Talk:Opposition to the Iraq War/Archive 1

The discussion

This text was originally located at Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. A complete history for the text may be found there. - Montréalais 05:04 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

--- Is 3rd paragraph of this article in reference to the DC rally on January 18 2003, or was this about very early protests? If re: 1/18/03, then info on huge San Francisco rally should be included.

---

I think this is a valuable article, just a tad POV. Most of what User:Graft deleted as "MyPOV" was in fact stuff I did not add or write. I mostly was changing the present tense to past tense and trying to tone down obvious POV words without altering sentence meaning. I had a couple of "balancing statements" that he did not like (those were POV). For the most part, the article is now better, as much for all the stuff that got removed by Graft. There does remain this question: How can we deal with what some would consider "foolish" arguments and balance these in a text that is about a POV in the first place? - Marshman 09:14, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Through attribution, as much as possible, of the varying viewpoints. Sorry about the "MyPOV" bit, it was 3 am. Graft 14:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey, made me rethink my additions. Some probably were MyPOV, or at least not in best interest of article. I appreciated the fact you seemed to be actually editing stuff out rather than simply reverting. BTW I'm a biologist too. But my anarchist days were a few decades ago ! - Marshman

---

I noticed some rubbish on this page, “The human shields eventually returned to their home countries because the Iraqi government actually wanted to use them as human shields. The human shields that fled the country told reporters that the Iraqi government wanted them to sit at locations that were likely to be bombed by U.S. allies if a war was to take place. Many reported that they had wanted to protect civilian targets like schools and mosques, but were instead compelled to camp out near industrial or military sites that were likely targets of coalition airstrikes.”

That’s the story you heard from much of the corporate media. The story is flawed, in a number of ways and I've deleted it.

The initial Human Shield strategy was to stop the invasion via mass direct action. This was not achieved, with too little time and only 500 or so shields getting to Iraq. So plan B was enacted. This was a strategy to minimise the harm caused to ordinary Iraqis during the invasion, and it involved placing people (and publishing the fact) at a number of sites throughout Baghdad during the invasion.

Two water plants, two power plants, a food silo, a communications facility and a oil refinery. It is a war crime to harm infrastructure critical to civilian well-being. All sites were targeted and bombed in the 1991 Gulf War by the US, causing untold sufferering for millions of ordinary Iraqis (of whom just under half are children). The only site to be bombed out of these this time round was the communications facility, a day after the Human Shields pulled out of it.

I challenge anyone to find a credible report that quotes a Human Shield complaining that, “the Iraqi government wanted them to sit at locations that were likely to be bombed,” or that, “they had wanted to protect civilian targets like schools and mosques, but were instead compelled to camp out near industrial or military sites that were likely targets of coalition airstrikes.”

As with any story in the corporate media that challenges authority there is an element of truth, but, overwhelmingly, it was hogwash.

This is how the story unfolded from my position, as someone who was in the thick of it.

Many of the volunteers, mostly the Spanish contingent, were keen to station themselves at schools and hospitals from day one. When we first arrived in Baghdad we were told, by Dr. Hashimi, a front man for the Baathist regime and the head of some organisation that had the authority to host us, assured us that this was not a problem.

As time passed and the invasion loomed security got tighter and our freedoms were slowly restricted, and such assurances went by the wayside. At the time many of us were paranoid about this but in hindsight many came to the realise that we had little to be paranoid about. Essentially the restrictions were about ensuring that an invasion was not triggered by something happening to a Human Shield (a white Western woman for instance).

In regard to being told which sites to go to, we were always given the choice to leave Iraq, even during the invasion. Schools, we were eventually told, were off limits because they would be closed down during an invasion. Hospitals were off limits because we could pose a threat to patients by getting in the way, etc.

A totally commonsense position to take, but politically flawed. Hashimi, whose decision it seems to have been, fucked up. Before this we were the darlings of the media. Afterwards we were fair game. Of course we always expected this, it was simply a matter of time before the corporate media turned on us.

After being in Iraq for a number of weeks we were told by Hashimi that we needed to go to a site or leave Iraq, but we were never compelled to go to a site. We were always free to leave Iraq and we were never asked to go to military sites.

There were differences and arguments and it got to a point where Hashimi was telling is they were now do the organising, but at no stage were we ever compelled to go to a site. The fact is we were simply told we could not go to schools or hospitals (or archeological sites).

Many of us could see that this was politically flawed but that it made practical sense in terms of the immediacy of people's lives if the invasion went ahead and instead wanted to get to sites that would really make a difference to ordinary Iraqis, such as the seven sites listed above that were targeted and bombed by the US in the 1991 Gulf War, a war crime. - Christiaan

I see, since I was last here, that someone as added back in the comment that the Iraqi government wanted human shields stationed at military sites. This is mistaken (to put it mildly) and I will attempt to attribute this point of view to who it belongs. Now that I have a little more time I'm going to be taking an active interest in this page and filling it out a bit.

