
------ == Archives == * Talk:Iraqi insurgency/Archive discussion of move - discussion of move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency on Wikipedia:Requested moves User:ObsidianOrder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Class of resistance == i find it incredibly offensive to state that somehow the 'upper classes' and 'educated' are somehow inherently non-violent, while the 'lower classes' and 'uneducated' are somehow inherently pro violent. let me remind you that although gandhi and king were middle class themselves, a large portion of their followers, indeed their foot soldiers in their marches, were 'lower class' and 'uneducated'. let me also remind you that upper class educated people are the ones who started the invasion in iraq. and upper class educated people have presided over some of the most brutal dictatorships of the 20th century, including Mobutu in Zaire, not to mention others. if this is 'neutral point of view' then i am a polkadotted rhinocerous. :Which part of the article are you referring to? I agree with you btw. If anything, the vast majority of violence comes from more or less 'educated' 'upper classes', although typically they manage to convince other people to do it for them. They are the ones who command armies and have their fingers on the nuclear button.The Iraq war is the obvious example for that. - User:Pir 01:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) Hi. I understand your point, but I think your'e taking that part of the article in the wrong way. All I'm saying was that the majority of Sadr's support comes from the poor, which is a fact. Most people living comfortable lives see no pressing need for action; on the other hand, people without jobs, electricity, or water could easily be driven to extreme measures. By the way, personally, I'm hardly for the Bush campaign, but I'm doing my best to keep politics out of here. I'm stating the facts, as my best research has led me to believe. Sometimes the facts don't fit in perfectly with a liberal or a conservative mindset. == Number of coalition casualties == The number of coalition casualties should be corrected not to misrepresent the success of guerilla attacks. Of the 568 American casualties, for example, only 385 are from actual hostilities. See [http://www.news-observer.com/front/digest/story/3433147p-3050751c.html AP article on a summary of the war in Iraq, one year later] (search on "casualties of war"). Is there a source for the claim that most of the Islamicist fighters are "free-lance"? It sounds like speculation. In response to the comment, the assertion that most foreign Islamist fighters are freelance is based on the conclusions of analysts and interviews with the insurgents themselves. I will add that it is not definite that most are not freelance, but that is the general consensus. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to post them. Thankyou Does anyone notice anything that appears to have been left out or needs to be corrected? It would be a great help if you would share your own knowledge or opinion on the occupation, the Iraqi resistance, guerilla warfare, or any related topics. Thankyou. Where can I find the actual statistics on the number of guerilla attacks that occured in Iraq in a given month? Preferably a graph starting from May 1, 2003. The exact number of guerilla attacks per month has been classified by the U.S military. However, we know that there were a total of 3,643 guerilla attacks from the beginning of May to the end of November, 2003, as reported by the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/29/guerrilla_war_in_iraq_spreading/. As of mid-February, a total of over 4,700 guerilla attacks have been logged. Attacks from the end of May to October averaged a dozen a day, following which there was an increase to 18 a day in late October and large spike to as many as 50 a day in early November. Attacks began declining from that high in late November until they reached 15 a day by the beginning of January. The massive U.S counteroffensive known as Operation Iron Hammer, an influx in aid money to placate the population, and finally the capture of Saddam Hussein all served to bring about the decrease. These events caused heavy insurgent losses, both material and psychological, especially for guerilla elements associated with the former regime. In response, the attacks slowed as the guerillas went through a period of reorganization and evaluation of U.S tactics. The attacks rebounded somewhat at the beginning of February, however, to 22 a day. The use of the term insurgent is somewhat loaded. It implies a degree of legitimacy for the US-led occupation which itself would be viewed by many as an insurgency. I think the term resistance, when used in context, is slightly more objective, and should thus be used here. --User:Pratyeka 00:05, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC) Thankyou for your input into this article. I appreciate the suggestions you have given me for the article. On the use of the term insurgent, I don't believe that describing the resistance as an insurgency compromises any objectivity. If I called them terrorists, or if on the other hand I called them freedom fighters, that would be very subjective. The resistance, which is in essence a guerilla-style rebellion against U.S-led occupation forces, fits the dictionary definition of an insurgency. I will not go about changing the wording once again, however, and I am satisified with the changes. Thankyou again for your help. Sorry to labour the point, but the Iraqi resistance doesn't necessarily fit the dictionary definition of an insurgency because an insurgency is "''specifically'' : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Think how often "insurgency" is used to describe the activities of the French resistance during WW2, say... They're just called "the resistance". If they were only fighting the local government perhaps "insurgency" would be fair, but for now they are fighting a foreign occupation too. == November 31? == From the article: :Occasions where fighters were concentrated in larger numbers included a battle near the town of Rawa on June 13, 2003 near the Syrian border and a large coordinated ambush of a convoy in the town of Samarra on November 31. Both involved groups of roughly 100 fighters. It wasn't until I added some links to this article that I noticed the 2nd date was bogus: the month of November only has 30 days. While I assumed this was just a typo & fixed it, it's possible that this bogus date was a flag to show this 2nd attack is a hoax. Could someone far more knowledgeable than me verify that there was such an attack, & if so, what the correct date was? -- User:Llywrch 17:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) I apologize for the typo error. The battle described did indeed occur in Samarra on November 30, 2003 (see http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/30/sprj.irq.main/index.html for reference). What is the source for those photos ? User:Ericd 22:31, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) I'm stating the obvious, but feel free to post any questions you have on the topic of this article here in the discussion section. Any updates and any additional information you might have would be very welcome in the article. == "Private contractors" or Mercenaries? == Is the expression ''"private contractors working for the alliance forces etc.."'' more accurate or ''"mercenaries hired by the anglo/american armies"'' more accurate? ''"Private contractors"'' sounds like innocent civilians, the Aegis and Blackwater dudes can't be even be held responsible for war-crimes...reportedly they have been committing most of them? ''"Alliance forces"'' sounds like ''"allied forces"'' the good-guys of