Talk:Bush speaks of goals for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, decries calls for timetable

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Mrmiscellanious in topic Featured story???
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is not news, for one. Bush has stated many times that there won't be a timetable for withdrawal for quite some time now, so to create an article saying that one has been delayed isn't really news. Additionally, not many articles that I saw even hinted there would be a withdrawal from Iraq announced. I hope that this article will be shifted to more of a news-like piece, such as focusing on the President's comments today (and not implying that there was a withdrawal planned in the short future). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I renamed the article to a more accurate description of Bush's speech. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
[edit]

This article is very kind to Mr Bush. Remember that he is talking about a illegal war. its close to, if not, POW to bring his statement without unquestiond. Please take it away from frontside.International 13:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Its ok now, made it little more npow omho...International 14:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Suggesting in itself that the war is illegal shows your bias. --147.124.49.89 07:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Uhm, no. It may describe the user's point of view, but it also happens to be factual as the invasion was in violation of the USA's ratification of the UN Charter, as verified by the UN. (This also makes it, incidentally, illegal under the US Constitution which declares international treaties as the second basis for law, with legislated law third and the Constitution itself first.) - Amgine | talk 07:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
And the user's point of view would be his....BIAS! --147.124.49.89 07:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
A fact, in and of itself, has no bias. - Amgine | talk 08:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
btw: thanks for the edits; WN:SG calls for numbers to be spelled out in full, I believe (billion). - Amgine | talk 08:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd say that's untrue, to my knowledge, at least. The only cause I can find in the Charter are those that have to do with the destruction of sovereignty. However, one could also claim hypocrisy as there is also full documentation of the former government's various violations of both the UN Charter and the UDHR, and with the absence of sanctions all could imply that the war could be seen either ways. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Warning: this article as it appears on Dec. 3, 2005, clearly demonstrates a liberal (Democratic Party) bias. The wording is not neutral, or reflective of the American public's opinion as a whole. For example "Bush admitted that there had been..." cleverly slants the argument. Also, quoting the far-left Hillary Clinton in the first paragraph as an objective source clearly shows bias. An equally subjective quote from a Senator on the other side of the aisle would be appropriate. Read with grain of salt... -- posted by User:66.158.210.2

the word 'admitted' has been used as the administration has previously been giving positive and unqualified views of the state and capability of the iraqi security forces, see sample quotes below. the clinton quote is relevent to the substance of the paragraph it is in.

last time i checked wiki policy, quoting the "far left" was still allowed. further, wikinews edits do not aim to "reflect" the "american public opinion as a whole", they simply report what that is, as far as it can be determined.

would welcome an appropriate quote from a senator on the other side, do remember though, that there are already many quotes in the article from the white house itself, which too is "on the other side of the aisle".

sample quotes:

  • I'm encouraged by the increasing size and capability of the Iraqi security forces. Today they have more than 100 battalions operating throughout the country, and our commanders report that the Iraqi forces are serving with increasing effectiveness. In fact, this week coalition forces were able to turn over security responsibility for one of Iraq's largest cities, Karbala, to Iraqi soldiers. As Iraqi forces show they're capable of fighting the terrorists, they are earning the trust and confidence of the Iraqi people, which will ensure the success of a free and democratic Iraq.
  • The growing size and increasing capability of the Iraqi security forces are helping our coalition address a challenge we have faced since the beginning of the war.
  • Now the increasing number of more capable Iraqi troops has allowed us to keep a better hold on the cities we have taken from the terrorists.

[1]

  • Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

[2]

  • We are focusing our efforts on training the Iraqi security forces. As they become more self-reliant and take on greater security responsibilities, America and its coalition partners will increasingly assume a supporting role.

[3]

  • Professionally-trained Iraqi security forces are playing an active role in protecting their country. During the last 48 hours, for example, soldiers in the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps conducted thirteen independent patrols, resulting in the capture of several suspected insurgents. With more and more Iraqis eager to serve, Iraq's security forces now exceed 170,000 -- more than the number of Coalition forces serving in Iraq.

[4]

  • Iraqi security forces are actively defending Iraq from insurgents and extremists. Civil defense forces are conducting 25 to 30 percent of current operations inside Fallujah, and police forces are on duty in Baghdad, Karbala, and other cities to maintain order, particularly as Iraqis gather this weekend for the religious observance of Arabeen. These forces represent the vast majority of Iraqis, who favor an end to violence and are eager to continue Iraq's progress toward democracy.

[5]

[edit]

MerlLinkBot (talk) 14:12, 21. May 2009

MerlLinkBot (talk) 14:12, 21. May 2009

MerlLinkBot (talk) 14:12, 21. May 2009