Christiaan 13:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

The photos recently added have no source/copyright info. Ericd 05:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

latest image

We need to make sure those Reuters and AP images can be used. Even then, only a handful should be selected for this article. Lastly, proper thumbnail syntax should be used. Kingturtle 03:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Post-September 11 anti-war movement

People working here may want to have a look at Post-September 11 anti-war movement, recently factored out of Left-wing politics and summarized there. I particularly urge you to start with the talk page. Right now, I feel that the Europe-related part of that article, while well-researched, is biased against the movement, and could use additional material for balance. I don't know the European movement well enough to write that. -- Jmabel 06:24, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

This article is being treated like a license to opine.

The title of this article, appears to give license just to collect every opinion that has been expressed about why someone opposes the Iraq war, without documenting the source, or how widespread the opinion is or questioning the empirical or logical validity of the opinion. Admittedly, popularity is a pretty undemanding standard, but citing protests, without even attempting to count them is likely to be even less accurate than elections apparently are.--Silverback 23:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Popular" in this sense should simply mean by people rather than by governments or international institutions. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Human shields

The section on human shields is riddled with unattributed POV.

It also has one phrase so incoherent that I cannot even parse it confidently: "...the slaying of the human shield action in the media." Who or what, precisely, was slain? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia that isn't minor. I was in Iraq as part of the action so it's a little hard to tell the story as one who there while at the same time attributing it to others, but I'm up for giving it a go. Is there anything from stopping me quoting myself extensively (as an organiser)? As for "slaying". To slay is to kill, too put an end to, to destroy intentionally and violently. The action mainly took place in the theatre of the media. Up until that point the human shield action had been somewhat of a 'media darling'. After that point it was ridiculed, mis-reported and discredited (by some media organisations). It's used often in New Zealand in this context, but I'll think of something else. Christiaan 12:30, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

This gets tricky. It runs up against the Wikpedia rule against "autobiography" mainly on the basis of unverifiability. The answer, roughly, is that if you've already published in what would normally be considered a citable place (e.g a reputable newspaper or magazine) you can quote your own work just like anyone else could quote it. Especially in an area as controversial as this one, expect that some people may raise concerns a lot heavier than they would over (say) how to disambiguate a name that applies to two different cities. I don't think you are wrong in what you are saying here, but opinion should usually be clearly attributed to a published source (including, at times, published elsewhere on the Internet).

Generally, the cleanest way to do this is for you to publish elsewhere, let it be known on the talk page what you've written and where, give permission for Wikipedia to quote you freely (with an understanding that means you will effectively have released your writing under GFDL) and let someone other than yourself make the actual decision what part of your first-person account is worth quoting.

I'm not entirely thrilled with this, and I'm one of the people who has suggested we ought to introduce something tantamount to an affidavit for people directly involved in events to write their first-hand accounts, but so far the consensus seems to be against me on this; I believe I am accurately reporting the consensus. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:44, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. I'll have a think about how I go about this over the weekend. - Christiaan 12.39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

such affadavits should not be used to get opinions or surmises that go beyond the witness's direct experience into the articles.--Silverback 01:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've been settling in a little; having a good look round. I'm going to have a good read of the NPOV_tutorial over the coming week and see if I can apply it to what I've written so far. I'm also in the process of moving my site/weblog over to a new domain so I'll work out how I might use that and other sources to help with the article once I'm done. - Christiaan 2.38, Nov 14 2004 (UTC)

sentence cut from article

I cut the following:

• Despite suggestions from the Pentagon that 90 per cent of munitions used would be precision-guided a third of the bombs dropped on Iraq were old-style "dumb weapons" [1]

It may well be true, but it had nothing apparent to do with either the text surrounding it (in the section on human shields), nor does it have more than a loose connection with the topic of this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It was initially in response to this from Silverback:

• The coalition strategists used precision bombing to preserve as much civilian infrastructure as possible, since they knew they would have to rebuild any that they destroyed. The coalition also put considerable planning and effort into preventing the Saddam regime from destoying vital infrastructure, since he had shown little regard for the Geneva Convention. It could be surmised, that similar care with Iraq's infrastructure would have been taken in 1991, if a less UN and ally constrained coalition had expected to remove Saddam and engage in nation building.

-- Christiaan 01.24, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and my paragraph was to point out that the surmise was unjustified. This Bush is much more moral than his war criminal "new world order" father, and his predecessor, the war criminal Clinton.--Silverback 01:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I imagine many Germans would have said much the same thing about Hitler. Since you seem keen to discuss the topic Bush, as far as I'm concerned, is one of the most immoral cowards I have ever had the pleasure of undermining.