WW2... ''"Axis"'' of Evil anyone? And is it really an wide alliance as the name would suggest? There is only nominal participation from countries beside US and UK.... What is POV and what is NPOV? I don't know... Any opinions on this? Thankyou for your opinion. I agree with you about the term "alliance." I'm not the one who started using that and I've been removing it from the article. On the issue of the mercenaries/contractors, I think that the term "mercenary" would be too biased in the opposite direction, but you're right, private contractor might not be best either. How about "private security contractor?" Do you think that will be far enough? I removed the description of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as "illegal"; although that's an arguable case, it's unnessecary to state that here and clearly indicates a bias. I'm going to condense the article slightly, while leaving all the same information in. There is some redudancy. I did this before, but someone restored what I removed for some reason. Why not call them mercenaries if that's what they are? "Private security contractors" sounds like weasel words to me. While the war and foreign occupation continues surely it's only fair to call these people "mercenaries" even if they argue that they're just doing "security support". ==History section== I mv'ed the history section to it's own article. This was done to lighten the bulk of that section ... the bytes should be a lil less now for the article. Anything past the transfer should go here and mabey added to the main article after some time [mabey? mabey not] ... User:Reddi =="Reconstruction"== I'm very unhappy with the term "reconstruction" to denote the period after the Allawi takeover, because it is highly POV. Check e.g. [http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080904A.shtml] for what "reconstruction" is going on according to a Reuters photographer who was there. We need to agree on a different word for this period. I propose something like "interim government" period if that's fine with other people. It is also POV to suggest that the occupation has ended when up to 200'000 foreign troops are still in Iraq, carrying out military action. - User:Pir 10:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Reconstruction is a good term. Iraqi sovereignty It is a period for Iraq as the occupying powers by the the United States-led multinational force in Iraq forms the new Iraq interim government and prepares for the country's elections. It is not POV to suggest that the occupation has ended ... Iraq is sovereign. The 200'000 foreign troops are still in Iraq, carrying out military action at the behest of the Iraqi government. User:Reddi : Talk pages are not there to discuss politics but to discuss writing the article. "Reconstruction" is not a NPOV term and I'd like us to agree on a different one to avoid an edit war. As for "occupation", the legitimacy of the interim government is disputed and regarded as a puppet by many, and this POV must not be excluded from the accepted terminology for the article to be NPOV. I'm not being unreasonable here. User:Pir 12:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) : I'm not discussing politics ... I'm discussing the facts. : "Reconstruction" is a NPOV term. What different term is there? Reconstruction will include your "interim government period" as well as any other events ("failures" and "successes") that will occur till the elections next year. The legitimacy of the interim government is disputed (note that fact) ... but the country is still undergoing a reconstruction. As to the interm gov being regarded as a puppet by many? Yes ... as many thought that the "Reconstructed South" after the US Civil War was a puppet. User:Reddi ::" ''The Reuters reporter I spoke to had been to several KBR-built permanent American military bases in his six month tour of Iraq. "That's where the oil industry money is going," he told me. "Billions of dollars. Not to infrastructure, not to rebuilding the country, and not to helping the Iraqi people. It's going to KBR, to build those bases for the military." According to the Center for Public Integrity, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has made $11,475,541,371 in Iraq as of July 1. ... As for the corporate takeover of the Iraqi oil industry, that has become the prime mission of the American soldiers engaged there. Kellogg Brown & Root also does a tidy business in the oil-infrastructure repair market. "The troops aren't hunting terrorists or building a country," said the Reuters photographer. "All they do is guard the convoys running north and south. The convoys north are carrying supplies and empty tankers for the oil fields around Mosul and Tikrit. The convoys south bring back what they pull out of the ground up there. That's where all these kids are getting killed. They get hit with IEDs while guarding these convoys, and all hell breaks loose."'' " [http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080904A.shtml] :: So building military bases is "reconstruction"? What the Bush men mean by "reconstruction" is most of all a giant subvention for Halliburton et al. Much of the money is not for reconstruction of infrastructure. The money spent does not help to reconstruct the Iraqi economy because it all goes to Western companies. The term "reconstruction" is about as NPOV as "corporate takeover of Iraq" - I guess you'll obejct to me using that word. What's wrong with "interim government period"? - User:Pir 12:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) :: 1st ... i just did a search in this article. The word "reconstruction" only occurs 4 times. :: 2nd ... For info on the reconstruction of Iraq, see that article. :: 3rd ... The "interim government period" is a subset of "Reconstruction". :: 4th ... Your POV is very appearant, JIMO. :: Sincerely, User:Reddi :::: Of course I have a point of view, did I claim to be so stupid as not to have an opinion of my own? Did I hide my opinions? You have an obvious POV too, and there's nothing wrong with that. Your and my opinions are completely irrelevant in this however, because the only thing which matters is whether the article is NPOV. I do my best to make my edits NPOV and I think I achieve that most of the time. The article as it stands is not NPOV, and I don;t see you making an effort to adress the issue. You have not responded to any of them. What's wrong with "interim government period"? - User:Pir 13:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::: : Did you try hide your opinion in the edits? yes ... as a commentary ... :::: : The article ''was'' pretty NPOV before. The article as it stands is not NPOV.
:::: : What's wrong with "interim government period"? It's a subset of the reconstruction [did u miss that?] User:Reddi
::::: That is not an argument against using the "interim government period". "Interim government period" is a very useful designation, because (1) it is NPOV ; (2) the situation in Iraq now is well characterised by interim government rule, and it will change again when (or maybe I should say if) there are elections and an elected government takes over. If you don't like it please come up with a useful alternative. - User:Pir 15:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::::: Specificall, please state HOW is it NPOV?
::::: The phrase "interim government period" is a designation of one part of the total reconstruction.
::::: There was a ''reconstruction of Germany'' ... there was a ''reconstruction of Japan'' ... there is now a ''reconstruction of Iraq''. Each had a interim government rule that changed.
::::: The current interim government rule may change (especially when the elections are held) ... '''but ''reconstruction'' will go on'''. I do not know of a useful alternative, do u have any?
