Talk:Iraq War

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Please: This is the UNCYCLOPEDIA. If you feel like posting real things, please don't do it here. Go to a real encyclopedia.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.39.144.162 (talk • contribs)


TOTAL REHAUL[edit]

The entire thing is barely funny and looks like a giant anti-War poster. I've tried fixing up the Introduction but the rest of the article is barely Uncyclopedia material. We need the great comic minds of Uncyclopedia to quit being so political and actually make this page funny. Get silly if you have to, this topic has more potential than simply being another "flame the right-wing" thread. ~Daniel

[1] Please read other discussions before making bold proclamations. A "total rehaul" is totally unneeded. If you want to add content to the article that falls under the theme of "parodying a liberal rant," go for it. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, this page looks like it was written by angry conspiracy theorist or Jihadist. I will totally lighten this article later. -MadhatterMadigan

Not Funny[edit]

True=not funny

There is hints of humor inside, and Rangeley is right anything pretty much is welcome at Uncyclopedia, however, by not posting your name on your very rude opinion, you have already displayed yourself as unconfident and not of any actual concequence. Please:Leave your name and any rude opinions at home, or find a wiki to complain on. Thank you. I hope my opinion wasn't that rude...If it was, apologees, but my opinion stands. The HRH MuCal. Tayor Lz4.jpgMUN (Praise!) (CMC!)

Rangley, this is not funny at all. For the love of God, let others change it!

-The Great Gabbo

Actually, it is a bit dry. Something to do witha lack of purile jokes to do with Jesus, God or Bill Gates, i.e. the holy trinity. --80.3.0.40 01:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"After 9/11, Bush immediately began planning to invade Iraq." This sentence and the paragraph following it make me sad due to its truth. --129.93.212.104 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad that most of this is actually true. Dexter 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Geez guy, if you're going to keep people from making this funny, you should at least learn to spell and/or punctuate.

Concerned people[edit]

I'm sorry for trying to replace an unfunny image with an at least slightly funny image. You might as well make protection of this page permanent since you feel you feel the need to have complete dictoral control over every single piece of it. Cheers --Farfromnoggin 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Funny[edit]

"unjustified unilateral war waged by Neo-Cons."

That doesn't sound funny for an intro... Anyone have a better description? - 66.82.9.56 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this wikipedia?[edit]

I think we might tag this page as having "too many facts" because this isn't much different from Wikipedia. Especially the "final analysis" part. Hopefully it will get better, if anyone is willing to update it.

Remember to sign your edits please. I did some cleanup, but it will all change again with time. MaxMangel 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's Locked... By A Moron[edit]

Hellloooo? Can you hear me? Why did you lock it, you creep? You got rid of the categories AND the see also's????? Why? Can you just do anything you want? --Cajek 19:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're speaking about an admin, so... the answer is "yes".  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • elk cloner) 19:56 Sep 14, 2007
I told you to stop inserting the poll, which does not belong in an article, and you blew me off. I have no interest in revert warring with you, and telling an admin that you will attempt to revert war them is a sure way to get an article locked. I added the only pertinent links and categories to the article - otherwise the others do not add to the theme of the article and do not belong on it. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine, whatever. Cajek 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, people think Rangeley isn't a sysop. They mess around with him, they revert war with him, to be specific, on this article, and one user even ban patrolled him. This is crazy, it is like smoking cigarettes in front of your parents--Sir Manforman CUN.png 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think its probably the subject matter more than anything. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article does not really belong here[edit]

I am personally strongly anti-war, yet this article seems to take itself a bit too seriously.

