Talk:Gulf War/Archive 6

Citation needed

Citation needed for number of captured soldiers looking for SCUD missiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.92.217 (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Accidents

The infobox separately notes casualties due to friendly fire and accidents. However, isn't friendly fire an accident? I'm just curious as to why the two categories are separated.VR _talk 04:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in a military sense, I don't believe so. An accident is something like being run over by a truck, and those types of injuries or deaths are rarely counted as casualties. Deaths by (un)friendly fire are. §FreeRangeFrog 04:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Swedish field hospital

Does a field hospital count as being part of the coalition? Sweden sent a field hospital and a medical staff of 525 people according to Swedish sites, but it's not mentioned in this article. Or does only combat troops count towards the coalition? If the medical personnel indeed counts, could someone with knowledge update the map? 78.69.144.98 (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it does. If you have a source, add it. Or paste it here and I'll add it as appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source from the official website of the Swedish Armed Forces, although it's only available in Swedish at this moment. The Swedish field hospital was part of the British Operation Granby. http://www.mil.se/sv/i-varlden/Utlandsstyrkan/Truppinsatser/Kuwait/ 78.69.144.148 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Added to [1], sorry for the delay, I forgot! §FreeRangeFrog 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of "citation needed" remarks

I've noticed a prolific overuse of "citation needed" remarks akin to marking "on a normal sunny day, the sky is blue" as "citation needed." Most the points where some prolific citationist has posted these remarks are well-known, well-established, and well-documented facts, understood by nearly all those who were adults during the Gulf War. They're not fanciful claims, or uncharted personal opinions, and since I've made only one correction to this article, which has not be "citation needed," I feel free to contradict the over-prolific use of whoever has posted them here. Recommendation: Before you slap a "citation needed," please take the 60 seconds to Google the information on your own to ensure that it's warranted, as most "citation needed" marks are NOT warranted. If you need help on your Googling skills, please stop by my talk page. Thanks. - Mugs 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Those are the rules, if you don't like them start your own encyclopedia. "Well everybody knows that" is just ridiculous. If it's so easy to find on Google then why don't you just do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.83.135 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Material was added today which is covered by citations. An anon IP was reverted for inserting unneeded commentary and has added needless citation requestions requests. Recommend another editor review and remove today's requests. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The claims tagged are NOT covered by citations - the citations are related to the verifability of claims made by Saddam, if at all. It's not verified if the claims made by the mass murderer were reliable and fact-based!!! Stop with your another falseties! Down with mass murederes and their trolling fans! --213.29.199.136 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations

I've referenced the new material quite adequately. I have over a dozen citations in one paragraph alone. (Some of the other sections have two or three citations. Others none at all.) All of it is from respected news sources such as the New York Times, Newsday, the Financial Times, the Boston Globe, etc. I dont know how to do those special "news citations" , but if someone insists on that, I'll gladly do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phooey108 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good work. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel

The introduction states, "Iraq also launched missiles against targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel in retaliation for their support of the invading forces in Kuwait." Since when did Israel have anything to do with the Gulf War? If I remember correctly, Israel not only did not participate, but were even prevented from retaliating after being hit with SCUD missiles. So, I don't see how it can be said that Israel "supported the invading forces" (or was involved in any other way) and this be the sole justification for the SCUD missile attacks. Pardon my facetiousness, but (even if Israel had participated) what a coincidence it was that no SCUDs were launched at Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syra, Egypt, Oman, or the UAE. Why is that, I wonder. I think we all know why. (And it's not because all but Israel were out of range.) It's for the same reason that Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers: antisemitism. 211.18.204.250 (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's one of those OMG moments I guess. You're absolutely right. But don't assume bad faith, it was probably just awkwardly worded because it also mentioned the Saudi attacks, which were technically valid military actions. I've revised the paragraph a bit to make the distinction. §FreeRangeFrog 05:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, back in the real world, it's understood that Saddam's attack on Israel was an attempt to provoke an Israeli response which would, since people in the Arab states don't like Israel, make Saddam look like the good guy, and undermine support for Arab participation in the war against Iraq. Or, you could shout 'antisemitism.' Either way, really. <eleland/talkedits> 15:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious why Saddam's Iraq would attack Israel in the situation of the First Persian Gulf War, as Israel (along with the Saudi monarchy) are among the closest allies of the United States in the Middle East region. The Iraqi government had warned long in advance that if the US attacked Iraq or anything Saddam's Iraq would respond not just be fighting the invasion but by also launching attacks on the top US ally Israel: with SCUD missiles. Tariq Aziz also stated this in public before the war. Before the actual outbreak of the First Gulf War, that began on the evening of January 16, 1991 in the US (and early morning around 2:40am on January 17, 1991 Baghdad, Iraq time) Saddam had offered a proposal to withdraw his forces from Kuwait in return for Israel withdrawing from the Occupied Palestinian territories (as the vast bulk of the international community recognizes these territories Gaza and the West Bank as being under illegal Israeli occupation); the US and Israel never even responded and rejected Saddam's offer outright and refused to bring the Palestinian issue up in context with the Kuwait issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historylover4 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC) my father fought in this war and i bet you that is not true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.194.56 (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

First into Iraq and Germanys Part.

I have noticed that you consider elements of the 2nd ACR to be the first in Iraq. to my Knowlwdge this was the scouts of Task force 1-41 consisting of elements of 1-41st Inf. and 3/66 Armor(2nd Armorde division(fwd). This Task force i also believe has the highes Casualtiyrate ofthe deployed Troops and is probably known for the two major Friendly fire incidents.

Secondly I noticed that the Deployment of dutch Troops to the turkish border is mentioned as participating in the conflict. In this Case Germany has deployed troops to because Elements of the Flugabwehrraketengeschwader 36 were deployed to Dyarbakir ( Spelling needs to be checked). As I remember these Troops beeing deployed as part of a NATO Inquiry by Turkey not as a Part of the coalition Forces.

Not to put up Germany for a compliment but needs it to mentioned that the German Constitution forbid the deployement of Troops along with the Coalition ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.132.4 (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bundeswehr was deployed on NATO Territory in Turkey. It was called Operation Ace Guard. There is only a german Wiki article... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ace_Guard PS: dutch != german —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.136.18 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Invasion of Saudi Arabia -- Strange Comments?

The section "Possible Invasion of Saudi Arabia" contains two sentences that don't make much military sense:

The Iraqi armoured divisions would have encountered the same difficulties that Saudi forces faced defending the oil fields, namely traversing large distances across inhospitable desert. This would have been exacerbated by intense bombing by the Saudi Air Force, by far the most well-equipped arm of the Saudi military

Why would defending Saudi forces need to traverse "large distances across inhospitable desert"? They would have been defending in their own country, with all the natural advantages that offers in terms of falling back on their own supply lines and infrastructure while the Iraqis extended theirs. Why would they even defend empty desert anyway? The real difficulty the Saudis faced was that they would have been heavily outnumbered on the ground and in the air, and facing an opponent who had significant combat experience while they had virtually none.
As for the "intense bombing by the Saudi Air Force", that is speculation bordering on delusional. Aerial interdiction and close air support were not primary missions of the Saudi Air Force, and they were not likely to greatly increase their capability in those missions on short notice. There is no reason to think the Iraqi Air Force would have stayed on the ground or fled to Iran as they did when faced by the Coalition air effort in the actual campaign. Saudi control of the air would have been problematic at best, to say nothing of their ability to help their comrades on the ground. Agree that it is the most heavily armed Saudi branch of service (although the others aren't badly equipped), but numbers of weapons doesn't equate directly to combat capability. --Darkstar8799 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Both paragraphs in the section have been waiting for citations since January 2009. That is ample time. The entire section should be deleted until someone can find something supportable to say. I'll wait a couple more days before doing so, in case this talk activity wakes someone up. Hohum (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've referenced some of it, and removed the rest. As well as merging the section into the one on Desert Shield . - SimonP (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Norway?

That entire section is B&!!$#!#

The two filled in reference, the book doesn't exist and the webpage is false.

I am going to delete it outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.48.229.97 (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Source #4

Does anyone have the full title for reference #4? Currently it only mentions an author (^ a b Geoffrey Regan, p.214) , but not the title of the book - and as it also is not to be found in the bibliography it is...somewhat useless. Madcynic (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed content

I cut a couple of sections "Inconsistent Intervention in Other Wars of Aggression" and "Was War Inevitable?." I don't want to seem like I am removing all the anti-war stuff, but these sections were poorly written and inadequately referenced. They stood out from what is otherwise a well put together article. We do need a good discussion of opposition to the war. Perhaps a new section on "Opposition to the war" running though the various arguments given against it and covering anti-war protests and such. - SimonP (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Medina Ridge

I have been hearing and reading several different numbers in battles.

The Wiki says it was an armored battalion on both sides with the US being support by gunships and A10.

The History Channel said it was an armored battalion of Iraqi tanks against Two Abrams.

And I talked to a former nationa guard member who said it was a company of tanks vs an Iraqi battalion.

All three said it was a decisive US victroy.