::::: User:Reddi (PS., this is senseless, reconstruction is a NPOV term. I removed the tag. If you want to rephrase the sentences ... please do. BUT the article is pretty much NPOV. User:Reddi 15:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC))
:::::: Explain one thing to me: why would the Iraqi resistance fight the "reconstruction"? They want the foreign troops and their collaborators out, just like any other resistance movement. What kind of strategy do they follow by targetting the "reconstruction"? - User:Pir 19:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::::::: Sabotage and other violent actions are intended to set back reconstruction efforts and to push back progress in Iraqi society towards democracy. The authority is developing democracy is the ''so-called'' "collaborators". ''The violent resistance obeys no authority.'' Targetting "reconstruction" is key for them and the development of an open democarcy is not what they want. The non-violent group are not targetting the "reconstruction". User:Reddi
:::::::: "The authority" has as it's new head an ex-Baathist turned CIA collaborator(who worked for Saddam's feared secret service and later committed terrorist acts in Iraq, i.e. bombs targeting civilians) who at once clamped down on the freedom fo the press (banning al-Jazeera for example, re-installing on of Saddam's men to oversee the Iraqi media), it's in the process of restoring Saddam's secret service (renamed from Mukhabarat to General Security Directorate), they introduced a law for declaring martial law, Allawi is reported by a respected Australian newspaper to have killed six jailed suspects all by himself in June, they picked a fight with al-Sadr... - how exactly is that "developing democracy"?? And how exactly is blowing up oil installations pushing back democracy? Democracy isn't based on oil installations, it's based on people having control in a meaningful way over how their country is run.
:::::::: Some people in the armed Iraqi resistance have an interest in joining the political process, like al-Sadr who can militarily be easily defeated, but who has a lot of political power. In a survey in May he was found to be the third most popular Iraqi political figure, far ahead of Allawi. Sadr clearly has political ambitions and he has made moves to join the political process, and this is also the reason why he has been targeted by "the authority". So I'm afraid, what you say makes no sense to me.
:::::::: They are not targetting "reconstruction" because they don't like "reconstuction", they are targetting oil installations because they think their oil belongs to them and they don't think "The authority" has a right to use it. What the Iraqi resistance want is kicking out the foreign troops and their collaborators, who are their real target, and it's got nothing to do with reconstrucion. - User:Pir 00:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
==Juan Cole - this article needs some analysis==
First of all, there is nothing wrong with articles expressing POVs, as long as they are attributed rather than protrayed as "the truth", and as long as other significant POVs are not silenced. (I really don't think that Juan Cole can be accused of being particularly POV, he's an academic and knows much about the conflict.) So if there's other analysis of the outcome of the Najaf standoff that contradict Cole, please add them - I'd find that very interesting and support it 100%. But please don't keep removing it, as this article really needs some analysis. All the descriptive stuff is very important, but it is not sufficient to give readers a good understanding of what is happening in Iraq. - User:Pir 13:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For more opinions on the Najaf outcome check this page. Note also non-Western opnions. A NPOV article needs to include at least the main of these opinions. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3590050.stm] - User:Pir 13:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with articles expressing POVs? YMMV on that ... ''but not in a history section''. BTW, Juan Cole can be accused of being particularly POV, academics can be. Move the analysis of the outcome of the Najaf standoff (pro and con) to a more appropriate space. I'll remove POV disguised commentary in the history section. User:Reddi 14:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Have you evr read the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_basic_concept_of_neutrality? Under the heading "the basic ceoncept of neutrality", it says:
:''Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.'' -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
:The paragraph I added does just that: it describes what a well-informed and respected academic thinks of the situation. It might not even be my own POV, as I haven't made up my mind of the outcome of Najaf. You have no grounds to delete it. - User:Pir 15:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
: Also: what is ''history'' but a collection of the views of historians???? - User:Pir 15:28, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:: History is what occurred ... you speak of interpretations of history. User:Reddi
:::Are you serious? Do you believe that history is nothing but the sum of all events that occurred in the past, without any interpretation? Do you mean that the fact that John Doe got up at 7.08 on September 1 1923 and drank a half a pint of milk before going to work, is ''history'' with the same meaning as Hitler starting WW2 exactly 16 years later? How do we know Hitler started WW2? It's because historians have looked at documents from the time, evaluated the credibility of the sources and the importance of the data, analysed the data in their historical context, discarding irrelevant data (such as those about what millions of other John Does did at that time), etc. until they came to the ''opinion'' that this is what happened. That's what history is - the interpretation of data. - User:Pir 18:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::: The timeline of events is what is important. That is history (both of your example would include this). ''Meaning'', ''historical context'', and ''opinion'' are a subjective interpertation of those events (or, of history) [such as importance; the "Doe example" is semmingly unimportant; the "Hitler example" is rather alot more important]. User:Reddi
:::: So you ''are'' saying that history is nothing but the meaningless collection of all facts that lie in the past. Weird. Never heard that definition of history before. - User:Pir
As an aside, please note that the BBC's Middle East analyst essentially agrees with Juan Cole [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3605100.stm]. - User:Pir 21:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
== Reversion of changes by 164.58.80.66 ==
I've just reverted an edit by User:164.58.80.66. His changes were IMO an NPOV violation; they had the article start with "The Iraqi insurgents (sometimes reffered as resistance by people with anti-US tone)". There may be NPOV problems with the article, 164.58.80.66, but putting a massive NPOV violation in the *first sentence* isn't the way to fix them. -- User:Cabalamat 18:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
== Sourcing ==
I've temporarily removed the following, which really need to be sourced to be of any use:
''Sheik Hareth al Dhari has been described as the Mullah Omar of Iraq''
''Some believe that the major division in Iraq is not between religious/ethnic groups nor between the general population and violent groups, but between those who collaborate with the foreign occupation and those who resist it''
: It's in the article linked to in the immediately preceding paragraph [http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0716-12.htm], paraphrasing the opinion of Wamidh Nadhmi, political scientist at Baghdad university and spokesman of the National Foundation Congress. Why weren't you consistent and removed the following sentence ("''Though the divisions in Iraq between religious and ethnic groups (and, inparticular, between the general population and various violent groups) have became more appearant.'') ? It's an unattributed, unsourced POV statement for which there is little evidence but quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. - User:Pir 10:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:I put one sentence back and (temporarily) removed the other. If there's a source or at least an attriution, please put it back if you like. - User:Pir 19:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for both of those- I agree. User:Markalexander100 00:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Markalexander100 09:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also the following:
''Some of the groups that have claimed responsibility for attacks on the coalition occupying forces and sabotage include the "''Iraqi National Front of Fedayeen Saddam''", "''The Snake Party''", and "''The Return''"''
This was in the sabotage section, but it's expressed as covering any kind of attack, in which case it should be in the composition section. User:Markalexander100 09:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also:
''Suicide bombing are used in larger attacks to gain maximum media attention. ''
Is this really meant to mean that the bombers deliberately kill themselves in order to get attention, rather than because this is an effective way to kill more of their enemies? If so, it needs sourcing. If not, it needs rewording. User:Markalexander100 09:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:The reality is that this is primarily a psychological war. The way the war is perceived is actually much more important than the military situation. Since suicide bombing is such a shocking form of attack, and often can be more effective at grinding away at the will of the U.S and intimidating Iraqi police and other forces than just firing an RPG, it has become a favored insurgent tactic. That it is a more effective way for the insurgents to kill their enemies was mentioned elsewhere in the article. [Anon]
I don't believe a word of it. If we're going to include it, we need a source, and not to report is as indisputably true. User:Markalexander100 00:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:I agree with Markalexander100. The only studies I've seen of the psychology of suicide bombers suggest that they are people who have been severely traumatised by conflict, like being tortured or the loss of a close relative ; 2/3 of female suicide bombers are said to have lost ther husband or to have been raped. - User:Pir 08:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also:
''In Kufa, The identity of the attackers was unknown, reportedly though a source of gunfire was near an Iraqi National Guard base (20 killed; 70 wounded). [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3600384.stm] [http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6078307] [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/26/iraq.main/index.html] [http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=283760&lang=e&dir=news].''
