Talk:Gulf War

Template:FAOL An event mentioned in this article is a August 2 selected anniversary

Using an image from an Amiga game to illustrate this article

A persistent anonymous editor is insisting on using this image [1] for the top of the article. I think it is completely inappropriate. I'm not going to break the 3RR over something like this, since it's not "vandalism" so much as just a poor encyclopedic choice. Thoughts? Antandrus (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to keep reverting this. If it is not simple vandalism, then at the very least it is trolling. - SimonP 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an argument could be made that it is vandalism. If not, it is very close to vandalism. At best, it is completely inappropriate. I'll take the next couple of reverts. If they continue past 3RR then we can report them for violating it and/or semi-protect the article so we don't have to waste too much of our time with this. Johntex\^talk 19:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The license on this image allows use only in an article dealing with the game in question, thus it is inappropriate for this article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's off topic and of a poor quality. --86.29.252.36 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as far as we know it, real life is not a video game...yet! Fermentor 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How can troops that are not present suffer 100.000 casualties

If Bush's claim that Iraqi troops were in significant numbers in Kuwait was false, how could they then suffer vast casualties when defending Kuwait. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prezen (talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Questionable statement

This struck me as being out of place, first for grammar reasons and then for context reasons:

"The U.S. remained officially neutral during the outbreak of hostilities in the Iran-Iraq War, as it had previously been humiliated by a 444 day long Iranian hostage crisis and expected that Iran was not likely to win. "

First, it should read "..a 444-day long..", or even better: "....THE 444-day long...", or just "...the Iranian Hostage Crisis".

Secondly, why is this even mentioned? Is there a citation to support this event as being THE reason why the US remained officially neutral? It smells like speculation to me, and I think the whole article would better from removing everything in that sentance after the comma. I'm not going to edit it quite yet, because I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I want to feel out the boundaries. Fermentor 08:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kissinger famously said: pity they can't both lose. The US had offered support to the Iranians warning them that Iraq was preparing war and been rebuffed, while Iraq was a Soviet ally and on the US countries-supporting-terrorism list.Prezen 14:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone should elaborate on that statement rather than leave it hanging there. It appears completely irrelevant. Encyclopedias generally do not give the reader the benefit of the doubt when it comes to specifics. Remember that I'm not talking about the first part of the statement, that the U.S. remained neutral. I'm talking about the Iranian Hostage Crisis comment. Fermentor 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I notice that someone has edited the article to say that Iran was the Soviet ally. This is wrong and I will change it right away. Prezen 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice !

i have some points i'd like to discuss , just hope to correct informations depending on sources !

• if you count the number of troops in the (Coalition involvement) sector (Troop deployment) , you would get the sum = 883,863 soldjers , while in the info box there is only 660,000 soldjers .

• for such reason i'd note that i dont remember any joint of the Turkish forces in the operation , or at least Turkish forces have not arrived to Saudi land and adminstrated their operation from Turkey it self.

• there is no signs about Qatar which have been in huge action in Battle of Khafji.

• 7000 kuwaitis only protecting their land ? how comes?

• lets sort that list by alphabets or by number of troops , and lets post sources beside each

, then let's request to lock the edit on the article for non-regestered users , keeping it away from random edits.

thanks :) Ammar 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the numbers go all over the place of late- this really needs citations. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

in fact , all the article need so :) hehe Ammar 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

social

who are the key players involved in this crisis and peacekeeping event —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.216.196.1 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

The U.K., U.S.A., France and Germany, I beleve. --Lilidor 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia's bit,ect.

Don't foget the Australian S.A.S' inteligence role in Iraq, the Australian brigade in N.E. Saudi Arabia, Argentina's aircraft carryer in the Gulf by Quatar or the 2,000 strong Bangladeshie unit in Saudi Arabia.

--Lilidor 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Or the Czechoslovak and Senegalese units. See Answers.com's 'Gulf war' page for proof! --86.29.252.36 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

reference cited in a paragraph

A paragraph under the "infrastructure bombing" subsection actually cites Tom Clancy as the source for the statement. I quote the following:

"He walked to the embassy courtyard, opened the briefcase, took one GPS reading, and put the machine beck in the case. then he returned to the U.S, gave the GPS receiver to the appropriate intelligence agency in Langley, VA, where the position of the U.S. Embassy was officially determined. This position served as the origin for a coordinate system used to designaye military targets in Baghdad. (Clancy, Tom. "Armored Cav". Berkley Books, 1994, p. 180.)"

