Talk:Justifications for the US-Iraq 2003 war: "preemption" or "preemptive war"

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search


You seem to want to repeat the same horseraddish that was in the original "preemtive war" article. NB: the US-Iraq war was a war of aggression, and the divergence between the propaganda on this issue and the nature of this war should be highlighted, and not amplified.

I object to the title of the article: "preemptive war"... this is factually wrong. (1) it was not UN sanctioned (2) Iraq posed no imminent threat...

Noam Chomsky's comments are very apropos. Prof. Michael Mandel ibid.

Kind rgds -PaulR

I totally agree with you, which is why I relocated all the material and have reduced the article to a definition. The "creation" of 2003 preemptive war against Iraq leaves the door wide open for you or anyone to attack the premise.

Read the severely reduced preemptive war, then tell whether you still object.

We are in agreement here ... not UN-sanctioned, no imminent threat. Artificial Intelligence 13:21, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)

well start with this title

Yes, there were problems (and still are) in the "preemptive war" article. My main objection has to do with this article "preemptive war against Iraq" -- you basically have exported the problems of the previous page into this one. That is, (1) the US war against Iraq in 2003 WAS NOT A PREEMPTIVE WAR. (i am shouting now). (2) an article with a different title (highlighting the propaganda that has to be countered) has to take some examples and then analyze why this is not the case. (3) Chomsky and Michael Mandel's definitions and discussion are central to this, and urge immediate reinsertion of the Chomsky paragraph. (I will add the Mandel stuff when the dust settles).

Kind rgds -PaulR

I have no objection whatsoever to changing the title. Just wanted to separate it away from the definition. Perhaps putting the preemptive into " " will help to indicate that it is a misnomer .. maybe not. Unfortunately, I can report that the term is coupled with "war in Iraq" at every turn (losing coherence now).

It also comes down to the same old problem .. search engines and the searchers. An article that cannot be found, cannot be accessed, and, therefore, is of little use.

Perhaps you can come up with something a bit more appropriate.

No need to shout .. I agree with you, it was not preemptive. What I find most interesting is that all the sources that state this was an "illegal" war actually provide little more than opinion in support of that opinion.

No dust ... be my guest! Artificial Intelligence 14:38, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)