This is gibberish. User:Markalexander100 09:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::: Yes, it's a silly beating-about-the-bush version to avoid saying the obvious (that the Allawi government shoots at peaceful marches) and not contradict the Western media orthodoxy (that Allawi is a good guy in a difficult situation). It needs rewording. - User:Pir 10:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==POV phrases==
Nationalists - Why are the fighters called Nationalists and not Patriots? Americans are never described as nationalistic. Americans are "patriotic,". The non-western world is never called patriotic, they're nationalistic; and those among them who fought for sovereignty and power are never patriots, but at best nationalists. Nationalism has a pejorative quality.
Foreign fighters - This is used in the article to refer to people who often have ethnic and religious ties with Iraq. Why are Americans in Iraq not called "foreign fighters."?
:This is due to systemic bias (and, not inconsequently, undemocratic media ownership and the subsequent framing of public discourse). Wikipedia is a very anarchic example of history writing, but it's far from perfect. And there's not an awful lot Wikipedia or MediaWiki can do to counter it, because the problem is mostly one of demographics, economics and politics. i.e. things will get framed in a certain way because the people writing them are disproportionately white and male, disproportionately American, and disproportionately written by people from white collar backgrounds -- and these people hold a world-view different to other demographics. So, from my point of view, one of the best ways to counter such systemic bias on Wikipedia is to systematically get people involved in who are not white, male, American, or from a white collar background. Another would be to replace capitalism with participatory economics -- User:Christiaan 16:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, agreed. My questions were mainly rhetorical. I have an interest in systemic bias issues. - User:Xed.User talk:Xed 16:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::I tried to edit a couple Iraq articles, but found that a couple -- especially this one -- were mostly held by British and American anti-Islamic bigots, and found that there was no point in trying at all (unless I enjoyed being the target of bigotted hate-filled flames), so I suspect the reason that this article is so obviously biased, is that it is defended by rabid supporters of the Bush propaganda machine, and it might be that no reasonable person will enjoy entering into such flame contests as they may throw at anyone failing to heed their party line... The fact that this is a wikipedia featured article was enough to make my interest in helping wikipedia rather wane -- this seemed to exemplify the dominance of rich white anti-Islamic bigotry, as mentioned above, in wikipedia Iraq articles. User:DonaldTrump
::::Okay, I assume you're talking about me since I responded to some of your earlier comments. You just called me (and/or the other people who have similar points of view) "bigoted", "anti-Islamic", "hate-filled", "rabid", plus the obvious stereotyping of "rich white American". Oh, and my comments are "flame contests". Perhaps you would like to point to a single comment I have made which was bigoted, hate-filled, or even merely uncivil? I'm not the one throwing adjectives around. By the way, your stereotyping is completely wrong. P.S. Please, and I ask for the third time, sign your comments. User:ObsidianOrder 09:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::To me (and probably to most rational people?), this "Go back to dailyKos or your al Qaeda cave or wherever you came from, idiot." is theh a token that an article is not open to real debate. I believe someone (I did not name you, as I do not know you or what you said, but if you wish the claim credit, apparently, I will not stop you) told me to hew the party line and treat the puppet government as a UN sanctioned savior, or something; it was so laughable I gave up. This whole article is so biased, as I thought was the discussion about in this little subthread, that there is really no point in trying to help it, as long as there are strong defenders of the propaganda-slant who will insist on keeping the bias. It is better to laugh at it, and show it to other people as a joke about the US propaganda on wikipedia, so that is what I do -- than to engage in petty little arguments with propagandists, which accomplish nothing.
==Unintegrated addition==
On 16:44, 24 Sep 2004, User:Jkh.gr added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Iraqi_resistance&diff=6128613&oldid=6123007 this] large chunk to the foot of the page. It all seems good stuff, and it has been wikified a little since, but it seems to me that this ought to be either integrated further up the page (where some of the groups are already mentioned) or in a separate article of its own, say Iraqi resistance organizations? I could Wikipedia:be bold, but I've not edited here before and I don't know the issues very well - do other contributors have a view? -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 18:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Ahmm... It's actually a copy-paste from an article posted to Indymedia. The original is from a newspaper in Baghdad, and was translated into English by FBIS. It's actually linked to in the external links ([http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/09/az091904.html]). It's better to remove the text, it's probably a copyvio. - User:Pir 20:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== "Conflict in Iraq" != "Iraqi Resistance" ==
There seems to be some people who insist that any mention of a "Conflict in Iraq" should be linked to this article, & not to the more comprehensive Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004. I fail to understand the logic in this linking. This article, based on its subject line, is only about one party in this conflict: the individuals & groups opposed to the US forces & their allies. The article I've made an effort to redirect the phrase "Conflict in Iraq" to, "Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004", not only covers both sides but also the larger history of the event. To use an anlogy, using this article to stand for the entire conflict would be exactly like using an article on the Soviet army or the German army alone for World War II, instead of that comprehensive article. Wouldn't you find it confusing & frustrating to follow a link from an article on, say, an Italian Blackshirt regiment or a Japanese warship to find it led to a discussion of the Soviet Army 1939-1945?