The key point to realise, and it's overlooked by all those who have made the moral case for war, is that a moral case is not the same as a moral reason. Whatever the argument for toppling Saddam Hussein on humanitarian grounds may have been, this is not why the US and UK governments invaded Iraq. -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

You are right, but the moral case lowers the threshold for the other good reasons, and contributes to the main case, which I think was character and resources. Saddam's character as indicated by the chemical and biological weapons programs, the past use of weapons, the harboring of terrorists, the continuing hostility demonstrated by they assassination attempt on the former President Bush, that he could not be allowed to have control of oil wealth.--Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight from the get go. No one made you and your fellow Americans the cops and judges of the world, and I can assure you that the world never would (many consider the US to be the biggest threat to world peace there is, including me). The US-led invasion was not only immoral, but illegal under international law.

You've also missed the point above entirely. As you've agreed the US and UK governments did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. They are excuses, to try and bolster the other reasons, which fell flat.

As for your nutjob justifications for war, they could just as easily be applied, word for word in fact, to the US government, but I don't see you arguing for the bombing, invasion and occupation of the US. There's a name for this in scholarly circles, US Exceptionalism. -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If they were offer a credible attempt to liberate the US from this tyranny of the drug regulation and overtaxation, I would welcome it. I don't believe in nationalism or getting to attached to a state. Unfortunately, this state which at least gives some lip service to checks and balances, seems one of the lesser evils out there, and there is a culture that might change for the better in the future.--Silverback 02:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes he was a coward and probably would not have assisted al Qaeda against the U.S. without significant confidence that it could not not be traced back to him, but he might have found a way eventually. Additionally, the no fly zone was tying down resources that might be needed elsewhere, and now US presense in Iraq acts as a counter to Iran and increases the usefulness of the UN, since now its sanctions will have more credibility. The oil was key, because Saddam's character would not have been an issue if he had been in the Sudan or in a madrossa, the oil wealth made him a threat.--Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naturally, oil wealth must be under the direct or indirect control of such superior moral creatures as US politicians and corporate CEOs, cos you guys are the goodies. You would never use such wealth to invade other countries and cause the death and suffering of thousands now would you. I mean how did your oil get under their sand anyway? -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The US and UK (and many other governments and corporations) supported Saddam Hussein when he was committing his worse crimes; the US even sent Rumsfeld in person to affirm its support and to point out that the use of chemical weapons was a PR problem. The US government even removed Iraq from its list of states supporting terrorism after it had invaded Iran, starting a devastating war in which it was using chemical weapons. -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

That was the lesser to two evils BS that went along with trying to counter the theocracy in Iran and the cold war. The US also has used fire bombings, atomic bombs and conscription, none were justified, and neither was assisting Saddam with chemical weapons. What does that have to do with the just nature of this war?--Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was qualifying my first paragraph, that the US and UK did not invade for humanitarian reasons.

But let's take this somewhere. As you explain, the US has a history of committing heinous war crimes. Therefore, as an institution, it is in no place to be a judge of "character", as you put it, and is certainly not to be trusted with the application of violence towards others. Your argument goes something like this: an accomplice to rape and a known rapist (the US government) is justified in raping fellow rapist (Saddam), and his family (Iraq). So do you advocate invasion and regime change in the US? If not, why not? -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is better to have one state raping another than raping us, and I do advocate regime change in the US. And how do you know that the younger Bush is not attempting regime change? He did not do the original raping, what is he supposed to do when he comes to the head of a country that has been kicking people in the gut for generations, say sorry, now the US is pacifist? There is a lot of built up irrational hatred out there. While being a pacifist is admirable, it is not always practical if your country has been raping and you want to stop. Things get created out there that can't be reasoned with, so you try to take some of them out, and offer the rest democracy and a better life. You should try to see it from Bush's point of view.--Silverback 02:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human rights, terrorism, fear - these are the things the power-elite have always used to justify war. Hermann Goering (Hitler's right-hand man) once said, at the Nuremberg Trials, "Why of course the people don't want war … But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

True enough. What is your point?--Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That you're a sucker. Everyone has their hook. For you it might be that Bush is the second coming of Jesus, born again to come fight "evil" on earth or some such fairy tale. -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Let's get one thing straight"', Bush is "clearly"just a mass-murdering lesser of two evils, why can't you see that. I hope by using your method of reasoning you will see the light.--Silverback 02:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The US has strutted around for a century without saying thank you or please and now it's got its limp dick stuck in someone else's desert and a bunch of sick fucks running the show. This isn't about liberating Iraqis. These people, who have wrested control of the US, are sick in the head and they want to mold the world to their will, much like Osama bin Laden and his buddies. Anyone who doesn't believe in their evangelical doctrine is fodder. Ever heard of apocalyptic rapture? -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

