Jump to content

Talk:Iraq Study Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kalev Sepp

[edit]

BTW, CNN just mentioned Kalev Sepp as part of the Iraq Study Group, which seems to fly in the face of the facts of this article. Anyone know? From CNN [1]:

Kalev Sepp is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. He also serves on the Iraq Study Group, a panel that was created by the U.S. Congress.

-- Fuzheado | Talk 03:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two relevant quotes from the story:
Kalev Sepp is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. He also serves on the Iraq Study Group, a panel that was created by the U.S. Congress.
(In response to a question): KALEV SEPP, NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL: Jim, nobody's got a solution yet. As has been evidenced in open source reporting and a number of newspapers, the Baker-Hamilton Commission is working on presenting a number of options to the administration in Congress, but those aren't defined yet. And I think it's very correct for them to wait until after the November elections before they present their final decisions.
I believe that Sepp is a staffer, providing support to the group, and not a member of the ten-person panel (commission). I say this because he is (a) a professor at a military school, and (b) refers to the Commission as "they" and "them", not "we" and "us". John Broughton | Talk 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authority to change foreign policy

[edit]

Cut from intro:

The panel had no direct authority to change Iraq policy, but the panel did make policy recommendations.

I thought that only the President can change U.S. foreign policy. Is this common knowledge, or am I just wrong about this?

Anyway, we're all interesting in what pressure Congress has put and intends to put on Bush.

Shortly after Congress gave overwhelming bipartisan support to the US invasion, the Democratic Party began saying they thought the invasion was a mistake. They've repeatedly called for a unilatiral U.S. withdrawal ever since. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but their withdrawal suggestion is not predicated on Iraq asking us to leave; they want us to leave whether or not Iraq's government requests us to stay, right?) --Uncle Ed 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's hard to pin where democrats as a whole stand on Iraq...even individuals are somewhat inconsistant. We don't have enough soldiers to end the violence....it's our very presence that is causing the violence...they don't want us there....we need to prove that we will leave if they don't take charge.... That sort of thing.

Senator Harry Reid said yesterday that this report said that we must withdraw from Iraq...as if they were supporting his position when in fact the report stated that withdrawing before success would be a disaster for the region.

And yes, the President is responsible for foreign policy with oversight from Congress. The reason the President is in charge of this is because when you deal with other heads of state, it's a little more difficult to make aggreements when you're dealing with a committee.Culmo80 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80[reply]

Mandate

[edit]
  • ...panel members said their mandate was primarily limited to finding a a way to stabilize Iraq alone, (although they could consider the regional context) rather than assessing it in the context of the larger U.S. war against international Islamofascism. [2] --Uncle Ed 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed??

[edit]

Why is there a citation needed after the first few lines? We don't need to cite the fact that the study group was commisioned by the Congress. Please, someone remove it because it doesn't make sense to cite something that is universally acknowledged. Its not like its some disputed theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC). The fact that the study group was commisioned by the US congress is important background. 145.253.108.22 11:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

[edit]

"Iraq is currently undergoing civil war." Hasn't there been a lot of discussion about whether "civil war" is the right term? It looks like your captioner is either biased or jumping the gun on this ~ unregistered user —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.69.127.105 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well yes, I suppose it should be changed, but it's one of those "PC things." I mean, there is discourse about whether it should be called a civil war, but it's blatantly obvious that it is. But whatever. A rose by any other name....--75.73.153.252 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary?

[edit]

Shouldn't the major recommendations of the report be summarized here? If we don't want to debate which ones are major, could we not list all 79 in point form? Afil 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi President's Response

[edit]

[3] This article definitely needs to be included in some way

"If you read this report, one would think that it is written for a young, small colony that they are imposing these conditions on," Talabani said. "We are a sovereign country."

Is this article only about hearsay?

[edit]

The article quotes various leaks about what the report was expected to say. That has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. The rumors prior to the release of the report ar unimportant. The article should pe rewritten, eliminating all these references and present the actual conclusions of the report.

Afil 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Vandalism

[edit]

I just deleted some phrase like "this study group is founded by terrorist selling scout girl cookies..." whatever. Just wanted to raise a flag and say this arcticle is prone to vandalism. Be on your guard people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SvenGodo (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wildy POV

[edit]

This article says that there was dispute between conservatives, and "liberals who want to take a more pragmatic approach to the Middle East." This is not only POV, it's factually incorrect, as everyone involved wanted to take a more pragmatic approach to the Middle East. 69.118.222.77 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Study Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Study Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iraq Study Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Study Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_Study_Group&oldid=1207736281"