:Frankly, I find it wrong to include events (for example) as the refusal of 19 Army Reservists stationed in Iraq to take part in a fuel delivery convoy mission under a header that is concerned only with the opposing side. The Iraqi Resistance did not have any direct effect on this refusal; this refusal is best included as a matter related to the more comprehensive article. Let's try to preserve the proper relationship between the articles, so that students consulting Wikipedia are helped, not confused. -- User:Llywrch 18:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::I apologize. I have been guilty of this for the past few weeks. I saw someone previously link to Iraqi resistance so I simply kept with precedent without realizing there even was a better article to link to. I don't know why it didn't occur to me but now that it has been pointed out I will link future Current events dealing with occupation of Iraq to the obviously better article Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004. Thanks to User:Llywrch for the heads up message sent via my user talk. -- User:Dejitarob 00:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== title ==
haven't read all the discussion points yet, so I apologize if this point has already been raised, but it's not really an Iraqi resistance. The article should be titled something else (I don't propose any specific title, but if you demand suggestions, Iraqi insurgency, Terrorism in Iraq, etc.
Ahmed
:Sorry, I don't understand. Why do you think it's not an Iraqi resistance? User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)~~~~ at the end which will expand into your name and the time. Also, please refrain from making deliberately inflammatory comments. User:ObsidianOrder 21:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: If you mean, pretend that the Iraqi Baathist dictarship is not a US puppet dictatorship, why should I pretend that? I mean, would it further the purpose of wikipedia if we all pretend to certain propaganda agendas? I guess it avoids controversy, if we all follow a given party line. Maybe the moral is that unless I'm ready to buy into certain propaganda (that seems silly to myself), I should not try to help correct certain pages such as this one?
::"Baathist dictarship"?? Are you referring to the Allawi government? As for why it's not a "puppet dictatorship" - perhaps because it is the closest thing to a participatory government Iraq has ''ever'' had? It includes representatives of most major political blocs. The new National Assembly will be even better, of course. User:ObsidianOrder 00:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::P.S. Sign your posts User:ObsidianOrder 00:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== 195.14.210.34 contributions ==
195.14.210.34 added these...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_insurgency&diff=10783006&oldid=10730517
I don't have a problem with them, I mostly tend to agree with the analysis, but they do seem rather editorial/conjecture/original research. Is there a source for these claims? Mainly (a) Baathist cells are dissolved, and (b) Nationalist groups are becoming more influenced by Islamists?
I'll rv the election comment, I think 400 attacks does constitute a "serious attempt to interfere".
User:ObsidianOrder 08:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== What if they had an edit war, and nobody came? ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_insurgency&diff=11133465&oldid=11132788 Some poor editing]. Please stop reverting to this. Everybody take a look at Christiaan's proposed changes (basically weak rationalizations for the insurgents, IMO) and decide on what's appropriate for the introductory part of the article. --User:Daniel11 15:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I hope you're not trying to obscure the fact that you're also trying to revert csloat's edit? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_insurgency&diff=11132640&oldid=11131255 this is my edit] not the one you posted. It is also clearly not conclusive as to who carries out all these attacks. ?User:Christiaan 15:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with Christiaan; looking over the edits of Daniel11 they seem both destructive and heavily POV. If you want to claim the Iraqi resistance goal was to stop the January election, you need evidence, and you need to explain why they are still resisting now that the election is over. When evidence is presented of Iraqi resistance that avoids targeting civilians, you shouldn't just erase it. I think we all need to keep in mind that there are many different insurgent groups in Iraq, some resisting the US occupation, others resisting the Iraqi provisional government, and a small minority resisting "democracy" generally. Trying to pretend that they have a single goal may be comforting to your own narrow worldview, but it just doesn't represent reality.--User:Commodore Sloat 23:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Trying to pretend they have peaceful allies supporting their actions appears to be mere imagination. What peaceful groups have signed onto the anti-shia and anti-democratic attacks? Perhaps there is some remaining Bathist and wahabi sympathizers with the insurgents, but if they are an organized group, they should be documented specifically, not presented as a general sentiment of Iraqis or against the coalition.--User:Silverback 05:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Your edits are Orwellian. You and Daniel11 are doing everything to remove any evidence that the resistance is popular or that there are elements of the resistance who are not terrorists. There are peaceful groups who oppose the occupation, and there are also violent groups opposing the occupation who do not target civilians. I will take out the sentence you're objecting to here just to avoid an edit war, but I am reinstating all the other changes, which you reverted without explanation. Again, I think this entry needs to be true to the reality that there are multiple groups resisting the U.S. occupation, and that they have different goals. Your assumption that they are all allied with Zarqawi, who is anti-Shiite, is at odds with reality and it is completely insulting to the many Shiites who oppose U.S. occupation. Let's not forget what I wrote elsewhere on this page -- Ayatollah Sistani, who is the key reason we had an election in January rather than going by the original Bush plan in the first place, has made it very clear that between the Bush Administration and the Sadrists, he prefers the Sadrists. --User:Commodore Sloat 07:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::Sorry to disappoint, buddy, but the occupation is over. I'm sure you must be terribly disappointed -- after all, there's plenty of "popular" "resistance" who "peacefully" share your opposition to the "U.S. occupation" (even when there was an occupation, it was the coalition's, not the U.S.'s) -- but those days are over, Iraq is now governed and legislated by Iraqis. On a no doubt similarly sad (for you) note, it must be a great disappointment to see the end of the "resistance": now that the terrorists have no chance of affecting the political resolution, they're basically just criminals instead of terrorists or even insurgents. When you attack civilians and some hard targets in order to change the political situation, like Al Qaeda or Hamas or your insurgents in Iraq back in the day, you're terrorists; when you're just blowing up civilians for the hell of it, you're really not much more than a serial criminal. It's gonna be harder to stand up for them as this transformation becomes clear to you -- but, I'm sure you'll give it your best whack. --User:Daniel11 20:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::The occupation is over? Since when did the Iraqi government get control over U.S. military major operations? ?User:Christiaan 20:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::To add to this.... if you think the occupation is over will you please send this information to the National Guards who have been kept in Iraq beyond their contracts so that they can make plans to come home? Will you please tell that to the residents of Fallujah, so that they too can return home? While you're at it, please tell Mr. Bush; [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=586104 given his announcement this week] that we may be occupying Iraq militarily for a long time to come, it's clear that he didn't get your memo. Message to Daniel11: stop acting as if those of us who are actually looking at the complexities of the situation are somehow pro-terrorist. And read something about the reality yourself, rather than just believing everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. Every poll in Iraq has consistently shown a majority of Iraqis -- Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, even Christians -- percieve the US as an occupying force. Even the people who won in the election that you think Bush deserves credit for want the US out. Wake up. And until you do wake up, please stop trying to change the historical record to fit your absurd caricature of reality. --User:Commodore Sloat 22:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== Take 2: What if they had an edit war and a few people came? ==
Not this again.... ok, first, why do you keep on putting "U.S. occupation," "U.S. this," and "U.S. that" back in, when these are all coalition activities? I understand there's a lot of (justifiable?) bitterness or envy or whatever toward the U.S. in Europe and other parts of the world, but surely even you acknowledge the basic fact that these are coalition activities, not U.S. activities?