Sure have, but you appear to be fearmongering beyond the evidence. --Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can always wait and find out. -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US-led economic sanctions. She replied that it was 'a very hard choice,' but that, all things considered, 'we think the price is worth it.' -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

I opposed sanctions for that very reason, but this just contributes to a net lives saved argument for the war.--Silverback 09:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all the occupation is not saving lives, clearly. Secondly your fixation on war as the only path negates the fact that there have always been peaceful alternatives (including if the US had not okayed Saddam's war on Iran and supported him in the first place). Iraqis have a long history of deposing dictators (including imperial masters like Britain) and the US will likely be next. Here's an interesting nonviolent plan to oust Saddam published in October 2002.

It's not just that our regimes ignored the plight of Iraqis, it's that they actively oppressed them by providing the Iraqi regime the weapons needed to stay in power & commit crimes against humanity, and by imposing brutal US-led economic sanctions. Or as Chomsky so eloquently put it:

On August 1, 1990 he was a favoured U.S. client. The United States was offering him credit, lavishing support on him. The U.S. was his major trading partner. We were the largest market for his oil. We were providing 40% of his food. The Iraqi-American business forum was praising his progress toward democracy. He was just a good guy.

A day later he was the new incarnation of Genghis Khan and Hitler. No new crimes. True, the aggression in Kuwait was one new crime, but small in comparison with the record that he had already compiled. What happened was, he conflicted with U.S. interests. Period. He could invade Iran, murder thousands of Kurds with poison gas, set up one of the most brutal tyrannies in the world, if not the most -- that was all just fine as long as he was seen as conforming to U.S. interests. When it became clear that he was another one of these radical nationalists who was going to go his own way, he was given the mantle of Nasser, Qaddafi, and Khomeini and anybody else who gets in our way.

And even more pertinent is that the problem for Cheney & Co., and subsequently your argument, was that sanctions were about to be lifted without military action. An explosive, yet virtually unknown, document was submitted to the UN Security Council on the 17th March by UNMOVIC (the inspections team) called the 'Draft Work Programme'. This document should have heralded a new decisive phase (a change from disarmament to 'ongoing monitoring and verification') in the inspection process, allowing the UN by solely peaceful means to extract definitive answers to the lingering questions around Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction—and to determine whether Iraq had failed the 'final opportunity' to disarm offered in Resolution 1441.

The UNMOVIC alternative was not explored. The peaceful route of inspections was shut down on 17 March mere hours after Dr Hans Blix submitted the Draft Work Programme in writing to the UN Security Council. At 8pm that night (US time), US Resident Bush announced an ultimatum to Iraqi Resident Hussein and the the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals—including journalists and inspectors—should leave Iraq immediately.

The inspections came to an end not because they had been blocked or frustrated by Baghdad, or because the inspectors had finished their work. Indeed, as mentioned, the Draft Work Programme should have signaled a new and more significant phase of the inspectors' work.

The truth seems to be that the inspections were shut down by Resident Bush precisely because the inspectors were about to launch a new series of tasks, interviews and inspections. A peaceful route to disarmament was opening up, and this presented a threat to Resident Bush's determination to go to war. That was why the inspectors route was blocked off, and the inspectors ejected from Iraq by the US—for the second time in five years. (see chapter 13 of Regime Unchanged, by Milan Rai). -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can you argue that UNMOVIC was a peaceful alternative, the inspectors were only back in there because troops were gathering on the border, there is no moral distinction between war and "threat" of war. We had a gun to Saddam's head, do you think that not pulling the trigger was somehow morally superior? The sanctions themselves were acts of war, do you think the US would have tolerated no-fly-zones and other intrusions on its sovereignty. It seems you only understand force, and not what true peaceful means are.--Silverback 02:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting that you characterized this is US-led economic sanctions, is there some reason you want to sanitize the UN's role in leaving Saddam in power and these subsequent sanctions, and the culpability of those that prolonged the sanctions by weakening them and making Saddam think he could wait them out?--Silverback 09:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not simply a chracterisation, it's a fact. Is it one you're you disputing? And judging by the amount of control the US has over the UN via it's veto and through bribery and blackmail it seems moot to suggest that characterising something as US-led sanitises the UNs role. -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't the UN be taking a different position if the US had the control you suggest?--Silverback 02:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In 1988 Resident George Bush said, "I will never apologise for the United States of America–I don’t care what the facts are." (On the the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner on July 3, 1988 by the US Navy warship Vincennes. All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed. The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace.) -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

I think the US did eventually offer compensation to the victims and fully investigate its cause.--Silverback 09:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point I'm attempting to bolster with these quotes is that the power-elite are mostly nutters who are not to be trusted in tying their own shoelaces; they need our help and sympathy. -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or how about this from Junior;

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." (13/09/2001)

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." (13/03/2002) -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

I think Bush was wrong to state that finding Osama was the most important thing, but the search is continuing, and forcing him to keep his head down and ferreting out his funding and cells would still be necessary anyway.--Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And you gotta check out this sorry weasel:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

These people don't need power, they need our pity and some serious help.

