Talk:Iraq War/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Initial Comments

This article's "benefits" section seems to contain a number of questionable generalizations ("Iraq is only the second real democracy to take root in the Middle-east"), assumptions ("Iraq is no longer a threat to the region", "The Sunni Arabs have rejected al-Qaeda In Iraq and stabilized the giantic Anbar region") and downright headscratchers ("China or North Korea would be insane to even contemplate taking us on now"). Additionally, it seems to be written wholly from a US POV, which is not something I'm sure we want. I'm not saying that we should get rid of the section--there are some valid points here, and this is something the article needs to address--but it seems like this section's due for a fundamental rewrite or a point-by-point refutation, and I'd like some input on how to procceed. The electrocutioner 01:40, 18 January 2009 (EST)

It is so great to see how forthcoming input on this topic has been from the community. Given that the Iraq War is one of the most important political issues of the modern era--not to mention that it embodies offences against reason as glaring as any woo one could care to name--IT'S NICE TO KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT MATTERS TO US, AS USERS, AND THAT THE WE FINE INTELLECTUALS HAVEN'T JUST BEEN MAKING JOKES ABOUT ED POOR'S SEXUAL PROCLIVITIES AND DEBATING THE ETHICS OF SOME AUSTRALIAN FOR THE PAST THREE MONTHS, BUT HAVE RATHER COME TO A CONSENSUS ON WHAT I DARESAY MAY BE THE VIETNAM OF OUR TIME. Yeah. That's the word. Nice. The electrocutioner 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? ħuman 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it would have been nice to revamp this (currently contradictory and scattershot) article to conform to some sort of coherent community consensus, but nobody really seems to care—and that it’s a bit ridiculous, given the mission statement of this site, that patching together a decent analysis of one of the most voluminous wellsprings of irrational bullshit in recent memory has been ignored in favor of such priorities as, say, in-depth discussions of Andy’s homeschooling practices.

Then again, I suppose it’s not really my place to say so, given that I’ve been gone for two and a half months, haven’t really done any work on the article since I left that first comment (I didn’t want to unilaterally determine RationalWiki’s position on the Iraq War, but I probably should have tried harder to get input instead of just watching the article’s talk page), and probably won’t be back for very long, given my current schedule. So, I guess my point is also: I'm a hypocrite. The electrocutioner 09:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And, I notice, I never actually called for a fundamental rewrite of the whole article, just the benefits section. So, my point is also that I am not particularly observant. The electrocutioner 09:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That benefits section is pretty snarky, as I read it. And thanks for clarifying your points :) ħuman 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's really difficult to take this page seriously when it was obviously written as a rant by some random dude. "China or North Korea would be insane to even contemplate taking us on now, bitches." This whole wiki is a joke. It would be better if it tried to uncover the truth by scientific research and methodology and not just blindly oppose everything conspiracy theorists may say. In this state, the information found here is borderline worthless. 94.175.36.237 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy that the same chickenhawks of the Iraq War are cheerleading for military action on Iran China and NK. The difference is that the consequence won't be becoming an international pariah, but something more ominous. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Category

I question why this is filed under Conservative Deceit. George Bush started it, yes, but it's being propagated by Barrack Obama. I'm pretty sure the deceit is bipartisan here. Jellote (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Obama, while he could have gotten us out by just leaving, was not involved with the deceit. The deceit was entirely propagated under the Bush administration. Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Our allies had something to do with the deceit as well. And President Obama got us out of Iraq as swiftly as militarily advisable.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Clinton administration had more to do with it than many people realize. Papa Bush too. http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/21/scott_ritter_on_the_untold_story --99.234.197.221 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This is Monday morning quarterbacking. In the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, "What differnces does it make now?". Are we gonna argue Vietnam and the Golf of Tonkin were Liberal Deceit, and Goldwater was right, we shouldv'e just nuked em and spared 58,000 lives? nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 19:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

McCain

When saying a "mission accomplished" McCain was refferring to the capture of Saddam Hussein NOT the Iraq War, at least if they are referring to what he said on ABCs "The Week." In addition, the links are dead, so it is difficult to even actually link back and see what the quotes were about.

McCain said mission accomplished? I thought that was poster hung behind Bush that the White House had no control over and the words then were put into Bush's mouth. Sheesh, it's hard to keep up with revisionism sometimes. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 19:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Needs balance

The explanation given by proponents at the time is nowhere articulated: that the sanctions imposed after 1991 led to the lack of medical treatment, starvation, and death of 1,000,000 Iraqi children (as cited by Sean Penn, Ramsey Clark, and bin Laden in his Declaration of War) and was an effective recruiting tool for suicide hijackers. Therefore, the sanctions had to go, and along with them Saddam Hussein, because he was intent on using oil revenues legally after sanctions were lifted to pursue a WMD. Other criticisms can also be offered. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 00:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This line is a bit iffy...

"By definition, democracy must be chosen by the people, not 'given' to them by lack of consent." Just no. Democracy does not, by definition, have to be chosen by the people. Rather, democracy is the standard that should already be in place in a civilized society. If there were no democracy in a hypothetical country—let's say, oh I don't know, Iraq—how exactly could the people of this state "choose" it? The autocratic leader isn't about to say, "Oh, well, if my cherished people want democracy, I guess I'd better step down and give it to them." That's just not the mentality of the archetypical dictator. That said, the method by which Dubya went about spreading democracy on to the Iraqis was indefensible, but I take no issue with the goal itself. Vaal (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Austria all had democracy imposed on them after World War II. These democracies were successful, except South Korea, which took some time to figure it out.Kentuckyball (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What do West Germany, Japan and Korea have in common? American troops. Lots of them. For decades. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Germany had democracy imposed on it in 1919. Russia adopted it supposedly in 1995. But it's a slow lesrning curve for inexperienced individuals to learn how to both exercise their rights and respect the rights of others with different or opposing views. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 01:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In 1919, they did choose democracy themselves, the imposition came after the WWII, not after WWI.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 01:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC) 01:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes and now. Germany's generals wanted to capitulate in 1918 but Wilson said he would only accept a democratic government as negotiation partner. And one of the reasons the 1919 democracy didn't stick is that there was no big occupying army keeping the Nazis in check. The 1949 democracy probably had more Nazis than the 1919 one, but they couldn't act up (besides protecting their old Nazi war criminal buddies) because of the allied armed forces. One state had over 50% ex-NSDAP representatives in the mid 1950s and it still did not become officially Nazi. Mostly because the American, British and French soldiers would have shot the crap out of any such attempt. Occupation works. It just takes time and effort. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt the genuineness of the Onion editorial mentioned at the bottom of the intro

The editorial in question is so perfectly accurate (and so serious) that it made me question it. It was supposedly published on March 26, 2003. Unfortunately, there is no Internet Archive entry for that URL, and the archive for the main page is missing that week. (There is an entry for the 27th, but it appears to be just an error code 302.) So the best place to check is The Onion's articles tagged with that day's issue, Volume 39 Issue 11, which doesn't turn up that editorial. So, unless someone can turn up evidence that it was actually published back in 2003, I suggest we remove mention of it. Unfortunately. 194.94.44.220 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The date in the article seems good enough.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 22:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)