian casualties - was widely considered to be a war crime. Anyway as discussed, if there are reliable sources alleging or documenting war crimes by US, UK etc forces, and I or someone else gets round to digging them up, these can and should go on. --Nickhh (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Just remember that what is a "crime" is determined by what the law defines as illegal. If there is no law then there is no crime.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You can commit a morally impermissable crime.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.32.149 (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is far left as the New York Times.Liquidblue8388 (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This section bothers me:

After leaving the George W. Bush administration, former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq had been planned since Bush's inauguration, and that the first United States National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion. O'Neill later backtracked..."

Why was his later statement "backtracking"? It WAS a policy of the US government to overthrow Hussein as of 1998.AThousandYoung (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stats.

Some of the statistics in this article are questionable. One in the first section jumped out at me - it says that more than 60% of Americans approved of using military force in Iraq. The statement is followed by two statistics from the same poll that state that more than 60% of Americans supported diplomatic efforts. I looked into the CBS poll. It appears that only 31% of Americans supported military action in Iraq. Perhaps this should be changed and the rest of the entry checked for similar errors... 68.161.114.27 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What date was your CBS poll taken on? WDW Megaraptor (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, take care that your pollsters own bias didn't influence the poll itself. Find an independant (that means unbiased) poll sourse, and ditch the CBS poll. 152.121.19.13 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

Move "War Crimes Against Civilians" section

The section of this article "War crimes against civilians" deals almost exclusively with incidents that took place during the Battle of Fallujah in 2004, which took place outside the time frame of this article. This section should be moved or deleted. WDW Megaraptor (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. There is already a war crimes section, but this section didn't fall into it at all. It mainly talks about the US use of phosphorous as a weapon, and even mentions that the US doesn't recognize it as a banned weapon. Civilians that get killed are called collateral damage. There was no mention of war crimes at all, and any credible mention of war crimes against civilians can go into the war crimes section, so there is no reason to rewrite the section. Also, failed wp:npov and wp:v. --Abusing (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats nice. Sorry, the US dosn't get to decide what is and what isn't a war crime because they are doing it. Especially not on wikipedia. 143.238.215.136 (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Civilans killed in the midst of a battle ARE reffered to as collateral damage, that's actual the United Nation's term. Moving the section where it belonged is not "decid(ing what is and what isn't a war crime because (we) are doing it," but accusing the US of war crimes because it is convientet most certainly is an utterly failed NPOV. The section should be deleted outright, and only provable (that measn actual) war crimes listed. (Collateral damage is an imherantly bad thing, but NOT a war crime just because "the big bad Americans" did it.)152.121.19.13 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC) A REDDSON

"invasion of Iraq"

I'm sure someone else has noticed this; why is the "i" in the title of the article lowercase? Shouldn't it be capitalized? or is "2003" technically the first word? I don't know the policy but it kinda looks weird... Nolelover (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

The opening to this article states that the invasion was the "begining of the currect Iraq War". This information should be rewritten to reflect that the invasion was the begining of the most recent Iraq War. The Unitied States is no longer at war with the Iraqi government. The US forces that are currently there are for security and reconstruction purposes, not unlike post WWII Europe or Japan. 156.101.1.5 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


-Actually, technically the United States never engaged in a "war" with Iraq as that term is used in U.S. law. Under the United States Constitution, only Congress can declare a state of war against another sovereign and this seldom happens. The last U.S. "war" was World War II. Of course, the popular usage often refers to U.S. armed conflicts as "war", since there is no practical distinction (although if you compare the invasion and occupation of Iraq with World War II, WWII involved far more American casualties and a much shorter period of hostilities [i.e. exchange of "gunfire"]). Perhaps this is a minor point, Congress did arguably authorize armed U.S. intervention in Iraq, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Rlithgow (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (I hope I posted this correctly... I've never posted anything to wikipedia before, and I hope I have followed the required conventions).

Legality of No-Fly Zones

This information is still contested as there has never been an actual and official judgement on the legality of the Iraqi No-Fly Zones. In addition, the legality of the no-fly zones isn't necessary to present this information in a neutral and factual manner. Finally, the claim that the no-fly zones were illegal is never sourced. I'm going to remove references to the legality of the no-fly zones from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrruwe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

commanders

under commanders political leaders are listed. This is not keeping with the general format of the rest of Wikipedia:

Many battle and operation pages list actual uniformed military commanders as the 'commanders' while it is common for broader war pages like WW2, WW1, Iraq War to list elected or otherwise in charge political leaders.

This is not a broad war page as it goes at length to describe specific military operations. Political leaders ought to be distinguished from military commanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.74.65 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would counter that (to the above). Many war campaigns cite Political leaders in the 'Commanders' section and I believe this to be in keeping with the normal format. My argument being that major military decisions are often 'OK'd' by the executive branch first. This is especially true in the States where the President is called Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Therefore I believe they diserve recognition in the 'Commanders' section.