According to a judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, in the 1945-1946 case of the major Nazi war criminals, to initiate a war of a aggression is not only an international crime, it is the "supreme international crime." -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

The Nuremberg trials were unfair in only investigating and punishing the losers.--Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry for mentioning them. I take it back, a war of aggression is just fine and dandy. -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The result of implementing this supreme international crime in Iraq has been the killing and mutilation of tens of thousands of people; the possibility of civil war; the anger and resentment the invasion has generated throughout the Muslim world and the creation, as a result, of a more hospitable environment in which terrorists can operate; the reassertion of imperial power; and the derailing of international law. -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

You are confusing a war of liberation with one of agression, the main reason I opposed the first gulf war was the first president Bush's use of the phrase "new world order", the basic assumption of which was that Saddam had no right to oppress Kuwaitis, but the war would be limited because he had a right to oppress Iraqis. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi conscripts were targeted, civilian infrastructure was targeted, but Saddam was left in place. I could not support a right to oppress.--Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, a war of liberation where you siege and bomb whole cities, and block all males between 15-60 from leaving. It looks like history will have to be the judge in terms of the west, but if I were Bush I'd be looking up a good lawyer. -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe there was a moral case for deposing Saddam Hussein by violent means. And I believe there was a moral case for not doing so, and that this was the stronger case, for the reasons above.

Don't lose your humanity to these sick fucks brother -Christiaan 01:56 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you are talking about here.--Silverback 08:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fugetaboutit -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Here ya go Silverback, here's one of your fellow "moral" citizens committing a war crime on TV: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1043.htm -Christiaan 02:10 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

You are surmising again. "wounded" does not mean the combatant did not have his weapon or the intent to fire. Why aren't the human shields there protecting the Iraqi police stations?--Silverback 02:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Brother, you're lost in the darkness. It will take nothing short of a genocide the likes of Hitler's or Stalin's to wake people like you up. You're not one of these Born Again nutters are you?? Go read the First Geneva Convention, Article 6. And why aren't human shields protecting "Iraqi" police stations? I can't speak for other activists but the last group of people I would try and help is collaborators. You'll find a large majority of Iraqis don't join the police because they want to help the Americans but because the Americans have destroyed their economy so they either risk being killed working for the Americans or starve. It's an old occupier's tactic. -Christiaan 09:17 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

No you just pointed to the wrong video, it did not have enough evidence to make an accusation of a crime. You seem to have a predisposition to assume the worst. There was another video at that site that was more disturbing, from the invasion. I'd be interested in the legal implications of it.--Silverback 08:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another, similar video was just shown on national news casts here in the US. This one unambiguously shows the unarmed, wounded man being shot. The soldier has been pulled out of the action and charges of violating the rules of war are being considered. I've not seen any evidence of similar discipline on the insurgent side when their actions have been caught on video tape.--Silverback 00:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tell me Silverback, how do you work your morality spin on the use of depleted uranium tipped munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan? I've been to a hospital in Basra and seen the effects of depleted uranium on the children of Iraq. So what is moral about this coward dictator of yours allowing the use of such weapons? -Christiaan 13 Nov 2004

I assume the above paragraph is from Christiaan. Depleted uranium is a relative inert metal with low grade radioactivity and there is a lot of scare mongering about it, and if you can prove the effects are due to depleted uranium you should subject it to peer review. Since collateral damage and innocent civilian casualties are inevitable in war, especially when conscripts are used, some background risk from depleted uranium munitions might be justifiable by the same reasoning. What is your morality, you don't appear to be a pacifist because of your Hitler references, do you justify the taking of innocent life in other circumstances, or are you just anti-american?--Silverback 08:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No I'm no pacifist. If I had the chance I would take you to Basra, show you the children and the statistics and then gladly shove a bottle of that dust down your throat. And while I was at it I'd probably shove a bottle of Agent Orange up your ass. Have a nice day Mr Morality. -Christiaan 10:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure whether or not I'm a pacifist, but I have a lot of respect for them, but little respect for non-pacifists, that think this war is somehow worse than wars that they would have supported. It is not a position that can be consistently defended without resorting to somekind of exceptionalism, to your credit you don't even try, and instead spout irrational hatred. do you have anything you stand for, or were you just a human shield because it raised your status in some cynical, mocking social group?--Silverback 02:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