So does anyone know what the actual version is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.185.110 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"The Iron Brigade had some 3,000 vehicles, including 166 M1A1 tanks" ... "waiting for them in the distance was the 2nd Brigade of the Republican Guard's Medina Luminous Division"

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/920120/archive_018929_4.htm

"Colonel Montgomery Meigs, commander of 2d Brigade IAD, faced the Medina's 2d Brigade and part of a brigade from the Adnan Division."

html version of http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A309687&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

"The largest engagement of the ground war pitted five battalions of the US 1st Armored Division against the 2d Brigade of the Medina Armored Division and part of the Adnan Division (Republican Guard)"

html version of http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/CADRE_Papers/PDF_Bin/Wills25.pdf

Hohum (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange use of words

Under the section at the beginning of the article which talks about the results of the war, I cannot help but feel that there is not a neutral perspective put forth with the use of language. My main problem are the two points which read like so:

-Removal of Iraqi invasion force from Kuwait -Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait

It seems that one of these points presents a more or less cold fact, that Iraqi forces were removed. But the second seems to show it from the vantage point of the Palestinians. The word expulsion simply is too strong to be neutral. It seems you either have to give cold facts or speak with equal force.

For instance, here is an example of equal force (though not cold fact):

-Liberation of Kuwait -Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait In this example the point of view is the point of the oppressed and not the aggressor.

However if you wish to remain neutral it seems a better way would be to say:

-Liberating of Kuwait by removal of Iraqi invasion force (which is a fact) -Palstinian exodus from Kuwait due to Kuwait's expulsion of them (which is also a fact) The difference between what the article says and what I am suggesting is that I am giving both the cold facts and the impact it had on the people who lived through these experiences. I just think saying expulsion and leaving out liberation simply is not neutral nor necessarily as infromative as possible. Thank you. --Ic2705 (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Im confused...

the belligerants section has afghanistan as number one on the coalition forces. i didnt find anything about that in the actual article,and the fact that afghanistan was a 100% non-state by 1991 makes me think that this is blatant vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.123.207 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a good question. It doesn't seem to be vandalism, rather it seems to be based on this list which itself is credited to "Gulf War Veterans: Measuring Health" by Lyla M. Hernandez, which hardly seems to be an ideal source for military history. Encarta does not include Afghanistan in the coalition list nor do any contemporary newspaper accounts I've been able to find. I'm going to remove all mention of Afghanistan and the coalition table until we have some better refs. - SimonP (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Books I have read such as CNN's "War in the Gulf" have stated that 300 Afghan Mujahidin traveled to Saudi Arabia to fight in the war, but nothing I have read indicates that they took part in any operations. In 1991 Afghanistan was still ruled by a Soviet-backed communist government (even though Soviet troops left in 1989 the Soviet-backed government fought on until 1992). None of these sources are clear whether the 300 men were government troops or rebels.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan should probably thus be left off any official coalition list. It sounds like there might be an interesting story about the 300 mujihadeen, and worth adding to Coalition of the Gulf War. We just need some good refs for it. - SimonP (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Air war, etc.

I just started reading the book Clancy, Tom; Horner, Chuck (1999), Every Man a Tiger : The Gulf War Air Campaign, Putnam, ISBN 9780399144936 and, taking a break to have a look at this WP article, I was surprised not to find a mention here of Chuck Horner. I have added a mention in the Air Campaign section.

I am thinking that I might edit info from that book into this article as I read, but I don't want to step on the toes of editors who already have a lot invested in the article. As an example of what I might do, I might add something like the following to the bottom of the Battle of Khafji subsection:

Colonel Dave Schulte, the Battlefield Coordination Element/Tactical Air Control Center (BCE/TACC) commander, summed up the lessons learned from Khajafi as follows:

1. Coalition air power prevented the Iraqis from massing forces, showing that they needed to mass air defenses first.
2. Iraqui failure to predect coalition responses showed that their battlefield intelligence was poor.
3. Iraqi execution of the attack and retreat showed good command and control of their forces.
4. The Iraqis fought well.

The Iraqi IIId Corps commander saw it differently. When he saw what was happening to his forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, he called Saddam and asked for permission to break off the attack on Al Khajafi and begin a withdrawal. Saddam replied "No, continue the attack, I want to make this the mother of all battles!" the IIId Corps commander replied, "Sir, the mother is killing her children," hung up, and ordered his remaining forces to withdraw.(citing Clancy & Horner 1999, pp. 451–452)

I'm not very far into the book (I jumped forward to see what the book had to say about the Battle of Khafji when I saw a subsection on it here. The book has about 30 pages on the battle but, due to a different focus, I am unable to provide cites from the book supporting the info on the battle already in the article.). This is just a first-guess at the sort of things I might add. I wouldn't expect that I'd be very protective about any material I added.

Comments, anyone? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Loads of POV

The developments are totally narrated from a Western (US/Zionist/Kuwait) POV with no consideration for the Iraqi viewpoint.

For example no mention is made of the extraofficial authorization of Washington to Iraq to solve its differences with Kuwait unilaterally (April Glaspie recordings).

The border claims of Iraq (a long term cause of the conflict) are not clearly stated anywhere.

The period of a puppet government in Kuwait is not mentioned either. Iraq only annexed Kuwait formally after the US position was clearly stated, previously it had installed a puppet government in the emirate. It lasted only a few weeks but is anyhow an important part of the developments because it indicates a period in which Iraq seemed to believe it will get away with the invasion with just a formal protest. Belief that was apparently induced by US diplomacy.

Also I suspect that the history of US-Iraq relations is not narrated from NPOV but as a justification of the war. No mention is made to the many US allies (France, Turkey, even Saudi Arabia before the invasion of Kuwait) that were strongly supportive of Hussein's regime and its role as Western ally in the area.

In brief: a pity that Wikipedia seems to be falling so deeply into what can barely be called anything but propaganda or Hasbara. That part of the article is not informative (NPOV) but disinformative in fact. --Sugaar (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity you don't bring anything more than your own POV, without respectable references. Hohum (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What do Jews, Israel and Zionists have to do with any of the things that you mentioned between Iraq and Kuwait?WDW Megaraptor (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also there is no mention about the fact that the oil spill in the Persian Gulf was blamed by the Iraq government on US bombing of oil tankers that were in port. This is a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation (especially considering that the ports were attacked by coalition forces and did have oil tankers present) but is currently not even so much as hinted at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.79.237 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Commanders

I don't think that it is relavent to put the name of the leaders of NATO nations as military 'commanders' in the infobox, it seems unusual since those people did not directly order thier respective troops (ie. Brian Mulroney was PM of Canada and not a general in the Canadian military at the time) 99.249.228.146 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have thus removed them from the list. - SimonP (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

CNN video

This site: [CNN1] has the original CNN's video showed in the entire world on January 17, 1991.Here in Brazil all big TVs showed CNN in 1991.The first very modern war, including the press' coverage.Agre22 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

Glaspie controversy

I've removed some of the stuff pertaining to the question of whether American ambassador April Glaspie signaled that the U.S. would not oppose the Iraqi attack on Kuwait. This article is intended to be a quick overview, and spending 500 words on one side issue is unnecessary. The subject is already discussed at Invasion of Kuwait, and that is a better location for it. Even more important the section contains no references and a lot of opinion. - SimonP (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have removed all of it; it's worth at least a brief mention. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Result

Maybe the result should mention that it was a Coalition victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.195.83 (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of results, some of them are better labeled as "related consequences/events". The uprising against Saddam, stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, and Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait are only several of MANY consequences of the war, and it's only in hindsight that they appear to be of any significance Masterblooregard (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no "winners" in war. Saying it was a victory would ignore all the harm it's caused both sides. -Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.72.65 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph makes no sense

The first sentence in the lead makes no grammatical sense. All it is is a list of various names for the war, but omitting those it is a sentence fragment. I figured I would note this here before making changes to the lead. Andy120290 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get this entire article. Compare to some other war-related pages world war two although this topic is very general and vague, you can see it is extremely clear and easy to understand other excellent war topics: battle of midway [battle of iwo jima]]. After I've read through this article for just 2 minutes, it gets boring, if you know what I mean. I think this page should be contracted a bit and some info removed... 120.16.179.62 (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I added several templates that are needed on this article. I'm hoping some of the other editors would like to join together to streamline the page, removing superfluous information (especially in the opening), and generally help make the article easier to navigate. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've sliced the lead down to something more readable. In terms of making the article a more reasonable length, I think the best idea would be to move the bulk of the very detailed air war section to its own sub page. If no one objects I'll go ahead and do so. - SimonP (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of some infobox results items

I've edited the Results section of the infobox to remove the following items:

• Saddam Hussein remains in power—His removal from power was not an objective.
• Internal rising against Saddam Hussein brutally suppressed—Correlation does not imply causation.
• Establishment of US military presence in Saudi Arabia—Oversimplified. Also, see [[2] and [3].
• Palestinian Expulsion from Kuwait—Correlation does not imply causation. Incidentally, I have moved the wikilinked article to a name which complies with WP:MOS#Article titles.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

While the suppression of the rising was not caused by the war, the rising itself certainly was. That the US left Arabia over a decade later hardly negates the fact that the Gulf War began their presence there. The Palestinian expulsion was caused by their perceived or actual collaboration with the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait: whether or not one could regard that as a result of the war depends on whether one considers the war to include the Iraqi invasion. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kuwaiti Campaign

I believe that the liberation of Kuwait deserves an article of it's own, it has been listed in the Battles for months, and it needs it's own page. Skuzbucket (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Persian Gulf, not Gulf

There is no such thing as Gulf. It's Persian Gulf. Forever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.19.194 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This Article Needs to be Renamed

This article should be renamed "Persian Gulf War". "Gulf War" is a shortening of the full name of the conflict, similar to calling World War II "WWII". Jrzyboy (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use WP:COMMONNAME: "Gulf War" is the most commonly used name for this conflict. It is also the name used in most of the reference material used for the article. (Hohum ^@) 19:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

"The Iraqi reluctance to commit several armored divisions to the occupation, and its subsequent use of Khafji as a launching pad into the initially lightly defended east of Saudi Arabia is considered by many academics a grave strategic error." "and subsequently use Khafji"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revery (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Following paragraph with citation deleted because citation does not verify paragraph content:

However, as of the year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a quarter of the U.S. troops who participated in War, have been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

--NCDane (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it and marked the cited supporting source as a dead link per WP:LINKROT. I'll add a cite of another source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Entry name change request

Please change the name of the entry into "Persian Gulf War", with other alternatives redirecting to it, thus acknowledging the historically- and univesally-accepted name of the body of water where the war took place.