My question on leaders is this: the list is not extensive enough: on the American side only Bush and Gen. Franks are cited; what about Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc? On the British side where on earth is Blair? This needs to be revised I think.

Thanks 86.24.138.78 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality on "War Crimes"

currently, the "War Crimes" section only list events that portray the iraqis' as the the ones committing warcrimes. some of the issues are like "Sergant Who" has been shot dead or "Jessica Lyn" has been raped.

like wtf? guys? did someone at the whitehouse wrote this section or what? Shaoquan (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources documenting Coalition war crimes during the period from March 20, 2003 to May 1, 2003 please post.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I know any war crimes committed by Coalition forces took place after this time period, and belong in the article, I believe the link is, Iraq War--Abusing (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This article says that one "war crime" was showing U.S. prisoners on T.V. I remember CNN, among others, showing Iraqi prisoners on TV on numerous occasions. Why is this not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.76.26 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Because they were still alive.Rodiggidy (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy

This section isn't neutral since it doesn't list the war crimes of the invaders. 72.14.228.129 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, all you need to do is provide a reliable source documenting a war crime during that month-plus span, and we'll add it to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

How many Iraqi combatants were taken prisoner?

--94.246.150.68 (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi Army

Isn't it correct that the Army quit on Saddam because they no longer wanted to fight for him? Someone needs to mention this, unless it's already there. He then relied on the Republican Guard, which numbered around 50,000 to 60,000 troops. As for the strength section, I thought I read somewhere that the Iraqi Army numbered at 375,000. I did check the source that has it at 389,000, that is correct. Golfcourseairhorn (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Too lengthy

This article is too long....It should be shortened by removing unnecessary content....At times, it might be wise to remove referenced but unnecessary content... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.103 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

serbia provided intelligence for U.S.

[12] 216.80.93.67 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of PUK.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of PUK.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 13 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

social studies assignment.

why did the 2003 war in iraq start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.1.226 (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Saddam was making nukes, he supported Al Qaida, he housed Al Qaida, and probably the most prominent reason (and this is just a rumor), he got his hands on some Swiss printing presses and was printing U.S. currency. Don't take my word for it, look these things up.Prussian725 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

He was accused of making nuclear, chemical, and biological weaps, but that does not nessesarily that he actually doing it. (FWIW, I was than and still very much am a supporter of the war, and I do believe he was making chemical weaps and successfully hid them.) There were other issues as well, but those were the casus belli when Secretary POWELL went before the UN. EDIT: The first sentenece was unclear, and has been edited to fix that. My appologies. 152.121.19.13 (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON
Saddam was making nukes? You knew this and you didn't tell anybody?Pirchlogan (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To make money --89.139.102.28 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, we are definitely making money over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.37.112 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The War in Iraq is still shrouded in mystery. We know now there were no WMD's, no links between Saddam and Al Qaida, and that Saddam's weapons program had been all but destroyed after Operation Desert Fox in the late 90s. Much of the original evidence to go to war was flagged and looked on very suspiciously even in 2002-2003, but that is to the analysts and not the policy makers. In August of 2002 Cheny lied and said there was "no doubt" Saddam had WMD's. The real reason has become more clear, The Project for the New American Century, a NeoConservative group led by people like Wolftitz and Feith, two insiders of the administration had advocated for an invasion of Iraq since the failure to push all the way to Baghdad in the First Gulf War. After 9/11, Cheney and Rumsfeld took on neoconservative views and Bush sided with them and against pressing concerns from then Secretary of State and only veteran inside the administration Colin Powell. This is apparent in the Bush doctrine, decreed in 2002 that states the US finds will launch pre-emptive strikes if it finds it necessary, to prevent the enemy from attaining the initiative. Any evidence pertraining to WMD's and a Saddam-Al Qaida link were really just used to sell the war and less as a reason to go to war. NeoConservatives do not believe war is a last resort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.32.149 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, shithead, please also mention that a majority of democrats, including both clintons, gore, kerry, et al, either voted for the war or declared that iraq was involved in WMD production/research -- and they based this on the same intel that mcbushitlercheneyburton had. and it is spelled cheney, you deceitful buffoon. and if you're capable of actual research, then go look at ALL the reasons forwarded in 2002 for the war (as supported by the democrat party) and elaborate in the spirit of honesty, to correct your paranoid blatherings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.18.61 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Thats pretty funny.

