Talk:UK and U.S. bombing raids against Iraq increased in 2002

What was wrong with Sduffy's rewrite?
This rewrite is clear, to the point, and rather balanced. http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=UK_and_U.S._bombing_raids_against_Iraq_increased_in_2002&oldid=66754 It gets across the thesis of the 'new information' without being another opinion piece.
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence but the article as it sits now seems pretty good. The large blocks of quoted material could probably go but other than that it seems to be decent.  Sduffy 21:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Change of title needed
Since there was never a formal declaration of war, I am thinking that the title should be changed to say something like "... before action was authorized". This could mean authorized by UN 1441 or, in the case of the US, Congressional authorization to use force. Just having a hard time coming up with a title that works...


 * This is a good point. We tend to forget also that the '91 agreement was a ceasefire.

A title change may be necessary, but the focus of this article is on the premeditated attempt by the US and RAF to engender a hostile response from Iraq by bombing and raiding Iraqi targets in contravention of their treaties and international agreements. - Amgine/talk 20:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Understood. However, the term 'declaration of war' must be removed from both the title and first sentence since it is inaccurate.  Also, it must also be conveyed that, according to the terms of the prior ceasefire, US and UK forces were authorized to strike at targets within Iraq if they "posed a threat".  What is in contention here is whether the escalation of these strikes indicates intent and provocation to escalate the conflict prior to international and domestic authorization to do so. Sduffy 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the declaration. May I suggest "RAF and U.S. bombing raids against Iraq began before invasion"?
 * I would change "RAF and US"... Inconsistent.  "UK and US" makes more sense.  Also, the key is "increased" bombing raids.  We don't know if there was a response to a valid threat but we do know that bombing has taken place between the end of the last conflict and this one and that those were largely "authorized".  The big story here is, were the US and UK increasing attacks in anticipation of a conflict that had not yet been authorized by each nation or the UN.Sduffy 20:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * UK and US is good. I disagree about the "big story", but that is merely a difference in reading the article, and does not necessarily affect the title. - Amgine/talk 20:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the comment below, I think we would all be better off if this article was rewritten completely. "Declaration of war" is inaccurate and it appears in the first paragraph as well as the title, and there is too much quoted text that is unnecessary. Thoughts? Sduffy 00:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe you'll find the authorization to strike was limited to the no-fly zone and active threats, as opposed to attacks to degrade Iraq's military infrasturcture. The revelations this article reports is that the escalation of these strikes was a planned policy; that there was intent to provoke. It also reveals that troops invaded from Turkey well before the UNSC 1441. - Amgine/talk 20:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

New title suggestion
"New information suggests Allies initiated Iraq war months before action was authorized" ...or something like that. Having trouble putting something together but definitely need to remove "war was declared".

What part of this is news?
There is a lot of info here, but which part of it is news? Which of the attacks prior to the invasion weren't previously reported when they occurred?

After comparing with the times article I wonder exactly what the point is here? It looks as if we are JUST COPYING LARGE PORTIONS OF THE TIMES TEXT! Is this appropriate?

I still wish to know what is news? The memo was leaked and reported some time ago. What is the new information that the liberal democrats claim to have?

Are we just repackaging old news in the usual 'if we say it enough times it may seem new' propaganda war that's been going on for years now?


 * Agreed. There is also too much pasted text here for a news article.  References to the Downing Street Memo and Conyers' letter are appropriate but huge blocks like this are not.  Between the title and the pasted text, I think this whole article really just needs to be rewritten from scratch.  Sduffy 00:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Major rewrite/reworking
I reworded much of the first paragraph and removed all of the quoted text since it was unnecessary. I also removed the "Sunday Express" info relating to an invasion from Turkey. The only source I found relating this information appeared to be no more reputable than a blog. If someone can find that info in a fairly reasonable news or media outlet, then by all means, re-add it.
 * I have reverted your removal of the vast majority of the article. - Amgine/talk 04:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I have an explanation? You agree that it needs changed but you're only reverting to the old version without any reason or fixes...  Help me out here.Sduffy 04:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Category
edit protected Please add this article to Category:British Indian Ocean Territory. Green Giant (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)