I appreciate your action that will contribute to the accuracy of Wikipedia's content.

Jahan Saghari

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the English wikipedia uses the most common English name for the conflict, which is "Gulf War". A google book search gives about 3,000 results for "persian gulf war" and about 8,000 for "gulf war" -"persian gulf war" (Hohum ^@) 14:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Persian or Arab Gulf?

I first noticed a broken template (since fixed) that was meant to reference Persian Gulf wars, but was changed to reference a template for Arab Gulf wars, which doesn't exist. In investigating how this happend, I found that back on 13:33, 16 May 2010 nearly all references to the Persian Gulf in this article were changed to Arab Gulf. A few of these references were changed back to Persian Gulf on 04:45, 17 May 2010. So, in an effort to prevent further back-and-forth editing, I'll raise this question for discussion: Persian Gulf or Arab Gulf?

Here's an article that discusses this very subject: Persian Gulf naming dispute
140.32.88.85 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not going to solve the ongoing edit war re "Persian" vs. "Arabian" gulf about this. The article is named "Gulf War". This seems unnecessarily and dangerously general. How about something like Gulf War (1990), with appropriate redirect changes and appropriate generalizing changes in the article text? Incidentally, I've noticed that some of the sources cited in this article are dead links -- e.g. http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555_2/Persian_Gulf_War.htm. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The article name has been debated at length already. Gulf War is the most common English name for this specific conflict per WP:COMMONNAME. How is it "dangerously" general? (Hohum ^@) 00:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Casualties in infobox

I've reverted this edit by an anon, which updated the casualty figures in the infobox and added some cites. The edit changed an infobox casualties1 parameter of "240 killed 776 wounded", supported by a cite of "Persian Gulf War - MSN Encarta". Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) (an archived version of a deleted MS Encarta page) more complicated content supported by several questionable cites, as follows:

1. "Over 1500 Kuwaiti troops killed (during and after the invasion)" and "392 US troops killed", supported by a cite reading, "title= World Almanac 2010 Page=176". I don't know whether this was intended to be part of a citation template or as the text of a citation but, at minimum, the publisher and year need to be indicated. An ISBN would be useful as well.
2. "18 Saudi Arabian troops killed", "11 Egyptian troops killed", and "6 UAE troops killed", supported by http://www.fact-index.com/g/gu/gulf_war.html#Casualties. There is a note at the bottom of that web page which says, "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it
3. "18 Saudi Arabian troops killed", "11 Egyptian troops killed", "6 UAE troops killed", "2 Syrian troops killed", "2 French troops killed", and "776 wounded", supported by the same archived MS Encarta page which previously supported the content which this edit replaced. That cited source does not appear to support these figures.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that a lot of Kuwaiti troops died in the invasion by Iraq is undeniable. I don't know why this wasn't put into the casualty box for a while. Skuzbucket (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If I provided the ISBN and the publisher and the year, could I revert the edits back? Because that is what the book honestly says. 64.81.146.143 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The addition of the World Almanac information mentioned in item 1 above, supported by a cite including the book title, author (if named), publisher, publication year, page number, and ISBN would be a good thing, IMO. If that source speaks of casualty information for others than Kuwaiti troops, that information should also be mentioned. If that source differs with other sources of similar prominence, information from both sources should be incluyded (see WP:DUE). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unclear wording

"About 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians killed during the Iraqi occupation in addition to 300,000 refugees." The sentence is not clear. Did they make 300,000 people refugees or did they kill 300,000 refugees? Reference is also broken. 80.77.132.239 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified the wording and fixed the dead link. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Stats

This article cites this CNN source to support assertions of 100,000+ air sorties flown, 75 aircraft losses (42 in air-to-air combat)The article also says that 88,500 tons of bombs were dropped, and I've added a cite of this source to support that.

However, I happen to have Clancy, Tom; Horner, Chuck (2000), Every Man a Tiger: The Gulf War Air Campaign, Berkley, ISBN 9780425172926 handy, and I note that it gives different stats. The U.S. Aircraft Combat Losses/Sorties by conflict table on page 502 says that there were 14 combat losses in 29,393 sorties. The U.S. Bomb Tonnage Used per Month by Conflict table on the same page says that 40,416 tons of bombs were used. I don't know the reason for the striking differences and I have not edited the article to reflect them, but I thought I'd mention this here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(added) I see that the Gulf War air campaign article says that the coalition lost 52 fixed-wing aircraft and 23 helicopters during Desert Storm, with 39 fixed-wing aircraft and 5 helicopters lost in combat, citing this source (apparently from a cache) which itself cites the next-mentioned source. That jibes with the figure of 75 aircraft losses mentioned earlier, but the supporting source there said 36 fixed-wing aircraft and 6 helicopters were lost in air-to-air engagements (a synthesis there would beg the inference that one helicopter was lost in a non-combat air-to-air engagement).

Lewis D. Hill, et al., Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume V, A Statistical Compendium and Chronology (1993), United States Air Force, pp. 639, 643-648 (see this) looks like it might be a good source on this. I don't have time just now, but I'll try to take a look at this and figure out some reasonable resolution to these apparent conflicts. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(added)Table 203 on page 639 there, titled Desert Storm Ttoal Coalition Combat losses By Cause contains grand totals as follows:

AAA	IR SAM	Radar SAM	Other enemy action	MIG 25	Unknown	Total
9	13	10	1	1	4	38

Table 204 gives a more detailed list of 154 lost and damaged aircraft (plus 23 attritted but uncategorized). I count 55 lost aircraft there, broken down as follows:

AAA	IR SAM	Radar SAM	Other enemy action	MIG 25	Unknown	Other	Total
9	13	10	1	1	4	17	55

That still leaves a conflict with the currently-cited sources, one of which is a CNN source. I'm going to throw my hands in the air and do nothing further at this point. My understanding of WP:DUE is that lack of media prevalence would weigh against citing the USAF source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unrecognizable

Amazing to see such mangled history. It's sad, because someone who wasn't around at the time might actually believe this provides a good overview. 71.203.125.108 (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more.86.133.79.237 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this - Orwellian rewriting of History?

This article states so much as fact when it is actually merely 'official' opinion of coalition governments with no mention of alternative explanations.

It also contains some blatant inaccuracies.

For example, the oil fires were not surrounded by land mines, but by unexploded US cluster bombs. This was reported by news media at the time and verified by interviews with the bomb squads clearing them and yet it's not even mentioned.

No mention of the alternative (and more likely) explanation of the gulf oil spill - i.e., it was caused by the unintentional bombing (by US forces) of moored Iraqi oil tankers.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.79.237 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources to support this. (Hohum ^@) 22:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you presume that? It's not easy for most to go digging around in the BBC archives for news reports that I saw with my own eyes. We truly do have Memory Holes, but I refuse to see five fingers when I know there were only four!86.133.79.237 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1947

The article states four times that the war started in 1947. Can someone provide a source to back this up? Cwelgo (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess this explains that issue. Enderandpeter (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Burned Iraqi soldier, free image

I came across an actual fhotograph of a bombed iraqi soldier, here: http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=64219&highlight=Gruesome. Upload??