Next, why do you keep trying to hide the names of things like the ITG, which people will see anyway once they click on the link? Does it really bother people with your bias to see things like "Iraqi Transitional Government"?
And finally, while there may be people in Iraq who peacefully disagree with the ITG, the presence of coalition forces, Iyad Allawi, or whatever, this article's not about them, it's about the Iraqi insurgency. If you want to mention those who have peaceful disagreements with anything in the new Iraq, why don't you slip it in as one of your many "hidden" messages of support for the "resistance" later in the article? It most certainly does not belong in the introductory paragraph. --User:Daniel11 11:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I put U.S. this and U.S. that because accuracy is important. This is also an article about Iraqi resistance (not the U.S. invasion) and therefore such terms comply Wikipedia self-identification conventions. ?User:Christiaan 11:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::This doesn't answer my questions or address the issues involved... you're still hung up on your obsessive ideas of WP self-identification conventions and "systemic bias." --User:Daniel11 12:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes it does. Do you have a problem with Wikipedia conventions? ?User:Christiaan 12:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::Where do you answer why you keep hiding the names of important, relevant organizations? Where do you answer why you keep mentioning those peaceful Iraqis who disagree with the ITG in the introductory paragraph of an article about insurgents? And no I don't have a problem with WP conventions, though as I indicated you do seem to obsess about them quite a bit. --User:Daniel11 12:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'm not a babysitter Daniel. I'm sure you can work it out yourself. Yes I'm well aware of your personal remarks. ?User:Christiaan 12:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::::Well I've tried, but somebody keeps reverting me ;) --User:Daniel11 12:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== We need to change the article name back again ==
The problems associated with the rather politically motivated decision to change this article from ''Iraqi resistance'' to ''Iraqi insurgency'' are now beginning to show; with User:Daniel11 attempting to remove all mention of non-violent Iraqi resistance. This article needs to be changed back to its original name to as it is too narrow a definition and it doesn't comply with Wikipedia self-identification conventions. ?User:Christiaan 11:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Now that the non-violent Iraqi resistance has a voice in the national assembly they too are a target of the insurgency.--User:Silverback 12:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::"the" non-violent Iraqi resistance. Haha. ?User:Christiaan 12:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Since you saw the widespread support for renaming the article, I assume you know that it wasn't politically motivated, and that you're unlikely to succeed in moving it back (but feel free to try). If you're truly concerned about those Iraqis who disagree with some policy of the Iraqi Transitional Government or the presence of coalition troops, and who don't blow people up or otherwise take part in the insurgency, I'm sure there are more constructive ways (on and off Wikipedia) of making a difference than obsessing about the "U.S. invasion," "U.S. occupation," "U.S.-installed government," and so on. --User:Daniel11 12:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Now that problems are becoming clear with the decision I'm sure Wikipedians are intelligent enough to realise when they've made a mistake. I'm sure you'll understand why I don't respond to your personal remarks. ?User:Christiaan 12:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Somehow we need to deal with the problem that the merging Iraqi Resistance and Iraqi Insurgency has created. Very clearly there are matters of encyclopedic value that are not being dealt with properly because this merger. It's also being used by politically motivated editors to try and remove any hint from Wikipedia that there might be a legitimate resistance taking place against U.S. occupation. I would suggest we need to either change back to ''Iraqi Resistance'' (of which armed insurgency is one aspect) or recreate Iraqi Resistance as separate from Iraqi Insurgency. The first option makes far more sense to me. ?User:Christiaan 20:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::That makes most sense to me too but I don't think the ones who have been censoring this information will go for it either. I'm OK with the second option if it's acceptable to more people, but I also don't want to do it myself... not today, anyway :) But I don't want to continue this rv war, which has gotten ridiculous. I find especially problematic Daniel11's edits, because he blatantly lies about the purpose of the edit in the edit summary. But I don't want to keep rv-ing, and obviously it leads to stagnation in terms of the article itself. Anyway I am for a separate article if the others here will go for it. --User:Commodore Sloat 22:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Look, you can create whatever articles you want. Personally I don't see what you would have in an "Iraqi resistance" article, but go ahead and do it if you like. I don't see that there's much, if any material that's appropriate for such an article, and as you can see Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Merging, you might be contributing to the problem of having several redundant articles on a topic, but I'd be curious about what you come up with. As I say, it's up to you, I'm not going to interfere with what you do on Wikipedia, except to the extent of dealing with your POV shenannigans e.g. in this article (Iraqi insurgency).
