Talk:Rationale for the Iraq War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article is light on details of deception used to justify the initial invasion[edit]

Colin Powell with model anthrax vial. Feb 5, 2003 at the UN.

There are many more details in the articles below. I may not have time to help much with this. So others with more time may find some of the info in the articles useful, and worthy of inclusion.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more info:
The Day I Realized I Would Never Find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. New York Times. By J.D. Maddox. Jan. 29, 2020.
-- Timeshifter (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Term paper by Ibrahim al-Marashi[edit]

Why is there no refence to the "sexed up dossier" that had large parts stolen verbatim from the term paper of PhD student Ibrahim al-Marashi? This was an important part of the propaganda campaign Apeholder (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oil as rationale[edit]

http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/?page=2

Per this source, Bush never stated desire to control Iraqi oil resources. The assertion of authority is assumed to be the desire to build permanent military bases for security reasons. It was the Defence Act passed by the House that automatically bundled these two things together. (Ex: US has military bases in UAE, Kuwait without controlling these countries' oil resources)

From the wikipedia article: In 2008, President Bush issued a signed statement declaring he would ignore any laws that prohibited using federal funds "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq".[85]

It is dangerously misleading to assume this is evidence in support of oil as a rationale for the Iraq War.


https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/world/struggle-for-iraq-diplomacy-iraq-said-have-tried-reach-last-minute-deal-avert.html?src=pm&pagewanted=3

From the wikipedia article: According to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the United States did not need to invade Iraq to control the oil. The New York Times reports that in February 2003, Baghdad had offered to give the US first priority as it related to Iraq oil rights, as part of a deal to avert an impending invasion. The overtures intrigued the Bush administration but were ultimately rebuffed.[86]

This statement of Saddam more properly belongs in the "Statement against oil as rationale" since Bush rejected the offer and subsequent oil contracts were open to foreign companies, including Russian and Chinese.

We can use this then https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights[edit]

From wikipedia article: Documents from the National Security Archive released in 2003 show that the US and Europe provided considerable military and financial support during the Iran–Iraq war with full knowledge that the Saddam Hussein government was regularly using chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish insurgents.

Recommend remove reference to "documents from the National Security Archive released in 2003 show" as US aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War was no secret

For example see book:

-Timmerman, Kenneth R. The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.

-https://web.archive.org/web/20040824084457/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-nightline-19920701.html


Also, should add note that US supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War to prevent its defeat and there was no enthusiastic support. Aid began in 1983 when Iraq was on the defensive and being invaded by Iran and this is around the time US realised Iraq was using chemical weapons in the war.

-Sciolino, Elaine (1991). The Outlaw State: Saddam Hussein's Quest for Power and the Gulf Crisis. John Wiley & Sons. p. 163. ISBN 9780471542995.