US Army ethics has two key provisions: (1) Troops are allowed to defend themselves. They have no obligation to expose themselves to attacks. In particular, when fighting guerrilas or being attacked by armed men in civilian clothes, they are NOT under the same obligation as Boston police arresting an unruly demonstrator. For one thing, the probability of an American demonstration involving attempted murder on a cop is well under 50% per demonstration. But enemy combatants frequently have "played dead" or booby-trapped dead bodies. (2) On the other hand, troops are not allowed to murder unarmed, defenseless prisoners or civilians. Once you disarm a guerrila (uniformed or not) and tie his hands, you aren't allowed to execute him no matter how angry you are about your buddy getting killed.

I got out of the army because I didn't want to have to make life and death decisions such as this. And I just plain don't like killing people, either. But I'm inclined to give US troops the benefit of the doubt. If a wounded man made any move other than to show an empty hand, the GI would be legally justified in shooting him. It would be an open and shut case of self-defense if it came to courtmartial.

I think the press is just eager to find something -- anything -- to mar the victory of pro-democracy forces over the rebels in Fallujah. To rain on their parade, you might say. There's a strong "liberal" current that refuses to credit the US for supporting democracy in the Middle East. They have consistently demonized Israel, ignored the presidential election in Afghanistan, and constantly find fault with the reconstruction of Iraq. They remind me of vultures hoping that a big wounded animal will die: the press would find a much bigger story in the failure of national elections in Iraq than in successful and credible elections. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 17:23, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this article is that so many of those editing it demonstrate (by their comments on this discussion page) an utter inability to be objective. Perhaps we might try to set aside our partisan feelings long enough to be unbiased? There are forums for our own bile: Wikipedia is not one of them. By the way, I too was in the invasion in '03. I am also involved in OIF3. My own views on the war would not excuse lack of objectivity; the same is true of anyone else. Thank you. --Tallil2long

Was the Tejio Food Silo bombed in the first gulf war?

I don't recall the Tejio Food Silo being bombed in the first gulf war, unless it was that baby food factory that was suspected of being a chemical weapon plant?--Silverback 01:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All sites were chosen on the basis that they were bombed in 1991. Some sites were disregarded because they did not meet this criteria. -Christiaan 09:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why did the Human Shields oppose the invasion?

The section on Human Shields does not make it clear why they opposed the invasion. Their actions seem to indicate they were not pacifists, otherwise they would have been shielding military targets as well. Were they just worried that more violations of the Geneva convention would occur?--Silverback 01:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you will find that their motivations varied. Some were pacifists or damn close; some were in solidarity with the Iraqi people, but not the Iraqi government; others (such as one group from Romania) were in solidarity with the Iraqi government. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:38, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

"France advised the U.S. that it (the USA) had sufficient UN support to launch a war and that it (the USA) need not return to the UN for a second resolution"

I am removing this statement from the text until it can be sourced. It seems to be contrary to everything Chirac and Villepin stated, both before and after resolution 1441. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cairo Anti war conference

Not srictly about this page but I have made this page Cairo Anti-war conference. which is related by being about anti-war movment. I am planning to do some resursh on the egyption Anti-war movment generally at some point soon. It would be good if anyone could come and have a look at the Cairo Anti-war conference page as I am only one editing it so far.--JK the unwise 10:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article or section should be merged with 2003 Invasion of Iraq

I have removed merge tag as this article is surely big enough/contains enough information to have its own page. Also the opposition to the war was a phenomena in itself worthy of indepth coverage. Still I do think we need to adress the overlap between the different pages about the war and about the opposition to the war. Some information might be worthy of migrating/duplication on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq page and vice versa.
here are all the anit war pages I know of Anti-war, Post-September 11 anti-war movement, Peace movement, Global protests against war on Iraq, Popular opposition to war on Iraq, Criticisms of War on Terrorism, Peace camp, World peace, Human shield action to Iraq and here are all the pages about peace groups (Some of these groups may not be exclusivly anti-war.) American: Peace Action, ANSWER, Not in Our Name, United for Peace and Justice,Vietnam Veterans Against the War, War Resisters League, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam, Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee, American Deserters Committee
UK: Stop the War Coalition, CND, Committee of 100
Canada: Canadian Peace Congress
Egypt: Cairo Conference
"International": International Campaign Against Aggression on Iraq
--JK the unwise 14:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD-note

This article contains a sentence about a slogan, "No blood for oil", which was merged from the No blood for oil article after a Votes for Deletion debate on it concluded that it should. That debate is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No blood for oil. Sjakkalle 13:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Irish

The following was recently, anonymously deleted:

Yet opinion polls showed that the Irish would support a war if it had United Nations approval. What they would not support was a non-UN-sanctioned war declared in defiance of the UN by the Bush administration.

