Talk:War on terror/Archive 4

Archived old talk to Talk:War_on_Terrorism_Archive

---

This title may be NPOV, as questions might be raised about the precise definition of "terrorism." The phrase "war on terror" is more questionable. But perhaps it is appropriate, because the title in and of itself expresses a POV. --Daniel C. Boyer

Yes the title is NPOV becasue that is what it is called by the great majority of English speakers. --mav

---

Other, new conflicts, like the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, were created within the framework.

This sentence makes it sound like the US one-sidedly created the Afghanistan and Iraq military conflicts out of thin air. If there is an advocate having this point, we should identify them and attribute this POV to them.

I'm planning to mention in the first or second paragraph briefly that the US attacked the Taliban and began helping to topple Saddam, in response to the 9-11 attack and Iraq's WMD hoarding, respectively. --Uncle Ed 19:35 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, whenever I work with you on an article, I feel like a gerbil on one of those wheel toys: we keep covering the same ground over and over. The causes and buildups for the two US invasions are each discussed at length in the articles on each topic. It is not appropriate to pick out the only cause that you think is legitimate and highlight it in this article. We would not, for example, say, "As part of the War on Terrorism, the United States and Iraq, as part of a strategy of encircling Iran", although many people believe this to be the case. So neither should we include your theories as to why they invaded. Also, I'd really appreciate it if you used English in these articles and not the mangled language of the Bush administration. Regime change? "toppled"? DanKeshet 20:25 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)