`  == Leaning a little left of neutral ==  After reading just the second paragraph (regarding the UN), I have to say the facts are clearly one sided.  Isn't it true that the ``Oil for Food`` scandal would/has clearly influenced the members on the Security Council?  That the Members on the Security Council had very large economic interests in Iraq and would loose them if there was a war, and now the clearly vocal SG of the UN now being implicated in influence in the ``Oil for Food`` scandal.  These facts would clearly give the reader a better understanding of a possible reason why the UN acted the way it did.  The last and final resolution did warn Iraq of possible military solutions, if it did not comply.    One could clearly argue whether this is relevant or not, but just declaring that the Security Council was against the war without the above mentioned is avoiding reality.  -  I stand corrected this whole passage leaves out many important facts.  It also includes many unsubstantiated facts, such as Iraqi civilian deaths, that just go beyond the pale.  This passage clearly needs a complete top to bottom rewrite.  :i agree that the part you cite isn't neutral, but i strongly disagree with the characterization of its leaning as ``left``. anyway, it looks like you're new here at wikipedia. that's no reason you can't jump in and be bold. go to it, and good luck. (you'll need it. heh heh.)  14:10, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)  *I agree with you completelly. I'm glad you mentioned this on the talk page ahead of time as somebody who does lean a little left of center would certainly change your edits. This article needs to be rewritten.   :Well, pick out a chunk that is the worst example of the POV you're objecting to, and either fix it, or, if you want to increase the odds that it will survive for a while, hammer out a suggested alternative here on the talk page.     ==Absence of declaration of war: police action== This article is titled 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is perfectly fine and NPOV, but to claim in the opening paragraph that it is a war is to miss the essential fact that there was and has been no such declaration of war. If it is a war then it is illegal, however if it is considered as a police action falling within the executive authority, then it may be given some legitimacy under emergency powers. Even so, insofar as we would commonly refer to the invasion as a war (like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc.) this was a preventive war, not a pre-emptive war, and this should also be stated.    :some quick points: the police action article is weak, and basically serves as a setup for somebody to call any undeclared war a ``police action``. that's euphemistic government-speak. whether a war is declared has no bearing on whether its a war. that's simple logic. if the distinction is important to you at the article outset, then simply call it what you appear to be claiming: an ``undeclared war``. however, then the problem is that it was declared, but by the president and informally, not by congress in any fashion. while ``undeclared war`` is a stretch, it's not nearly as much as ``police action``. further, the iraq war does not meet a rough criterion (``local``) of the wiki-linked police action article. a war against an entire country is not ``local``. ``police action`` is a government term, invented by presidential administrations and sycophants to pretend they hadn't violated the US constitution.  :calling this a ``preventive`` war is about as POV as it gets. if you think ``preemptive`` is POV, then please remove that, rather than calling it something even more POV. and i'd caution against using phrases like ``more precisely`` as in the edits i reverted. that phrase, in both cases, was incorrect.    ::Since the president doesn't have constitutional authority to declare war, he cannot have declared it unless illegally. So you are saying it would be more NPOV to call this an ``illegal war`` than to call it a police action? I agree that undeclared war doesn't make sense. However, in common usage, it is a war, and most people won't immediately understand unless we say it is ``more precisely`` a police action. That is not POV, that is just clarification.  :::straw man alert! and most people won't immediately understand what? no idea where you get the need to bring in this term ``police action``. it's nothing but a term that claims ``wasn't no war, holmes,`` while bodies are lying everywhere. [[User:Salty