That "majority of democrats, including both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, et al" voted for the war on the same information...well, it has no impact on the fact Bush knew the information was false, falsified and in most instances an outright lie in the face of information they knew was contrary. Sorry, but thats a pretty sad, ignorance, moronic and pathetic attempt to blame others for believing a lie because they thought false evidence presented to them by their PRESIDENT was correct. Thats like blaming the jury when they are giving evidence that you killed a bunch of innocent children when they were given evidence of fingerprints, photographic evidence, witness accounts and the motive all pointing to you but it was a conspiracy and you were innocent. No, sorry to disapoint. The blame still falls completely on Bush and his administration for giving FALSE evidence they KNEW to be false so they could start this war on trumped up lies.

You don't get to blame "those damn democrats" for having the "audacity" to believe the president wasn't knowingly lying to them to start a war. Haha, try again. 143.238.215.136 (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

to take money out of the hands of the american people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.227.137 (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite the lead

Many problems with the lead. I'm going to start trimming. If any of my changes look wrong, or you have suggestions or want to discuss, please comment here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There also have been charges that the war was waged in order to take oil from Iraq.[1][2][3] --- removed from lead, Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In 2001, within two weeks after the September 11 attacks, Bush ordered that plans for the invasion be drawn up.[4] --- moved from lead for use later. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says" Bloomberg.com, May 1, 2003
  2. ^ "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq", FOXNews.com, June 22, 2006
  3. ^ Fax and report, June 21, 2006
  4. ^ Marlowe, Lara (February 4, 2011). "Invasion ordered weeks after 9/11, says Rumsfeld". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2011-02-05.

What Clarke said

"Bush was distracted from taking on the terror network by his groundless wish to invade Iraq."

"The day after the attacks, Mr Bush was already focusing on Iraq. 'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' Mr Clarke says."

"It was very clear on 9/11, on the days immediately following when we had been attacked, that attention turned to Iraq, even as the smoke was still coming out of the World Trade Centre."

- Andrew Buncombe, "Richard Clarke: 'Iraq could be much more of a problem for America than if Saddam had stayed in power', The Monday Interview: Former White House security chief", The Independent, Washington, June 14, 2004.

-72.37.249.60 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

I don't think this article is B-class, I see many unreferenced sentences and even paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Key Bush advisors... had long desired to invade Iraq."

The citation provided shows the Republican platform of 2000 - three years prior; seems like a stretch to connect three years with "long desired." Also, the citation does not name the specific advisers, so unless a credible source is identified, these names should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motlycys (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this problem. I've attempted to address it. I moved the location of the citation, clarified what the source says, and tagged the sentence that names those advisers as needing a citation. --Pine✉ 08:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

John Howard?

I'm not sure why he listed in the "commander" section. If anyone non-military is going to be used, surely it should be the Governor-General who is the C-in-C of Australian forces. While it may be true that Howard made the decision to get involved, I don't see how he could be listed as a commander in this context. Tony Blair may be a similar position. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Letter case

Is the "I" in "invasion" after the "3" in "2003" supposed to be capitalized? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

un-cited statements Lack of a U.N. mandate

I am tagging many unreferenced and POV statements in this section. Without a Reliable Source added soon, I'll remove them.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"There also have been claims that the war was waged in order to take oil from Iraq.[22][23][24]"

These citations are nonsense, in fact the last two directly contradict the sentence that precedes them. Nowhere in the FOX News article nor the PDF does it say that anyone thinks the war was raged in order to take oil from Iraq. Maybe someone cited something contradictory as vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.225.177 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Fox News is COMPLETELY unbiased. Who the hell would actually use that as a source? Former employees have gotten fired because they talked to LEGITIMATE news outlets and told them that they make it all up. They've even admitted themselves, on the air, on live national television, that some of their stories are completely and utterly phony. If I see anything from Fox News, I'm removing it if I can't find a more credible source, and if I can I'm switching the citations. Kaiwren107 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary, said the oil contracts were planned out and negotiated well before 9/11.

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-10/politics/oneill.bush_1_roomful-of-deaf-people-education-of-paul-o-neill-national-security-council-meeting?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Also this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-25-2003/halliburton-wins I'm not sure who could reasonably claim that Halliburton getting the most lucrative contract almost immediately after the invasion could possibly be a coincidence when Dick Cheney was its CEO until 2000.