Since it's uncited, and I don't specifically know it to be true, I haven't restored; someone may want to look into this. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what specific poll the user who posted that was referring to. But here's a Gallup-International Poll taken in 2003: [2] . In the attached documents which break down the poll Ireland's people when given this question: "Are you in favour of military action against Iraq?" and the polled person chooses between these 4 options: "1 - Under no circumstances(39% of Irish chose this)", "2 - Only if Sanctioned by the United Nations(50% of Irish chose this)", - "3 - Unilaterally by America and it's allies(8% of Irish chose this)", "4 - Don't know/ No opinion(3% of Irish chose this)". So Option 2 wins with 50%, and so yeah, the original poster was right. 68.199.46.6 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

a lot of legal and intellectual opposition duplicative of other articles

I have removed a lot of summarizing of the legal and intellectual opposition to the war, that was duplicative of other articles and not linked to the popular opposition. I see no evidence that the statements of Christian religiious leaders led to the mass protests. The progressives are largely anti-religous anyway. Similarly the UN legal process does not need to be rehashed here. The focus should be on the rallying slogans, and general anti-american sentiment among the protesters. If statements by Islamic immans arguably incited the Arab street, that might be appropriate.--Silverback 20:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with at least part of this removal, and find the claim that "The progressives are largely anti-religous anyway" POV and bordering on nasty (that anti-religious Reverend Jesse Jackson? That anti-religious priest Robert Drinan?).

The Christian religious leaders are certainly relevant: there was massive church participation in the protests. I'd estimate that here in Seattle, 70-80% of the infrastructure of the protest movement has been from places of worship (although probably only about 30% of the participation has been from actively religious people: we're a rather "unchurched" city).

Why on earth should the focus be on "general anti-american sentiment among the protesters". This seems like you are saying that the article should be actively POV. I've heard rather little anti-American sentiment among the protestors domestically in the U.S. Being opposed to the current occupant (when he bothers to show up there) of the White House is not being anti-American. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

To summarize, religious opposition is part of popular opposition and is staying in the article. Even if religious leaders statements Didn't lead to mass protests, that does not mean they aren't included in the popular oppostion. For instance many South American countries didn't have mass protests, but that does not mean that they are not part of the popular opposition or that the vast majority of their citizens weren't against the 2nd Iraq war. And the Pope isn't "progressive" either. 68.199.46.6 05:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Even leaders and countries that did't protest are part of the popular opposition? Why aren't they part of the popular support? What are the limits of this article? The reason I think the opposition in mainly anti-american, is because it appears to have singled out this particular war rather than being pacifist in opposition to all wars. A lot of the protesters appear to hold up WWII as a noble and necessary war, a war where we fought on Stalin's side, using innocent conscript/slaves and purposely targeted innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure. In GWI, we slaughtered over 100,000 innocent Iraqi conscripts in the bunkers of Kuwait, and targeted civilian infrastructure in Iraq, in the Serbian conflict we once again purposely targeted civilian infrastructure, trying to cause hardship to less the support of the populace for their leadership, that's known as "terror". I can respect pacifism, but opposition to this war in particular, one of the most just, noble and sacrificial in history (as wars go), seems the pinnicle of hypocrisy. To balance this article out, perhaps we need cites which show the hypocrisy of the protestors, the mass mindlessness of their behavior and the oversimplification of their slogans.--Silverback 05:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

They aren't part of the "popular support" because they don't support the war. They oppose it, as any poll or even a quick glance at their media will clearly show. Thus they are part of the popular opposition even if they are less vocal than the mass protesters. There is a seperate page that lists the larger protests: Global protests against invasion of Iraq, this page is about the popular opposition, not the protests specifically, although thats certainly a part of it. And to your suggestions of "balance", No. This article will not become a POV rant against the protesters. You're more than welcome to make a new Popular Support for the War page though. If you can find enough content for it. 68.199.46.6 06:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

world council of churches is not representative and cannot be.