According to this website, this picture is copyrighted and not free. It appears the copyright belongs to the BBC, and so unless you can set up some kind of agreement with them, it doesn't look like it's a good idea to upload it here. Enderandpeter (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversion and Citation bot

I've reverted this edit, which resulted in a double terminating period at the end of the citation (one supplied by the {{Cite news}} template and one supplied manually. The reverted edit had changed a User:Citation bot#Changing citation to cite journal / cite book / etc edit. After the reversion, I edited the reverted version to remove the bot-inserted parameter which was suppressing the terminating period. This is the first time I've come across this, which is explained somewhat at {{Inconsistent citations}}. Apparently, Citation bot, having seen both {{Citation}} and {{cite xxx}} templates in this article with the latter predominating, changed one of the former to one of the latter. In doing so, presumably because Citation does not supply a terminating period by default, it coerced the Cite news template with which it had replaced it into not supplying a terminating period, and left a hidden comment behind which it hoped would clarify things. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what the heck that was all about. Thanks for dealing with the issue. I totally meant to use {{cite news}} in the first place, so I'll be more diligent about that. And thanks for sharing info about Knut Royce. I'll get on that issue as soon as I can. Enderandpeter (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky's distortions, and this article

I don't care if people want to look at the Gulf war from his perspective, but including basically a word-for-word regurgitation of his notes (a selective compilation of contemporary news reports) in this article is grossly inappropriate. The only thing that matters is that te U.S. and the U.N. demanded an unconditional withdrawal by January 15 and Iraq rejected it. Their counterproposals are framed in isolation in the article, without noting that they essentially rewarded Iraqi aggression or would leave the region defenseless again, and thus were bound to be rejected. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please identify the section you are talking about, and suggest concrete, reliably sourced changes. (Hohum ^@) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Iraqi Proposals for Withdrawal section? Currently, the last part of that section quotes a New York Times article by Thomas Friedman where he talks about the reasons why the US didn't want to settle for anything less than an unconditional surrender. By the way, from which work of Chomsky's in particular do you recognize the sources in that section? Enderandpeter (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get "unconditional surrender" from? Unconditional surrender would imply that they wanted Saddam to surrender his entire country and army, Kuwait plus Iraq. That isn't even close to what was demanded. The only thing that was demanded was the unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.

All the sources are from Chomsky's "Understanding Power" as indicated in the note on the article. The sources are valid, but they placed out of context. No attempt is made to explain the fact from the very beginning U.S. officials insisted on an unconditional pull-out with no linkage, nor is there any attempt to analyze the precise meaning of the proposals which are vaguely worded. Furthermore, given that many books have been written about the Gulf War, it would seem far more appropriate to cite them for information about pre-war diplomacy, not vague contemporary news articles. Finally, not discussed at all in this article, in the final meeting between James Baker and Tariq Aziz, Aziz didn't offer any concrete proposals. [4] 71.65.71.145 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I indeed meant "withdrawal" and not "surrender". Now, unfortunately, as I look at the linked footnotes for Chomsky's "Understanding Power" and the text of the Iraqi Proposals for Withdrawal section, it appears that a lot of Chomsky's text was copied and pasted here, which is an unsettling violation of WP:COPYVIO. Nothing that I've found indicates that this book is in the public domain. This section needs a rewrite, alright. I suppose I'll put a warning tag on that section for now, but I'll also work on rewriting it. Say, 71.65.71.145, you should go ahead and integrate the information about the meeting between James Baker and Tariq Aziz into the article. Also, are there any particular books you're aware of that contain good descriptions of the conciliatory proposals? Enderandpeter (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I re-wrote the section, but left the articles in because I don't want to be accused of removing sourced information. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the information is there mostly to distract rather than inform. For example, a "joint plan to alleviate Iraq's economical and financial problems" probably means Iraq wanted money. The phrase "an offer "to withdraw from Kuwait if the United States pledges not to attack as soldiers are pulled out, if foreign troops leave the region, and if there is an agreement on the Palestinian problem and on the banning of all weapons of mass destruction in the region" could be interpreted as meaning Iraq wanted a foreign withdrawal, concessions to Palestinians, and an agreement to control Israel's WMD before their withdrawal which would be obviously unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.71.145 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for addressing the Iraqi-American diplomacy section. Unfortunately, there are still some plagiarism issues with footnote 88 of Chomsky's Understanding Power. For some reason, the user Maxl removed the non-free tag introducing that section. Until this issue is resolved, it is best to keep that warning. Here is why the current phrasing of the article is problematic:

Current Article Text

On 12 August 1990, Saddam Hussein proposed a settlement linking Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait to an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza strip, occupied by Israel since 1967.: Syria from Lebanon, and Israel from the territories it conquered in 1967

From Understanding Power

On August 12, 1990, Saddam Hussein proposed a settlement linking Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait to withdrawal from other illegally occupied Arab lands: Syria from Lebanon, and Israel from the territories it conquered in 1967.

---

Current Article Text

Another Iraqi proposal communicated in August 1990 offered to withdraw from Kuwait and allow foreigners to leave in return for the lifting of sanctions, guaranteed access to the Persian Gulf through the Kuwaiti islands of Bubiyan and Warbah and full control of the Rumailah oilfield that extended slightly into Kuwaiti territory from Iraq.

From Understanding Power

According to sources involved and documents, Iraq offered to withdraw from Kuwait and allow foreigners to leave in return for the lifting of sanctions, guaranteed access to the Persian Gulf, and full control of the Rumailah oilfield "that extends slightly into Kuwaiti territory from Iraq" (Royce), about two miles over a disputed border.

---

Current Article Text

Other terms of the proposal, according to memoranda that Royce quotes, were that Iraq and the U.S. negotiate an oil agreement "satisfactory to both nations' national security interests," "jointly work on the stability of the gulf," and develop a joint plan "to alleviate Iraq's economical and financial problems." There was no mention of U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, or other preconditions. A Bush administration official who specializes in Mideast affairs described the proposal as "serious" and "negotiable."

From Understanding Power

Other terms of the proposal, according to memoranda that Royce quotes, were that Iraq and the U.S. negotiate an oil agreement "satisfactory to both nations' national security interests," "jointly work on the stability of the gulf," and develop a joint plan "to alleviate Iraq's economical and financial problems." There was no mention of U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, or other preconditions. A Bush administration official who specializes in Mideast affairs described the proposal as "serious" and "negotiable."

---

As you can see, the fourth paragraph of this section was fully copy and pasted from Chomsky's book. Until the problem is fixed, we should warn the readers. Thanks again, 71.65.71.145, for starting to work on this. I'll be sure to contribute to a solution soon. By the way, there's no need to feel like this section has to be based on Chomsky's book. Any verifiable sources are welcome. If anyone disputes any of the sources used, please share your reasoning here before or right after making changes. Enderandpeter (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Say, I've been trying to find the Knut Royce article mentioned in this section and I can't seem to find it. I've been looking via LexisNexis and Business Dateline. Business Dateline returns one single article by Knut Royce from 1989 in their Newsday archives from 1988 to the present. LexisNexis can't find anything by him from Newsday. Does anyone have a copy of this article by chance? (Royce, Knut. "MIDDLE EAST CRISIS Secret Offer: Iraq Sent Pullout Deal to U.S." Newsday. (Combined Editions). Long Island, N.Y.: Aug 29, 1990.) As I search on the web, the only hits I find for his article are either from the book Understanding Power or the Wikipedia article, which is rather strange if you ask me. My take is that if no one can locate this article, then it is not a good idea to cite from it. Enderandpeter (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So my opinion about this is that unless the Knut Royce articles Chomsky refers to can be located, the information from Understanding Power should not be included here since it relies so heavily on that and other articles of Royce's from Newsday in 1990 that I can't locate at all. Again, if someone else can locate them, please let us know where you found them and share the sources, if you would be so kind. Once those articles are located, it would be wise to cite information from those articles instead. I'm given the impression that the articles do indeed exist given that someone included massive excerpts from them in the Wikipedia article's footnotes, which I don't think is a very good idea. It's totally unnecessary to include substantial parts of articles in the footnotes unless these sources can't be found elsewhere or they are extremely difficult to obtain. A 1990 Newsday article from a Pulitzer prize winning writer should not be hard to find, yet it doesn't exist in any of those major archives. Chomsky also refers to a NYT article (R.W. Apple, Jr., "Confrontation in the Gulf: Opec to Increase Oil Output to Offset Losses From Iraq; No U.S. Hostages Released," New York Times, August 30, 1990, p. A1.) where anonymous officials also verify the proposals National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft allegedly received from an anonymous Iraqi official. What do you think about this solution? Again, until those articles are found, I don't even feel comfortable rewriting the info from Understanding Power because the excerpts currently in the article do not appear to be verifiable. Enderandpeter (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That fourth para looks like a conflict with WP:COPYPASTE which be should be restated or removed.

On that, and on Royce, this looks like the original insertion here. That cites "Newsday, January 3, 1991, p. 5 (city edition, p. 4)". Surely that's verifiable (or refutable) at a U.S. library (I'm not in the U.S., and can't check). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the original contribution where the text from Understanding Power was inserted. Again, I've looked for Royce articles from Newsday since 1988 in the databases Business Dateline and LexisNexis and the articles do not show up. I literally just searched for "Royce, Knut" and only Business Dateline found a single article of his that was neither of the ones cited in the Wikipedia article. Hopefully the user Phooey108 still looks at his talk page. However, looking at the user's contribution, it looks like they weren't the one to add so much text from the Royce articles into the footnotes. That is probably the best person to try to contact in order to find copies of the articles, provided they still have them.

By the way, do you disagree that the previous three paragraphs violate WP:COPYPASTE? They have very minimal paraphrasing and it's clear that the majority of the words in their sentences came straight from Chomsky's book. Enderandpeter (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They look pretty close to me, but I don't consider myself a good judge of such things. I haven't seen Chomsky's book and wouldn't look at it by choice if I had access -- Chomsky gives me a headache. On Royce, a bit of googling turned up this, this, and this. This purports to give an email address for him. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for being gone for so long. Such is the non-virtual world...