:::As for Christiaan's accusation that I'm "politically motivated" and censoring information concerning a "legitimate resistance taking place against U.S. occupation," consider that the occupation's over, it was never a U.S. deal to begin with but rather coalition activity, and as discussed in the article renaming proposal it's not a resistance. So, apparently the info I'm "censoring" is more a reflection of ''your'' political motivation, anti-American sentiment, and so on. First, know thyself. --User:Daniel11 15:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::The reason you don't see why there's enough info for an Iraqi resistance article is you keep erasing it. Frankly I think your edits are abusive and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Your claim that the occupation is over is, of course, complete fantasy, and it has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere on this page. If the occupation is over why is the U.S. still keeping troops there (many staying beyond their time in a sort of back door draft)? Why are Fallujans afraid to go home? You're also a complete moron if you believe the occupation was not primarily a U.S. occupation or that it isn't perceived that way in Iraq.
--User:Commodore Sloat 19:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::The only things I deleted that are vaguely relevant are Sheikh Jawad al-Khalisi, and the reference to trade unions. So you could have an article about your Sheikh, if he's notable enough (all the Google hits I looked at were repetitions of just one article); and then you could put something about the trade unions somewhere, but since they're victims of your so-called resistance rather than members of it, that wouldn't belong in an article about "resistance." The rest is basically spin that doesn't belong in any article, like claims of "winning hearts and minds" and repeated jabs at "invading" forces, "foreign military occupation," a
Iraqi insurgency
------ == Archives == * Talk:Iraqi insurgency/Archive discussion of move - discussion of move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency on Wikipedia:Requested moves User:ObsidianOrder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Class of resistance == i find it incredibly offensive to state that somehow the 'upper classes' and 'educated' are somehow inherently non-violent, while the 'lower classes' and 'uneducated' are somehow inherently pro violent. let me remind you that although gandhi and king were middle class themselves, a large portion of their followers, indeed their foot soldiers in their marches, were 'lower class' and 'uneducated'. let me also remind you that upper class educated people are the ones who started the invasion in iraq. and upper class educated people have presided over some of the most brutal dictatorships of the 20th century, including Mobutu in Zaire, not to mention others. if this is 'neutral point of view' then i am a polkadotted rhinocerous. :Which part of the article are you referring to? I agree with you btw. If anything, the vast majority of violence comes from more or less 'educated' 'upper classes', although typically they manage to convince other people to do it for them. They are the ones who command armies and have their fingers on the nuclear button.The Iraq war is the obvious example for that. - User:Pir 01:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) Hi. I understand your point, but I think your'e taking that part of the article in the wrong way. All I'm saying was that the majority of Sadr's support comes from the poor, which is a fact. Most people living comfortable lives see no pressing need for action; on the other hand, people without jobs, electricity, or water could easily be driven to extreme measures. By the way, personally, I'm hardly for the Bush campaign, but I'm doing my best to keep politics out of here. I'm stating the facts, as my best research has led me to believe. Sometimes the facts don't fit in perfectly with a liberal or a conservative mindset. == Number of coalition casualties == The number of coalition casualties should be corrected not to misrepresent the success of guerilla attacks. Of the 568 American casualties, for example, only 385 are from actual hostilities. See [http://www.news-observer.com/front/digest/story/3433147p-3050751c.html AP article on a summary of the war in Iraq, one year later] (search on "casualties of war"). Is there a source for the claim that most of the Islamicist fighters are "free-lance"? It sounds like speculation. In response to the comment, the assertion that most foreign Islamist fighters are freelance is based on the conclusions of analysts and interviews with the insurgents themselves. I will add that it is not definite that most are not freelance, but that is the general consensus. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to post them. Thankyou Does anyone notice anything that appears to have been left out or needs to be corrected? It would be a great help if you would share your own knowledge or opinion on the occupation, the Iraqi resistance, guerilla warfare, or any related topics. Thankyou. Where can I find the actual statistics on the number of guerilla attacks that occured in Iraq in a given month? Preferably a graph starting from May 1, 2003. The exact number of guerilla attacks per month has been classified by the U.S military. However, we know that there were a total of 3,643 guerilla attacks from the beginning of May to the end of November, 2003, as reported by the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/29/guerrilla_war_in_iraq_spreading/. As of mid-February, a total of over 4,700 guerilla attacks have been logged. Attacks from the end of May to October averaged a dozen a day, following which there was an increase to 18 a day in late October and large spike to as many as 50 a day in early November. Attacks began declining from that high in late November until they reached 15 a day by the beginning of January. The massive U.S counteroffensive known as Operation Iron Hammer, an influx in aid money to placate the population, and finally the capture of Saddam Hussein all served to bring about the decrease. These events caused heavy insurgent losses, both material and psychological, especially for guerilla elements associated with the former regime. In response, the attacks slowed as the guerillas went through a period of reorganization and evaluation of U.S tactics. The attacks rebounded somewhat at the beginning of February, however, to 22 a day. The use of the term insurgent is somewhat loaded. It implies a degree of legitimacy for the US-led occupation which itself would be viewed by many as an insurgency. I think the term resistance, when used in context, is slightly more objective, and should thus be used here. --User:Pratyeka 00:05, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC) Thankyou for your input into this article. I appreciate the suggestions you have given me for the article. On the use of the term insurgent, I don't believe that describing the resistance as an insurgency compromises any objectivity. If I called them terrorists, or if on the other hand I called them freedom fighters, that would be very subjective. The resistance, which is in essence a guerilla-style rebellion against U.S-led occupation forces, fits the dictionary definition of an insurgency. I will not go about changing the wording once again, however, and I am satisified with the changes. Thankyou again for your help. Sorry to labour the point, but the Iraqi resistance doesn't necessarily fit the dictionary definition of an insurgency because an insurgency is "''specifically'' : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Think how often "insurgency" is used to describe the activities of the French resistance during WW2, say... They're just called "the resistance". If they were only fighting the local government perhaps "insurgency" would be fair, but for now they are fighting a foreign occupation too. == November 31? == From the article: :Occasions where fighters were concentrated in larger numbers included a battle near the town of Rawa on June 13, 2003 near the Syrian border and a large