Several member churches in the World Council of Churches are hierarchical, and not congregational, so the council could not be representative of the 2 to 4 hundred million they claim to "bring together".--Silverback 08:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

It certainly is representative: [3]. All those churches joined up. They weren't signed up against their will. Unless you've got a source that says otherwise, you are Again attempting to post original research. 68.199.46.6 18:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, the voting there is by churches and denominations, not by the 400 million members/followers which the original version of this passage wanted to cite. Several of the denominations are hierarchical, not congregational, where the views of the followers get represented. --Silverback 18:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Whats your source for that? 68.199.46.6 18:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Your link above for the voting by churches and denominations. The orthodox, episcopal, lutheran, and methodist churches are hierarchical, not congregational, I just know these things.--Silverback 18:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Admission of original research right there: "I just know these things". It's staying out of the article until you can find a source that supports your claim that somehow the "400 million members are not represented by a world council which they joined". 68.199.46.6 18:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What? This wasn't anything I was putting in the article! What are you talking about?--Silverback 18:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Churches do not represent their memberships in the same sense that governments represent their citizens, but it is hard to say which is more or less representative. If I don't like the present U.S. government, it would be a very drastic decision to resign my citizenship, far more drastic than the decision someone makes in moving from one Protestant denomination to another. Given that those who dissent from a Church have a relatively easy time leaving, there is at least a prima facie case for assuming that they tend to agree with its stances. Certainly, in this matter, the claims of the European governments in the "Coalition of the Willing" to represent their populaces in this matter are far weaker, given polling data. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Many of the religious have more allegiance to their religion than to their government, and find switching denominations quite serious. However, the point here is it is misleading to suggest that the WCC is set up as a representative body, and that the executive committee, was speaking for any more than itself. Obviously, many people in the member denominations would share the view, there there isn't even a process to determine if that was even a majority. So citing the representing of 400 million is misleading on several levels.--Silverback 05:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, did you look at how I reworded this in the article after reading and responding to your comment? Do you have a problem with that wording? If so, tell me what that problem is. If not, let's move on. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

That was an improvement however the "WCC ... published", gives the impression that the whole organization supports the statement. The executive committe just issued a press release on their web site.--Silverback 11:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

anti-war

I believe most or nearly all of the opposition was to the Allied invasion of Iraq and the Allies' attempt to unseat Saddam. Phrases like "war on Iraq" apparently refer to that invasion and that attempt.

The article should be called something more like Popular opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If nobody objects, I'll rename it next week. Uncle Ed 20:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So it's on record on this page, I currently object. You have my concerns over at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq. Daniel Collins 11:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Leave as is. The invasion may have ended but U.S. and coalition casualties are still happening, so the War from 2003 is still going, even if the politicians do not advertise the fact. --nirvana2013 09:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Global protests against invasion of Iraq

Disagree: Someone has placed a suggestion to merge this article with the above. Both articles are large enough on their own plus opposition to the War is still there even if the run of global protests in 2003 are not. The articles over the coming months/years should reflect a similar pattern to Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and Protests against the Vietnam War. The situation in Iraq is just as big a mess, if not more so. If only we learnt the lessons from the past. --nirvana2013 09:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Disagree Just to note, it was Ed Poor that made the merge suggestion. 68.199.46.6 15:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism?

Why the see-also link to Anti-Americanism? It seems to imply that opposition to the war is inherently anti-American. Given that polls suggest that majority opinion in the U.S. may now be against the war, it is absurd: how can the majority of the U.S. be anti-American? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What about opposition in non-European countries?

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.18.106 (talk • contribs) 1 Oct 2005

Indeed this page does not present a global point of veiw, this is not because the editors think that opposition in places other then America or Europe don't matter rather it is because most editors come from those places so have easy access to information on them. I have been working on giving the February 15, 2003 global anti-war protest a more global view, I will try to have a look for some more information on this soon.--JK the unwise 12:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Title: "Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq War", Use of "popular"

The title of this article is inconsistent with the article on "Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War". My position is that this use of the word "popular" is improper.

The use of the term "popular" is a double entendre meaning "of the people", however many people that may be, and a term of bandwagon propaganda intended to convey that the stated position is the spontaneous preference of a majority. In that light, it should not be used in the title of a general interest article implying an editorial position, other than in the proper name of a partisan group such as The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Failing changing the title of the present article, there should be a corresponding article "Popular Support for the 2003 Iraq War", including information about various "support the troops" rallies, the effects of U.S. talk radio and "conservative" blogs. Support is never as sexy as opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.247.15 (talk • contribs) 7 Dec2005

While I think that opposition to the war was 'popular', I agree with you that the word does not belong in the article. Unless anyone voices a disagreement I will move it.--JK the unwise 11:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved.--JK the unwise 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Protests in Amsterdam

Image:Amsterdam.jpg which has the caption "Protests in Amsterdam" appears to just be a picture of some boats? I don't think it was always this?--JK the unwise 11:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Further exmainination seems to show that the orginal protests picture, posted by Get-back-world-respect was deleted by Alkivar on the 10 November 2005. The boat picture seems to have taken its place. In light of this I am going to remove the new innopropreate picuture.--JK the unwise 11:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)