So a few interesting things happened. For one, I was lucky enough to get a hold of Knut Royce himself, and he definitely recalls the articles cited in this section. He also informed me of Newsday archives in Melville, N.Y., a building which is essentially their own library. Sometime earlier this month, however, I received an anonymous message on my talk page where someone posted a link to Royce's article MIDDLE EAST CRISIS Secret Offer Iraq Sent Pullout Deal to U.S. I have a strong feeling that my difficulty in locating the articles in question came from how the universities in my city, where I searched for the article, don't have databases for the "Washington Bureau" syndication of Newsday.

I was planning on incorporating the information from the Secret Offer article into the Iraqi-American diplomacy section without rewriting what Chomsky wrote. Also, I will probably go ahead and incorporate info from Understanding Power, particularly from footnote 88, into this section in a way that doesn't infringe upon WP:COPYVIO. Again, I would prefer to actually cite the articles that Chomsky himself cites, and so I will work on doing that as well. Anyone else who would like to do this too, or correct/critique what I write should feel free, of course. Thanks, everyone, for your help.Enderandpeter (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"...I was lucky enough to get a hold of Knut Royce himself..." Umm, perhaps I'm missing some nuance here, but would that be a literal example of WP:ORIGINAL? I mean... You appear to be saying you contacted a source directly on your own initiative, and got their unpublished opinion on a matter. That's commendable in terms of fact-checking, but, as I say, it seems to be the very model of "original research." Hal (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm confident that I fixed the WP:COPYVIO issue. Please take a look at the section and tell me your thoughts. There are still some Royce articles I'd like to more directly include here, but I'm still not having luck finding them. If anyone can point me in the direction of Knut Royce, "Iraq Offers Deal to Quit Kuwait," Newsday, January 3, 1991, p. 5 (city edition, p. 4) and Knut Royce, "U.S.: Iraqi Proposal Not Worth a Response," Newsday, August 30, 1990, p. 6, that would be spectacular. Enderandpeter (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is slightly better but the overall problem is that we are relying on 20 year old sources when books should be used. Contemporary news articles are not used for most war articles. Much context is missing. And we still have no idea how serious any proposals actually were when you consider that Aziz never actually put a straightforward offer on the table in exchange for a withdrawal from Kuwait when he had the chance. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful for this section to have a greater variety of sources. I looked a little at the book The Gulf Conflict: Diplomacy and War in the New World Order and I remember it speaking dismissively about the proposals mentioned in here, particularly calling the optimism surrounding them exaggerated-- although it didn't mention these proposals specifically. Chomsky also makes note of the general dismissive attitude towards these offers by contemporary reports, and I think it's fair to mention that criticism. I could find that book again soon and provide the authors' assessment of the diplomatic relationship between Iraq and the US, as I think it encompasses the scholarly mainstream view towards that part of the war. Enderandpeter (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

This is very interesting and surprised no one has placed it in the article. http://wikileaks.ch/cable/1990/07/90BAGHDAD4237.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.92.2 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What about The MARINES ?

Why is there NO mention of THE U.S. MARINE CORPS' Ground Units ? My Step-Dad (GUNNY TESTER), told me that his Unit was The 1st. Ground Unit in, or 1 of The 1st. ? I'm pretty sure they were the 1st.. re: OPERATION DESERT SHIELD. My Step-Dad passed away Oct. 2007. PLEASE someone with knowledge of these GRUNTS, Please Correct this HUGE "OVER-SIGHT." Thanx Kj968 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple mentions of the USMC in this wiki. One of the biggest contributions they made was the diversionary amphibious landing in northeastern Kuwait to draw Iraqi forces away from the Kuwaiti-Saudi border. If this is not included here, I would like to suggest that someone find a good citation so we can help present the whole picture of the Gulf War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.90.246 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Jan 2011: Wikileaks leaked the Glaspie cable

So feel free to update the article. Here's a couple WP:RS and hopefully the mainstream press will report it SOMEDAY!! Professor Stephen Walt analysis here. Jason Dietz, antiwar.com, Haaretz, the Actual Cable from Glaspie, etc. (Also posted at Glaspie bio.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Coalition members

This edit caught my eye — it removed Afghanistan from a list of coalition members. Curious, I looked back and found that Afghanistan had beenadded to the list along with Sweden by a user now blocked as a sockpuppet in this September 2010 edit (Sweden is still in the list).

The inclusions list in the Coalition involvement section list in the article cites a supporting source, but that source is not previewable online. Looking back, I see that the source citation was added in this March 2008 edit, which added Honduras, Hungary and Romania to a list which at that time included Afghanistan. (I'll name this list in remarks below as "CI list".)

Seeing "

Main article: Coalition of the Gulf War

" above the list, Looking there, I see that its Coalition by number of military personnel section lists the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the U.K., Egypt, France, Syria, Morocco, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Canada, the UAE, Qatar, Bangladesh, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Niger, Sweden, Argentina, Senegal, Spain, Bahrain, Belgium, Poland, South Korea, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Denmark, New Zealand, Hungary and Norway. The list is unsupported as to the countries listed, though some individual items of information in the list cite supporting sources. (I'll name this list in remarks below as "CoW list".)

Googling around, I found this March 2003 BBC News article which, citing White House sources, gives two lists; "Full list of coalition countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan." and "Additions: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uganda". (I'll name this list in remarks below as "BBC list".)

There's another list in the infobox of this article; it's incomplete, as it ends with "and others". I'll call that the "I list" below.

Comparing the lists, I see the following:

Country	BBC list '+' = added	CoW list	CI list (currently) ('a' = assistance)	I list (partial)
Afghanistan	*
Albania	*
Argentina		*	*	*
Australia	*	*	*	*
Azerbaijan	*
Bahrain		*	*
Bangladesh		*	*	*
Belgium		*	*	*
Bulgaria	*
Canada		*	*	*
Colombia	*
Costa Rica	+
Czech Republic	*
Czechoslovakia		*	*	*
Denmark	*	*	*	*
Dominican Republic	+
Egypt		*	*	*
El Salvador	*
Eritrea	*
Estonia	*
Ethiopia	*
France		*	*	*
Georgia	*
Germany			a
Greece		*	*	*
Honduras	+		*
Hungary	*	*	*	*
Iceland	*
Italy	*	*	*	*
Japan	*		a
Kuwait	+	*	*	*
Latvia	*
Lithuania	*
Macedonia	*
Malaysia			*
Marshall Islands	+
Micronesia	+
Morocco		*	*	*
Mongolia	+
Netherlands	*	*	*
New Zealand		*	*	*
Nicaragua	*
Niger		*	*	*
Norway		*	*
Oman		*	*	*
Pakistan		*	*	*
Palau	+
Philippines	*		*
Poland	*	*	*	*
Portugal	+		*
Qatar		*	*	*
Romania	*		*
Rwanda	+
Saudi Arabia		*	*	*
Senegal		*	*
Singapore	+
Slovakia	*
Solomon Islands	+
South Korea	*	*	*	*
Spain	*	*	*	*
Sweden		*	*
Syria		*	*	*
Turkey	*		*
Uganda	+
United Arab Emirates		*	*	*
United Kingdom	*	*	*	*
United States		*	*	*
Uzbekistan	*

I think I've got that table right, and it confuses me. The time I took putting it together also exceeded the time I could afford to spend on this. Perhaps the table will point up some things needing attention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bhutan?!

I don't think Bhutan fought alongside the Iraqis.... someone's having a laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.16.225 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do people say that Americans killed more British than iraqis?

But 47 British soldiers died in the Gulf war instead of 16 British deaths. Several BBC sources says that friendly fire killed more than enemy fire. Why do some sources says that? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/28/newsid_2515000/2515289.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.105.159 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong date

This can't be right "(Operation Desert Storm officially ended 11 November 1987)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.153.208 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

opposition

There was widepsread opposition to the outbreak of war - in France, Britain, Itlay, germany. This should be talked about here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.85.230 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Peoplel such as Dr. Ali Attar befriended Paul Wofowitz and along with a group of Northern Virginian exciles started feeding the government with trumped up allegations. Small time Iraq exciles like F. Alsamarai created fabricated companies to work with Attar in pushing for the destruction of Iraq whole benefiting from the war. The Washington Post reported attar was being investigated for Medicare fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaissamarai (talk • contribs) 07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

why do people say that friendly fire killed more British than Iraqis

But 47 British soldiers died in the Gulf war instead of 16 British deaths. Several BBC sources says that friendly fire killed more than enemy fire. Why do some sources says that? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/28/newsid_2515000/2515289.stm 67.164.105.159 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

One million man military

Didn't the media at the time said that Iraq had a million man strong army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.170.97 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Authorization by US Congress

Can anyone include any info on how the war was legally authorized by the United States Congress itself?Waxsin (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't added mention of this to the article, but see Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 article. It seems to me that mention of this should probably be placed into a new "Congressional authorization" section just above the "Early battles" section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions

After seeing this edit, where one se\\unsupported assertion was changed to a differing unsupported assertion, I'be boldly removed the unsupported assertion entirely. I did spend a few minutes looking for support in this area, but didn't come up with anything. If there was a Security council vote to lift sanctions, and a US veto, and a statement by the US about the reasons for the veto (and there may well have been -- my check for sources was very hurried), supporting sources reporting about that probably do exist. I note that the cite immediately preceding the material I have removed is of a source dated 12 August 1999, so I'm guessing that this is the approximate timeframe we're talking about here, rather than the 2003 timeframe relevant to this news article which I turned up. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

UN & "Desert Storm"

Re this edit, I've changed Shield back to Storm, considering that the article says, "for the operational name of the military response". The operation known as Desert Storm was authorized by U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 678. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Commanders Section

In British Constitutional Law the Prime Minister is not the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces as the President of the United States is. Technically speaking the Prime Minister merely advises the monarch on deployment of British Forces. As such John Major should not be listed as a commander, HM Queen Elizabeth II should be instead.