Is this really the best source for that information? I hesitate to edit it before I have a better solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.255.252 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I find it difficult to believe that we did not have coordinates for our own embassy, even before GPS. I don't know about the rest of the forces, but 1st Cav received GPS (SLGR) units only days before the ground war started. These were of limited use, as maps (mostly hand drawn) were marked in latitude and longitude using LORAN units, whereas the SLGR used military grids. Bad weather at the start of the ground war also prevented satellite acquisition. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

South Korea

I was thinking that South Korea should be listed below the UN forces on the graph. It was not a United Nations member at the time of the Gulf War, but it did send troops and fighters to assist and its involvement in this war I believe lead to South Korea being admitted to the UN. Just a thought Magnum Serpentine 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation or deletion?

I was just looking over this page and noticed the sentence:

This was denied by the Iraqi government, who claimed that the allied bombing campaign had damaged and destroyed Iraqi oil tankers that were docked at the time,

Is that comma at the end meant to be a period or was the rest of the sentence deleted at some point? I thought I'd let someone more familiar with this article work it out as the vandalism (if that's what it is) wasn't in the last few edits as far as I can see. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Biliography

• What is the purpose of the bibliography here? None of these articles are being used as references.
• The entries are formatted in an odd manner such that the links do not work.
  • They use the cite web template, but half of the fields are outside the template.
  • They use ref tags to create references that don't work since they are after the references section.
• I have not checked all of them, but the last URL does not match the title, and there are two others that 404.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a partial fix on the ones using the cite template. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Different story

Removed

Murder of Col. James Sabow

The intensity of focus on the operational activities in the Persian Gulf enabled criminal elements within the USG and DoD, on January 22, to murder Colonel James Sabow in Orange County, California at the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. Several hours after disclosing to Gen. John K. Davis his intention to expose USG involvement in drug smuggling using MCAS El Toro and other military bases, the message to Headquarters Marine Corps announcing that Col. Sabow had committed suicide was prepared, followed by Col. Sabow's death in his backyard within MCAS El Toro on the morning of January 22. Col. Sabow, who had been the acting Chief of Staff for MCAS El Toro at the time of his death and was a Marine aviator who served in Vietnam, suffered a blunt-force skull fracture from a club-like weapon, followed by an intraoral shotgun discharge into his brain. The DoD and USG ruled the death a suicide upon discovery of the body, which is the official determination to this day.

Reason: not part of this story. Midgley 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this article was deleted per AFD. Also, "murder" is an allegation. The official finding is suicide. — ERcheck (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Casualties

The 250,000 number cited in the Information table is inconsistent with the section "Iraqi deaths and wounded". In fact, it appears to be high by a factor of 5 - 10. How is this number justified?--Kbk 07:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Medics in the war

I have looked all over the net and haven't been able to find much information on the Forward Surgical Teams that were implemented in this war. They were important and helped a lot of people. I know there was at least one as part of the 101st airborne division. I think this needs to be researched and added to this page. -skip (uberangryghost@yahoo.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.46.152 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Iraqi/Yemeni split

I remember that Saddam's original plan was to invade Saudi Arabia in an alliance with Yemen. Does anyone else remember this? Jtpaladin 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a Media Support only , no military allience , Palestinians and Jordon did the same . Ammar 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet source for documents?

Hello, I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good online resource for documents pertaining to the war? I mean documents like speech transcripts (like Saddam's 17 Jan 1991 "Mother of all Battles" radio address) and declassified military documents and the like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.235.204 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed non-computer munitions reference

The paragraph referencing "computer war" erroneously contained references to the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter," which is a large conventional munition dropped out of the backof MC-130s. The primary method of locating and dropping this weapon, developed during Vietnam, is sight angle, out of the windows of the C-130 dropping it. There's nothing "computer" about it, so I deleted references to it in the computer war section. - Mugs 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of "citation needed" remarks

I've noticed a prolific overuse of "citation needed" remarks akin to marking "on a normal sunny day, the sky is blue" as "citation needed." Most the points where some prolific citationist has posted these remarks are well-known, well-established, and well-documented facts, understood by nearly all those who were adults during the Gulf War. They're not fanciful claims, or uncharted personal opinions, and since I've made only one correction to this article, which has not be "citation needed," I feel free to contradict the over-prolific use of whoever has posted them here. Recommendation: Before you slap a "citation needed," please take the 60 seconds to Google the information on your own to ensure that it's warranted, as most "citation needed" marks are NOT warranted. If you need help on your Googling skills, please stop by my talk page. Thanks. - Mugs 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)