Talk:2003 Invasion of Iraq

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Despite Growing Violence, Iraqi Communities Find Ways to Assist Those Most in Need

The EPIC Ground Truth Project interviews a Baghdadi Pharmacist helping Women & Children in War-torn Iraq

In an exclusive interview with the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), Dr. Rashad Zaydan – founder of the Iraqi non-profit Knowledge for the Iraqi Women Society – explains how community-based organizations are essential for ending the violence in Iraq.

“If the U.S. continues these military operations, there will be more orphans and our problems will keep escalating,” says Dr. Zaydan. “We are more worried about other problems like education, medicine shortages, and electricity.”

Dr. Zaydan shares her experience providing job training and medical, financial and educational resources to Iraqi women and children in some of the most violent parts of Iraq. This is the second interview of the Ground Truth Project and is available here: http://dev.epic-usa.org/files/EPIC/the_Ground_Truth_Zaydan.pdf

The Ground Truth Project (http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2218) works to connect the Washington policy-making community and concerned citizens with the on-the-ground perspectives of Iraqis, aid workers, scholars, military personnel and others who have spent significant time in Iraq. By offering a diverse range of firsthand perspectives, the Project sheds light on new strategies to support Iraqi efforts to advance peace and development in Iraq and promote greater cooperation and stability in the region.

“U.S. and Iraqi military efforts to secure the country are only part of the story,” explains EPIC Educational Programs Coordinator Daphne Watkins. “Receiving far less attention are the numerous community-based initiatives bringing relief and development to Iraq, neighborhood by neighborhood.”

“Each day, Dr. Zaydan and the many Iraqis like her are meeting the immediate needs of Iraqi families while planting the seeds for long-term peace and development,” says EPIC Director Erik Gustafson. “Baghdad and Washington cannot solely rely on a top-down approach to stabilize the country. They must also find ways to support civil society initiatives, preferably through nongovernmental third parties, in order to make progress in areas where government bureaucracies and militaries have failed.”

About the Organization

Founded in 1998, the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) is an independent non-profit organization working through research and education to end armed conflict in Iraq, defend human rights, and help Iraqis advance peace and development for all Iraqis. Along with a member network of 30,000 concerned citizens, EPIC works closely with Iraqi Americans, veterans, aid workers and others who have served or lived in Iraq. For more information, visit our website at: http://www.epic-usa.org/

Disclaimer: The Ground Truth Project and series of interviews are owned and published by EPIC. The Ground Truth Project is not a movie, and it is in no way affiliated with the Focus Features’ film "The Ground Truth," its components, their agencies or production team.






I don't like this redirect system. "2003 Invasion of Iraq" is a bad name because 2003 and the invation is in the past, yet the war is happening now. Also, "Iraq" has 13 times as many views, mostly because it's linked from the main page, yet it has no real content or relevance to politics.

It doesn't matter what you "like" or "want" or consider a "bad name". There are very hard standards for this that took years to evolve at Wikipedia, where this event is called 2003 Invasion of Iraq], period. That's it's name, and if you don't like that, you have to convince everyone who relies on the GFDL corpus namespace to oh say rewrite ONE MILLION ARTICLES into a new naming scheme.
In other words, state your objection there not here, and if you can convince them to change their scheme for labelling events, fine, THEN change it here.

I think this page should be "Iraq War" and that should be linked from the main page instead of "Iraq". The war is the issue, without the war Iraq is, to quote the Sex Pistols, "just another country".

No, that's obvious nonsense: There have been several wars in Iraq including the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, the 1991 Gulf War, and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and subsequent Iraq occupation. You can make an issue statement about this and take any position you want on it, but please don't invent new names.

If I knew how to make redirects work I would just move this page to "Iraq" in order to get linked from the Main page, and then I would create a new page "Iraq_Nation" for the old content.

No, this is worthless and dangerous, and would start a trend of defying the Wikipedia neutral point of view naming conventions. Bad idea. In all discourse anywhere in the world, Iraq is the name of a nation, period, and does not need to be qualified as "Iraq_Nation". There have been several wars with it and in it, and so "Iraq War" or "Iraq War" is ambiguous. There is currently only one nation called Iraq, one Iraq occupation and there was only one 2003 Invasion of Iraq so these names are unambigous. If you wish a page on the issue U.S. participation in the occupation of Iraq, great, All for it, go for it, and take the position:US participation in the occupation of Iraq should end in 2005, wonderful, even more so, many people share that view, and there are many arguments for it. You might get a lot of people here to back that view up, or the position:US participation in the occupation of Iraq should end in 2006, or 2007, or 2008, or position:US participation in the occupation of Iraq should end before 2100 which is apparently Cheney's position. ;-) So you agree on something even with him.

13,000 people have clicked a link thinking it would give them info on the Iraq war, noyl to get a page of irrelevant info. It's time to fix this. Someone please go to my page and tell me how to make working redirects --PatriotismOverProfits 12:43, 9 Oct 2005 (PDT)

No, I think we have it right. Iraq is Iraq, it was before the war, it will be after. Right up top on that page is an explanation and a link to Iraq War. However, I also agree that a front page link to Iraq War makes sense. --Centerfielder 15:28, 9 Oct 2005 (PDT)
Correct, except, it's the occupation not the war that's the present issue, and the position on when US participation in that occupation should end.

Ok, it looks good now. BTW I added the explaination and link just before I posted here. We should see a lot more traffic on Iraq War now.

[1] agrees with you, so this is all right, but, as soon as the Iraqi Civil War breaks out, we'll need to change what the term means. This is not good. Better to stick to Iraq occupation etc.

I agree, stick to Iraq occupation --Joer80 07:32, 18 July 2006 (PDT)

Personal tools