Scrooge (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Coalition Casualties

The figures at the top of the page show 75000+ wounded and 19000-30000 killed for coalition forces; this may have been mistakenly mixed with Iraq's numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stick with the facts (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

combat box

it seems that Iraqi military forces are in the coalition sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Casus belli

The main reason for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was economical, Iraq had a eight year war with Iran and was left in a difficult financial situation afterwards. Kuwait and the other Arab states refuse to forgive Iraq's war time debt. Not only that but Kuwait from 1989 began to over produce far beyond it's OPEC limits causing the price of oil to fall. This pushes Iraq further in to economic difficulty and Iraq began to accuse Kuwait of involvement in a plot to overthrow Saddam's regime and eventually that lead to invasion and war. Has the Kuwaiti's given any good reasons since then why they where overproducing so much at the time ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.246 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

More pictures of Iraqi military forces are needed

It is very difficult to find pictures of Iraqi military forces during the Gulf War that are not pictures of destroyed vehicles. Most pictures available from the Gulf War are pictures of US and coalition forces, or destroyed/abandoned Iraqi military vehicles that were encountered by coalition forces as they travelled through Kuwait. Thus we have a lot of pictures taken by the coalition side. But does anyone know where there are available pictures taken by the Iraqi side that show its military forces at that time? I have encountered photographs and films taken of Iraqi military forces during the initial invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, but have not yet been able to locate many of them. There is the following film shown on CNN in 1990 of Iraqi forces entering Kuwait City on 2 August 1990, see here: [5]. There is this film that shows the same footage but describes parts of the footage and shows some other footage, [6]. Could screencaps of this low resolution film footage be used on this article under a limited use for educational purposes. I believe Wikipedia accepts limited usage of copyrighted material provided their source is acknowledged, that the pictures are of low resolution and of an important historical nature.--R-41 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

First bit of first sentence

I edited the first piece of the first sentence of the article from:

The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) commonly referred to as simply the Gulf War,...

To

The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991),...

Perhaps the phrase I removed was intended to clarify that the war can be referred to as "The Gulf War" or the "Gulf War"? If it was intended to clarify, it wasn't very clear. Furthermore, since there is a section in the article Gulf War#Alternate names for the Gulf War, this subtlety could probably be better covered there. I also changed the "other names" link in the second paragraph to go to the "Alternate names for the Gulf War" instead of this section's subsection, "Operational names". Cheers! Scientific29 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

PS, I also removed what appeared to be a non-functioning copy of a template already on the article. Scientific29 (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You were following on from someone who blindly removed the word Persian from the article, creating the non-functioning template and the meaningless lead. I've restored the article to its previous version (but kept your alternate names link, good change!). CMD (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Casualties, revisited

According to the book, "Inside the Kill Box" by Michael W. Romanowski and the subsequent documentary based on the book that has often appeared on the Discovery Channel, there were less than 250 Coalition casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BayBoomer1959 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Coalition troops killed by country" table seems to be wrong in terms of Egypt as it doesnt sum up correctly as the for the other countries.--134.106.40.32 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Article needs more attention to the Iraqi side, and photographs of the initial Iraqi invasion in August 1990 and occupation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There appears to be consensus to include an image on the basis of fair use of a historical photograph. However, as I inspect the article, there are several free alternatives which are provided leaving little room for an additional picture. With several images from the Commons filling the page, you're going to have to really assert how it qualifies as fair use amongst a lot of free images. The section on Invasion of Kuwait has too many photographs as it is, much less needing a copyrighted one too. However if the page is cleaned up and there is an entire section of commentary based on the photograph (which is what is needed for a historical photograph), then maybe you can add one. Regards, — Moe ε 06:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Two headlines above this, I mentioned that photographs should be sought of the initial confrontation between Kuwaiti and Iraqi forces in Kuwait City on 2 August 1990 - I found and posted a link of a film taken in Kuwait City on 2 August 1990 that shows the city being invaded by Iraqi ground forces (soldiers, tanks, etc.) assisted by helicopter gunships, shows Kuwaiti armoured vehicles firing at the Iraqi forces, and fire and smoke billowing behind Kuwait Towers. Here is a long version of the film with commentary [7], here is a shorter version of the same film shown on CNN that includes the actual background noises of the people filming it as well as commentary [8].

Since this is a historic film of the invasion of Kuwait, and is of low resolution, I believe that screencap pictures of it are acceptable through fair use on English Wikipedia given their historical nature. I have added material on Iraq's justifications for its war in Kuwait, but the article still does not have as much info nor photographs of the Iraqi side in the conflict. This needs attention and discussion on how such famous film footage of the August 1990 Iraqi invasion can be fairly used in screencap form, or even as a short video clip in the article.--R-41 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a photograph here of Iraqi armoured vehicles and tanks in Salmiya, Kuwait during the Gulf War from an English-language edition of an Arab news website, see here: [9]. Could this photograph be used on Wikipedia under a fair use license for a historical image: On the basis that it shows Iraqi military forces in Kuwait during their occupation of the country in the war.

I would like to hear comments. I would also like to hear if anyone has or knows of books or websites that show photographs of Iraqi forces in action or on duty. Note that I am not referring to abandoned or destroyed Iraqi vehicles encountered by coalition forces, but Iraqi forces in action or on duty in the war.--R-41 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and include it as long as it meets all wikipedia standards. United States Man (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with USM -BoogaLouie (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualty Update

According to the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/22/world/after-the-war-92-senegalese-soldiers-die-in-saudi-arabia-air-crash.html) Six Saudi AF officers died in the same plane crash that killed 92 Senegalese troops. I've added them in. It also mentions 5 Egyptian Non-combat casualties in a traffic accident I added them as part of the 11. Dick Inyo CA (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Source for this section needed, or it should be removed from the article

The Pentagon claimed that satellite photos showing a buildup of Iraqi forces along the border were this information's source, but this was later shown to be false. A reporter for the Saint Petersburg Times acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images made at the time in question, which showed nothing but empty desert.[72]

However, serious questions were raised later when it was revealed that the satellite images were actually Soviet military images, not private commercial images, and it would've been impossible for the Soviets to share original source imagery without compromising security of classified images. The images were, in fact, not different magnifications of one original source image of the area in question, but separate images taken at different times and locations. The Soviets were heavily invested in Iraq and made numerous attempts to stop the Coalition from invading Iraq, through diplomacy and also through deceptive propaganda; and in this case it was the Christian Science Monitor, not the Saint Petersburg Times who broke the story, as erroneously reported in this article and other publications.

So far as I can tell the CS Monitor has not printed a retraction, and that's a pretty interesting claim to make without a source. SFAIK, the U.S. Military now buys all commercial satellite footage over their areas of operation, post 1st Gulf War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.221.230 (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I second this, it should be removed if no citations are provided. ... Second thoughts, I've removed it myself. 7 months is long enough to source this claim. Harshmustard (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

cease fires do not end wars

The Gulf war technically ended in 2003. For certain analysis this is an important fact and it should be included here, as it is included in the Wikipedia ceasefire article. The Persian Gulf war ended with the fall of the Hussein government. TMLutas (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Countries in the infobox

Will whoever who keeps adding uninvolved countries in the infobox stop doing so without at least supplying sources? Thank you. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA

There is no UN authorization " coalition led by USA ," and it's pure propaganda. Where is source for this UN resolutions in which UN says "USA coalition has a UN mandate to attack Iraqi forces in Kuwait" ?

After every occupation (Iraq - Kuwait, Israel-Palestine, Israel - Syria, Israel - Egypt), United Nations declared resolution " UN condemns end of illegal occupation and requires for occupier to withdraw its army to specific dates, or next are consequences for violations of international law .

However, wiki are used by people from all over the planet and if USA citizens enjoy listening propaganda , rest of 98% of the planet does not have to listen this USA propaganda . So ,please source where UN says "UN gives authorization for U.S. led coalition attack". Even in Europe, no one speaks this USA propaganda story and even main stream media say "alleged or controversial"

The second thing!

USA - Iraq relations

The main thing is forgotten: USA with cooperation 2 more NATO countries flown to Iraq chemical weapons and helped organize Iraqi chemical weapons program and sent to Saddam satellite imagery position of the Kurds and Iraqis at which chemical weapons have the best effect.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

I bet that after next USA war no one will dare to write the truth as "United States is most responsible for creation of Iranian nuclear program and USA built the first reactor in Iran."

Propaganda brainwashed Americans, but the remaining of 98% of the planet does not have to read this nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 05:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The UN resolutions are all already mentioned and linked in the article. The rest is off-topic for this article. Rmhermen (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In which part UN resolution says "UN gives authorization to coalition led by USA" or "USA coalitions act in the name of UN"? Wiki says "UN has given authorization to USA-led coalition", source is UN resolutions and there is not exists single word about any UN authorization to USA led coalition, and there is not exists single word about any UN authorization to USA coalitions ? Very easily, see UN resolution (which you put as a source for the claim "UN gave authorization to USA coalition") and you'll see that this is not true. Or you're doing it on purpose?