The Fox News citation probably was nonsense, but there is substantial evidence for the claim that securing Iraqi oil into American hands, so that it enriched our corporations rather than Iraqi corporations, was a major incentive for Bush the administration to start the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.160.169.126 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq be merged into 2003 invasion of Iraq . The Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq was the subject of a recent AfD, and it was closed as no consensus. The subject of that article is closely related to the subject of this article. Although the article meets WP:LIMIT, the subject of that article clearly falls under the topic of the subject Prelude to the invasion. Another option is to merge the content to the section, and create sub-articles for Background of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and better summarize and move content into the Criticism of the Iraq War sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of sub articles unless they can stand on their own to be honest. I said in the AfD that the public relations prelude to the invasion was very much a part of the invasion itself. After all, Hussein got numerous warnings about his conduct and the whole publicity train was designed (in my opinion) to make Iraq as vulnerable a possible to the actual attack when it happened. Hussein even recognised the value of publicity, even though he botched it with that guy who was constantly in denial of what was actually happening (what was his name again?). I certainly agree that this bears some discussion and some of the article being proposed to be merged into this article could certainly fit into the Criticism article. BerleT (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I personally think that Rationale for the Iraq War would be better merger target.--Staberinde (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that the Rationale of the Iraq War is already a subarticle, but let us look at the content that is already on this article, it's enough to make a stand-alone article itself, even though most of it might/should be on the Rationale of the Iraq War article. This is why I think it should be merged into an article entitled Background of the 2003 invasion of Iraq if a sub-article is created per WP:LIMIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is highly vandalised

The invasion began two days earlier then stated, on St. Patrick's Day. I watched images on the news of troops crossing the border while waiting for a birth in my family on St. Patrick's Day. It was politically convenient at the time to inspire a fighting spirit in the troops. I fear that since then there has been an effort to shift the date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.115.63 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody rewrite it please? All these "Polish divisions", "Italian and Danish troops advancing toward Baghdad", "U.S. 7th Infantry and 5th Armored Divisions" are funny, but don't have any connection to real events of March-April 2003. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best response to the vandalism is to put the page under semi-protection; most of the vandalism comes from unregistered editors. Spartacusprime (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumsfeld Nov 2001 memo

I've proposed including some mention of the memo:

Excerpt from Donald Rumsfeld memo dated Nov 27 2001 [1]

A memo written by Sec. Rumsfeld dated Nov 27, 2001 considers an Iraq war. One section of the memo questions "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a US-Iraq War.[2][3]

Another editor has removed this as UNDUE. I'm inclined to think it merits inclusion in some form (thought not necessarily my precise wording). What do others think? --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I oppose its inclusion per WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE. This article is not to advance a POV of some conspiracy theory that the Bush Administration was out to invade Iraq for Oil for Halliburton and Cheney's cronies.
The image is definitely to much weight for the subject, the Washingtonblog is not a WP:RS, and the msnbc source regarding this content is questionable. At most a brief, neutrally worded sentence, with the msnbc source used to verify the content should follow the sentence:

Rumsfeld dismissed National Security Agency (NSA) intercept data available by midday of the 11th. that pointed to al-Qaeda's culpability, and by mid-afternoon ordered the Pentagon to prepare plans for attacking Iraq.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi RCLC-- I anticipated your response here since you were the one to remove the content. But I am a bit confused by your comment about "conspiracy theory that the Bush Administration was out to invade Iraq for Oil for Halliburton and Cheney's cronies."
The content I proposed was a published DOD memo from November 2001 that clearly envisions the 2003 invasion. But nowhere did I propose mentioning "bush", "cheney", "haliburton", "oil", "cronies", or any "conspiracy". --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, it is my opinion that including the content as its own paragraph with an image which is an excerpt of the memo gives the memo undue weight within the article and concerns a living person, so content about that person falls under MOS:BLP as well. This article should not be used as a attack page upon any individual.
A brief, neutrally worded, and referenced, sentence is sufficient to include the content IMHO. The previous version again gives undue weight to a single document and individual given the scope of the article and the hundreds of thousands of individuals involved in the conflict, and the millions effected by it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added a mention of the memo here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Good resolution. I can see how including the image might be UNDUE on this page. A mention in text suffices for this article's purposes. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is a BLP issue. Care to elaborate, RightCow? -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The content, IMHO, had attempted to present the living individual in a negative light. Having the content neutrally worded, and without the image I believe does not give the content undue weight. The issue IMHO appears to have already been resolved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
To get wikipeda-policy wonky, I also don't think of it as a BLP issue-- which living persons are we protecting? Americans? the DOD? the 2003 US government? the civilian head of the US armed forces? or the president at the time? To me, BLP applies to none of these entities in this instance-- a govt official doesn't have any expectation of personal privacy when performing official duties. But I can see how including a cropped image of a memo could be UNDUE. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The content we are discussing is specifically regarding Rumsfeld, a living individual, and why BLP applies to this small amount of content; not saying it applies to all content on this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also there is this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid entering textual information as images.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/16/building-momentum-for-regime-change-rumsfelds-secret-memos/
  2. ^ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/newly-released-memos-of-donald-rumsfeld-prove-knowing-iraq-war.html
  3. ^ http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/16/building-momentum-for-regime-change-rumsfelds-secret-memos/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq/Archive_8&oldid=1136712593"