coordinated ambush of a convoy in the town of Samarra on November 31. Both involved groups of roughly 100 fighters. It wasn't until I added some links to this article that I noticed the 2nd date was bogus: the month of November only has 30 days. While I assumed this was just a typo & fixed it, it's possible that this bogus date was a flag to show this 2nd attack is a hoax. Could someone far more knowledgeable than me verify that there was such an attack, & if so, what the correct date was? -- User:Llywrch 17:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) I apologize for the typo error. The battle described did indeed occur in Samarra on November 30, 2003 (see http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/30/sprj.irq.main/index.html for reference). What is the source for those photos ? User:Ericd 22:31, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) I'm stating the obvious, but feel free to post any questions you have on the topic of this article here in the discussion section. Any updates and any additional information you might have would be very welcome in the article. == "Private contractors" or Mercenaries? == Is the expression ''"private contractors working for the alliance forces etc.."'' more accurate or ''"mercenaries hired by the anglo/american armies"'' more accurate? ''"Private contractors"'' sounds like innocent civilians, the Aegis and Blackwater dudes can't be even be held responsible for war-crimes...reportedly they have been committing most of them? ''"Alliance forces"'' sounds like ''"allied forces"'' the good-guys of WW2... ''"Axis"'' of Evil anyone? And is it really an wide alliance as the name would suggest? There is only nominal participation from countries beside US and UK.... What is POV and what is NPOV? I don't know... Any opinions on this? Thankyou for your opinion. I agree with you about the term "alliance." I'm not the one who started using that and I've been removing it from the article. On the issue of the mercenaries/contractors, I think that the term "mercenary" would be too biased in the opposite direction, but you're right, private contractor might not be best either. How about "private security contractor?" Do you think that will be far enough? I removed the description of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as "illegal"; although that's an arguable case, it's unnessecary to state that here and clearly indicates a bias. I'm going to condense the article slightly, while leaving all the same information in. There is some redudancy. I did this before, but someone restored what I removed for some reason. Why not call them mercenaries if that's what they are? "Private security contractors" sounds like weasel words to me. While the war and foreign occupation continues surely it's only fair to call these people "mercenaries" even if they argue that they're just doing "security support". ==History section== I mv'ed the history section to it's own article. This was done to lighten the bulk of that section ... the bytes should be a lil less now for the article. Anything past the transfer should go here and mabey added to the main article after some time [mabey? mabey not] ... User:Reddi =="Reconstruction"== I'm very unhappy with the term "reconstruction" to denote the period after the Allawi takeover, because it is highly POV. Check e.g. [http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080904A.shtml] for what "reconstruction" is going on according to a Reuters photographer who was there. We need to agree on a different word for this period. I propose something like "interim government" period if that's fine with other people. It is also POV to suggest that the occupation has ended when up to 200'000 foreign troops are still in Iraq, carrying out military action. - User:Pir 10:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Reconstruction is a good term. Iraqi sovereignty It is a period for Iraq as the occupying powers by the the United States-led multinational force in Iraq forms the new Iraq interim government and prepares for the country's elections. It is not POV to suggest that the occupation has ended ... Iraq is sovereign. The 200'000 foreign troops are still in Iraq, carrying out military action at the behest of the Iraqi government. User:Reddi : Talk pages are not there to discuss politics but to discuss writing the article. "Reconstruction" is not a NPOV term and I'd like us to agree on a different one to avoid an edit war. As for "occupation", the legitimacy of the interim government is disputed and regarded as a puppet by many, and this POV must not be excluded from the accepted terminology for the article to be NPOV. I'm not being unreasonable here. User:Pir 12:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) : I'm not discussing politics ... I'm discussing the facts. : "Reconstruction" is a NPOV term. What different term is there? Reconstruction will include your "interim government period" as well as any other events ("failures" and "successes") that will occur till the elections next year. The legitimacy of the interim government is disputed (note that fact) ... but the country is still undergoing a reconstruction. As to the interm gov being regarded as a puppet by many? Yes ... as many thought that the "Reconstructed South" after the US Civil War was a puppet. User:Reddi ::" ''The Reuters reporter I spoke to had been to several KBR-built permanent American military bases in his six month tour of Iraq. "That's where the oil industry money is going," he told me. "Billions of dollars. Not to infrastructure, not to rebuilding the country, and not to helping the Iraqi people. It's going to KBR, to build those bases for the military." According to the Center for Public Integrity, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has made $11,475,541,371 in Iraq as of July 1. ... As for the corporate takeover of the Iraqi oil industry, that has become the prime mission of the American soldiers engaged there. Kellogg Brown & Root also does a tidy business in the oil-infrastructure repair market. "The troops aren't hunting terrorists or building a country," said the Reuters photographer. "All they do is guard the convoys running north and south. The convoys north are carrying supplies and empty tankers for the oil fields around Mosul and Tikrit. The convoys south bring back what they pull out of the ground up there. That's where all these kids are getting killed. They get hit with IEDs while guarding these convoys, and all hell breaks loose."'' " [http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080904A.shtml] :: So building military bases is "reconstruction"? What the Bush men mean by "reconstruction" is most of all a giant subvention for Halliburton et al. Much of the money is not for reconstruction of infrastructure. The money spent does not help to reconstruct the Iraqi economy because it all goes to Western companies. The term "reconstruction" is about as NPOV as "corporate takeover of Iraq" - I guess you'll obejct to me using that word. What's wrong with "interim government period"? - User:Pir 12:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) :: 1st ... i just did a search in this article. The word "reconstruction" only occurs 4 times. :: 2nd ... For info on the reconstruction of Iraq, see that article. :: 3rd ... The "interim government period" is a subset of "Reconstruction". :: 4th ... Your POV is very appearant, JIMO. :: Sincerely, User:Reddi :::: Of course I have a point of view, did I claim to be so stupid as not to have an opinion of my own? Did I hide my opinions? You have an obvious POV too, and there's nothing wrong with that. Your and my opinions are completely irrelevant in this however, because the only thing which matters is whether the article is NPOV. I do my best to make my edits NPOV and I think I achieve that most of the time. The article as it stands is not NPOV, and I don;t see you making an effort to adress the issue. You have not responded to any of them. What's wrong with "interim government period"? - User:Pir 13:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::: : Did you try hide your opinion in the edits? yes ... as a commentary ... :::: :