All people on the planet read wiki but do not have  all people to read usa propaganda.

In section USA - Iraq relations is a "very important" information that USA provide Iraqi non military aircraft, but the fact that USA created Iraqi chemical weapons program, enabled Saddam to purchase chemical toxins from the west and to provide satellite images of the target for chemical weapons attack it does not matter and this is off topic??? This is hilarious. There is no more important part in USA-Iraq relations in 80s than USA help to Iraqi chemical program. No military aircraft are off topic but USA role in creating Iraqi chemical program is most important thing in U.S. - Iraq relations in period before Desert Storm Prize question: Will people for 2 years or for 3 years start to laugh to wiki as today laugh to CNN and FOX nonsense? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 is the one you are looking for and it is already linked in the text. Rmhermen (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, UN resolution 678 does not mention any "UN authorization to USA-led coalition" or "USA-led coalition acts in the name of the UN". As well as any UN resolution in case when one country occupies another country , UN says: "We call the state that occupied another country to retire army by a certain date or UN will take all necessary measures". There are 5-6 identical resolution in several different wars. It's the most normal procedure and next is procedure which directly empowers UN to act, all soldiers are under UN command , beginning and the end of the attack decides Security Council (not White House) , conditions for cessation of hostilities decides Security Council ....

Of course none of this not happen, of course that UN never gave authorization to USA-led coalition . The paradox is that UN Secretary General said "usa no-fly zones in Iraq are illegal and that it is against international law " ( see Iraqi no-fly zones ). That was USA condition for ending war. UN did not have the conditions for the end of war, because United Nations did not participate in the war. In China, India, most Asian countries, Muslim world, all European countries ( including all the countries of Western Europe ), Russia and ex USSR countries, South America, in all history books about the war in Gulf exists approximately the same this explanation about UN positions and procedures and if 98% of humanity is not superficial then even more ridiculous looks propaganda that radiates remaining 2% of humanity ( USA ) .

So, UN authorization to USA-led coalition is not mentioned anywhere in this resolution (in fact there is no mention USA, coalitions ,attack on Iraq , any forces that have links with UN ... nothing), not a single soldier was not under UN command, UN did not decide beginning of the war or about end of the war (February 28), UN did not decide conditions of end of the war and UN secretary general said that USA conditions are illegal but if the USA propaganda says "UN gave authorization USA-led coalition," then everything else is irrelevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This purpose of this talk page is to improve the article - not to debate the subject. If you do not understand diplomatic language or UN history, this is not the place to try to learn it. All reliable sources say that "Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" in UN resolution 678 was the legal foundation of the war. You could try the humanities reference desk. Rmhermen (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I very well understand UN diplomatic language (as well as 2/3 of humanity that never circumvent UN)but when you write "Resolution 678 legalized war" and post a source UN resolution 678, then you're lying and Resolution 678 does not give authorization to USA-led coalition, does not give authorization to USA-led coalition to act on behalf of Un, does not mention word "war" , "attack", "coalition forces", "Un forces " ... ... and like in case of any other occupation UN resolutions says "commit all member states to cooperate with (government of country which is occupied ) to assist in establishing law and order". From Korea to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Palestine until Iraqi - Iranian war, Gulf War, Bosnia ... all UN Resolution are identical and do not gives a mandate to a third party . Please do not make CNN / FOX propaganda on wiki page and before you post a source, first read this source. If UN is not accurate enough for you, you're not the one who should interpret UN resolution and explained that write something what do not write. Perhaps UN wanted to grant authorization to USA-led coalition to launch attack on Iraq and to justify USA attack but UN resolution does not mention any of that and you're not one who should to interpret what Un thoughts but did not written in resolution. Of course that UN resolution 678 is not " legal foundation of the war" because Resolution 678 does not mention words "legal" , " foundation " and "war". Try another source. CNN maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 10:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Patriot missile effectiveness

I know that the effectiveness of these missiles in Israel is merely a footnote with respect to the rest of the war, but I was an eye witness to all of the engagements over the Israeli city of Haifa and find the content to be different from what I observed.

When a scud was incoming, an air raid siren would alert everyone to go into sealed rooms. This included all of the military on the Patriot sites except for the US infantry assigned to security. I was one of those infantrymen. At this point we would take over security from the Israeli IDF soldiers so they could also go into the bunker on the missile site. I had a clear view of every engagement from a rooftop near the fire control center.

The very first incoming scud had 10 patriots fired at it. There were always two fired at once so there was redundancy. This first engagement the patriots were on automatic. The system continued to engage the debris from the initial hit until the system was shutdown. After that they limited the response to the initial two missiles. From my perspective, there were no scuds launched towards Haifa that were missed by a patriot and my understanding from the soldiers at Tel Aviv was that they had the same results. Half of all of the missiles launched were redundant and there were an additional eight wasted during the first engagement. Perhaps that is where the 45% number comes from, but it is deceptive to just say that they missed. One possible explanation for the lower numbers is that the patriots were designed for engaging aircraft and therefore targeted the center of the target. This often left the warhead to continue, albeit on a different trajectory. This trajectory change is important because the mission was only to engage scuds on a trajectory which predicted it landing in an Israeli city. The news coverage down playing the patriot's effectiveness seemed to be politically motivated and far removed from my observations.

Again, this is not important in the grand scheme of things, but for accuracy's sake I thought I would mention it.--Jbaylor (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Kuwait as combatant

Republic of Kuwait was established after Iraqi invasion finished and annexed less than month later. As far as I am aware it didn't even formally have any armed forces during its short existence, nor was there any noteworthy combat during its existence. So I don't really see why this Saddam's little PR trick is worth putting into infobox as belligerent.--Staberinde (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The number of Scud missiles fired ?

The number of Scud missiles fired from Iraq where 88. Of them 47 against Saudi-Arabia. But how many against Israel and I other nations? As I understand, a U.S. Army barracks where also hit.--85.166.158.109 (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda in this article

Hello,

For readers wondering why this article is so full of propaganda,

See this link: http://rt.com/news/five-eyes-online-manipulation-deception-564/

This article details a Snowden leak about a program named Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, an operation in which intelligence agencies infiltrate online communities such as Wikipedia to spread false information and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

An article from Russia Today accusing others of propaganda?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Life is full of propoganda. Besides, without proper citations, I wouldn't view the article as fact. That is why citations are so important. If you see something that you believe is inaccurate, you can back track through the citations. Greg (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheAmericanWay: Was gonna say something, but then i saw the submission date of your comment.. AIKÄRBÄST (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Really, TheAmericanWay? If we now discount propaganda then we can leave out just about all sources. And if we discount state-controlled media then we can leave out everything connected to Voice of America Wilhelmus Prinsgezind BATAAF VAN ORANJE 12:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinsgezinde (talk • contribs)

Correcting the end date

Wars do not end simply because of the end of a particular mission. Operation Overlord did not signify the start of WWII, nor would Operation Market Garden concluding mark the end of WWII if it had succeeded. Likewise, Operation Desert Shield did not identify the declaration of the start of the Gulf War with the termination of Operation Desert Storm marking the end of the Gulf War. The correct dates for the Gulf War are Aug 2, 1990, through a date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation.

As a result of the continuing open end date, all operations conducted within the southwest Asia theater of operations are considered to be part of the Gulf War. This includes Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, Operation Tiger Rescue, Operation Valiant Dragon, Operation Desert Fox, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn and so on are all an overall part of the Gulf War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.115.139 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan

Did not fight in war, they stayed in Saudi Arabia [10] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It says "The vote marks a major shift in the relationship between Islamabad and Riyadh. Pakistan has a long history of military cooperation with Saudi Arabia, basing thousands of troops there during the 1991 Gulf war. Sharif himself found refuge in Saudi Arabia after he was exiled in a military coup 16 years ago." Read Coalition of the Gulf War. You can start an RfC or DRN if you think Pakistan be excluded. Faizan (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It says "basing thousands of troops there during the 1991 Gulf war." they did not fight. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I reads Coalition of the Gulf War Pakistan has no source there? 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So the Thousands of troops are "based" for selling cream-cakes? See Section Gulf_War#Creating_a_coalition? Faizan (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It was a member of the coalition forces, at least that is what the article section says. We can meanwhile have a look at some sources to evaluate the claim eg. "it provided a military division to Saudi disposition in order to help the pro-Iraqi war effort" The New Politics of Islam: Pan-Islamic Foreign Policy in a World of States, p. 93). Mar4d (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

[11] You was told here to get sources saying Pakisan was "active partner in the coalition" You source does no support such. The last Watch (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Title needs to be changed

There have been several "Gulf Wars". This was at least the second, the previous one being between Iran and Iraq from 1980-89. I suggest it be changed to "1991 Gulf War". Flanker235 (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That one was never popularly called "Gulf War". "Gulf War" was mostly used in the West to simply give the people an idea where their soldiers were going in 1990. It would be bizarre for Iran and Iraq to call their 1980 war that way, and the West wasn't directly involved so that shouldn't be relevant. The Iraq war used to be called Second Gulf War, but since the Iraq War term became popular the 1990 war has just become "Gulf War". Wilhelmus Prinsgezind BATAAF VAN ORANJE 12:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinsgezinde (talk • contribs)

Depends on where you come from. Wikipedia does not write for any particular audience so what is vernacular in one part of the world may not be common in another. We have no evidence that either is completely accurate so in the best interests of clarity it really wouldn't hurt to use the date. Flanker235 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. We don't pick the title, the sources do. Our title just reflects what they are calling it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversies - Highway of Death

The section about the controversies regarding the "Highway of Death" should well...include the controversies, maybe? Not just a quote from a military official acting as a bottom line. A Commander who is coincidentally one of the individuals responsible for the incident. Because that looks highly onesided. At least it should contain WHY there even was a controversy (Ramsey Clark and his report, Geneva Convention, civilans casualities, etc). --StYxXx (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no. I say NO to including POV-pushing propaganda in articles.

• To begin with, we should not foster the view, spread by biased reporters etc., that these Iraqi soldiers were innocent, fleeing in surrender and defeat, and being bombed indiscriminately. The fact of the matter is that they were war criminals bearing weapons and riding in tanks who had not surrendered and who were still very capable of entering combat and inflicting casualties.
• The commander who was quoted was not "responsible for the incident" but rather was following orders and doing what had to be done to prevent more abuse and loss of civilian life. Quoting instead some Iraqi official's hand-waving would be sick, wrong, and biased. Furthermore, it is not just this commander but others who say the same thing.

It seems to me that we need to stop giving undue weight to unsubstantiated allegations strewn around by people bent on their personal POV and instead focus on the real war crimes and the real war criminals. Green547 (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello,

I am curious as to why Brazil is listed on the side of Iraq in this war? There seems to be no source, and no mention of the country in the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.255.26 (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I would also like to add that it is a bit ridiculous they are in there, they have almost nothing to do with the conflict. They 'resisted US policy on the gulf war' but by no means aided Iraq. That's like putting Ireland on the Axis for WW2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:C000:640A:6D69:FD55:19EC:BEFE (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed it from the box, because it lacked a cite. If somebody wants to add it back, please have a reliable source accompanying it. – Illegitimate Barrister, 01:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Missiles launched on Israel

Should the main infobox mention that Scud missiles were launched at Israel? i.e. It would look like Israel (no support). Eat me, I'm a red bean (t • c) 01:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Why are some of the Coalition countries bolded? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gulf War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090818141800/http://users.lighthouse.net:80/danvaught/eyewitness01.html to http://users.lighthouse.net/danvaught/eyewitness01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100821200403/http://people.psych.cornell.edu:80/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html to http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

Considering Turkey allowed it's airbases to be used for Coalition strikes against Iraq, shouldn't it be included in non-combat support?--RM (Be my friend) 09:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not Neutral

I dispute the neutrality of this article starting with the overemphasis of the word "coalition". This was an undeclared war waged against Iraq by the United States initiated by Commander in Chief George HW Bush. "The largest military alliance since World War II" is false and ridiculous. For instance, the Philippines was bullied into sending 200 medical personnel to Kuwait. This is a ra ra, pseudo-patriotic, "support the troops", article. Dangnad (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to criticize an article's neutrality, your comments will carry more weight if they're neutral.EdJF (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

The article title should be changed from the "Gulf War” to the “Persian Gulf War”

This article attempts to falsely rewrite history by adopting a subtle bias that is commonly used by certain organisations (private, governmental, or NGO’s) to advance their political and ideological narratives. If Wikipedia is to be transformed into such a domaine, merely a tool to advance the goals of certain stakeholders, be it unintentionally, the professionalism, and the positive image of this wonderful 21st century invention, will be tarnished. Indeed, history must be read and critiqued. However we cannot simply draw a line, or erase, certain historical facts, simply because we do not like it, and or, the current political climate encourages a particular narrative.

We, as human beings, as world citizens, are the bearers of the rich culture and civilisation that our ancient forefathers left for us. We must preserve it with dignity and pass it on to our future generations intact; even though at times this noble act maybe disregarded by a number of people who, undoubtedly, are in minority. Case in point are the bands of villains such as ISIS or Al-Qaida’s multiple incarnations and reincarnations that are ravaging the cradle of civilisation.

We witnessed, with heavy heart as Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan and did nothing. We watched, with tearful eyes as ISIS destroyed Palmyra, the crown jewels of the ancient Syria, and did nothing. Same individuals have long campaigned to change the name of the Persian Gulf but have failed repeatedly. Their efforts have now shifted to other less noticeable, but equally historically significant events. The correct, historically accurate term is the Persian Gulf War.

As a curator of a museum, I have taken my stand against such cultural destructions for 37 years. I urge you now, to recognise the important role that each and every one of you can play here, and take your stand.

Kind regards NuturalObserver (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)NuturalObserver

Say what? Mezigue (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@NuturalObserver: - the relevant Wikipedia policy in regards to the name of articles can be found at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Essentially though the key take away from this that I see is that "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." As such if you think the article title is not reflective of the sources that might be a valid reason to suggest changing it; however, you will need to be prepared to discuss how the name of this event is covered in books, articles etc on the topic and provide examples that support your proposed changed. Personally I have no opinion which way or the other; however, I expect that there would be a number of other editors with a more detailed knowledge of the literature on this subject that would be able to provide a more informed opinion on the matter. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gulf War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100711090755/http://www.deepdishtv.org/Series/Default.aspx?id=4 to http://www.deepdishtv.org/Series/Default.aspx?id=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Link needs correction

Someone allowed to edit this page should correct "Gulf war crimes?" biblio link to http://www.salon.com/2000/05/15/hersh_4/; current link leads to a music review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.198.5 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gulf War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090818141800/http://users.lighthouse.net:80/danvaught/eyewitness01.html to http://users.lighthouse.net/danvaught/eyewitness01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100821200403/http://people.psych.cornell.edu:80/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html to http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711090755/http://www.deepdishtv.org/Series/Default.aspx?id=4 to http://www.deepdishtv.org/Series/Default.aspx?id=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf . Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did the picture disappear?

It was obviously in the public domain. GMRE (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

the article has incorrect bad grammar

correct english grammar says that countries must be referred to with "her", not "its" nor "it" but this article uses the wrong way to refer to countries. in english grammar countries like ships have agency which requires the use of "her", countries are not soulless objects and thus cannot be referred to with "its" nor "it". Μαρια Σεξ Ντι (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Gulf War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_gul_war_coa_for-military-gulf-war-coalition-forces
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555_2/Arabian_Gulf_War.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://memoriaglobo.globo.com/Memoriaglobo/0%2C27723%2CGYN0-5273-256436%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011195656/http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.html to http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555_2/Arabian_Gulf_War.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/mrubin.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0%2C3604%2C558075%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028003924/http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/meria-rubin-sanctions-1201.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/meria-rubin-sanctions-1201.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205022732/http://history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/ds5.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/ds5.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deepdishtv.org/Series/Default.aspx?id=4
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1991/may91/may91walker.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/reference/gulfbib.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gulf War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102171502/http://www.cfr.org/publication/13865/isn.html to http://www.cfr.org/publication/13865/isn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614131250/http://www.cfr.org/publication/11205/un_security_council_resolution_678_iraq_kuwait.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F408%2Fkuwait to http://www.cfr.org/publication/11205/un_security_council_resolution_678_iraq_kuwait.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F408%2Fkuwait
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116162710/http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3425 to http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3425
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100627142037/http://www1.american.edu/ted/marsh.htm to http://www1.american.edu/ted/marsh.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328110957/http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cluster.htm to https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cluster.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051205094328/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227093110/http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part08.htm to https://fas.org/spp/aircraft/part08.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Things are wrong

Someone going to have to walk me through this because there is alot thats been left out..The entire Marine Corps was there and we didnt have many luxiries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbaylifeguard13 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kbaylifeguard13: I'm not sure what you're looking for, but you might be interested in these articles which are linked from this one: Order of battle of the Gulf War ground campaign and Liberation of Kuwait campaign. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

Add what the Marine Corps Did01:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Russellpayneusmc (talk) Russellpayneusmc (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: "What the Marine Corps did" is already in this article and covered extensively in related articles, including the articles Battle of Khafji, 1st Marine Division (United States), and 2nd Marine Division (United States). If you think there's something that is missing, please read the instructions for this type of request which instruct: "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2017

"Defence" in the first paragraph is misspelled; it should be "defense." 2600:8807:C840:117:99BF:DF4:EA43:1676 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Good spot. Mattster3517 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulf War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814211443/http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm to http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Gulf War Illness

Articel claims "Some factors considered as possibilities include exposure to depleted uranium, chemical weapons, anthrax vaccines given to deploying soldiers, and/or infectious diseases. Major Michael Donnelly, a USAF officer during the War, helped publicize the syndrome and advocated for veterans' rights in this regard."

Lacks a source, and if one goes to the head article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome) the use of DU, and the Anthrax vaccine are classed under the "Ruled Out" section

62.20.189.193 (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Faceoffeather

 Done I removed the sentence with this edit . Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Germany, Russia, and Japan were involved too

Proof: https://www.history.com/topics/persian-gulf-war 73.87.74.115 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)