Definetely Not Funny[edit]

This isn't funny at all, it looks like something from PSL.org. I honestly don't think anyone finds this even amusing, perhaps a nervous chuckle but beyond that it's just stupid. To Liberals it's the truth, and so it oughta go in Wikipedia To Conservatives it's just insulting, so it's not funny at all. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.89.201.25 (talk • contribs)

It is based on things taken from some rather wacky sites and people, which is the point. Its a parody of certain anti-war rants out there, and perhaps some of the humor is drawn from some people actually believing the things they say. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In other words, Stupid. --66.234.203.32 04:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya, sorry, I have to agree, even if you are an admin, this article barely counts as funny, in a couple of spots. Sure, I'm against the war and all, and even liberal, so my opinion is suspect. Even so, I could do a much better liberal rant. I laugh my ass off at some of the anti-liberal stuff here. I have a sense of humor, and I get the point of the joke. The problem is, I don't laugh. --YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
For example, Bill Clinton is pretty damn hilarious. --YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's make the discussion funny[edit]

Here, I'll start.

This article is so completely hilarious that no one except the author has ever admitted to laughing at it. A mark of true comic genius, it parodies reality by stating it almost verbatim.--YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 06:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's great, maybe there should be an article about the article about the Iraq War. Since the author reverts any edits to the page that don't agree with his views.

Weapons inspectors in '98[edit]

Just FYI, the UN itself withdrew the inspectors in 1998, Saddam didn't kick them out. Here's a quote from the UN's own website --

"10 Nov1998 The Executive Chairman decides to remove all of the Commission's personnel from Iraq. He explained the circumstances surrounding the decision in a letter to the President of the Council dated 11 November (S/1998/1059), indicating that the prime consideration which motivated the decision and the speed at which it was executed was the safety of the Commission's staff in Iraq. The entire UNSCOM contingent withdrew from Iraq to Bahrain on 11 November." see here: http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

So the question is, is it funny, or a "satire of liberal distortions" to repeat a conservative distortion that's easily disproven with about 3 minutes of research? The article is filled with similar distortions, and the only thing that makes it funny is that the reader can obviously see it's a conservative repeating a bunch of lies about liberals that he thinks are funny. In other words, when we laugh, we're just laughing at the author. --YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to all of your posts, I think you are right on a lot of your points. This article has some funny areas, but it also needs a lot of work. It certainly isnt a "finished" product by any means. What was mostly going on above was other issues, like one person inserted a poll into the article where people could vote on whether they supported the war or not. I removed it several times before temporarilly locking it to get him to stop, because polls do not belong on articles, only forum topics in the village dump or maybe talk pages. In other instances, people removed the Bush with dice photo and replaced it with an unedited photo of bush making a face, or changed the theme of the article entirely, either because they were angry that the article was conservative and wanted it to be liberal, or thought it was liberal already and got angry at that (curiously.) A few people have made edits to the article that were great, like the reference to Bush orchestrating 9-11 - so its not like noone has been able to edit it.
As to your later points, which are essentially that a liberal would not concede the false point that Saddam kicked out inspectors, I think you are taking this the wrong way. This isnt a parody of the general liberal argument, any more than the George W. Bush article is a parody of the general conservative view of him. This is a parody of an anti war rant, the other article is a parody of a ringing endorsement of George W. Bush. Both are trying to be funny, so neither are likely to try and make fun of the more reasonable views held by either group - they go after the funnier ones.
I dont know if writing parodies of anti-war rants is your cup of tea, but if it happens to be palatable to you, certainly feel free to make some edits to this article and breath some life into its comatose body. I will also try and fix up the article some as well. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The dice picture is pretty good, it's the primary thing I like about the article. I'll have to think on it a while, but ya, I'll see what I can come up with. Kinda hard to roast your own pet chicken, but it can be done. Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are great sources of material. --YourMotherHasMyUnderwear 05:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

I changed the intro to make it a little lighter, I added some crap about Gulf War 1, and I changed "Bushes views" to "Bush's views"--Guitardalek 10:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rationale[edit]

Any personal views one way or the other aside, most of the "Rationale" section reads like a deadpan, sarcastic anti-war argument by someone who seems to seriously be using Uncyclopedia as a soapbox and forgot to make any actual jokes about the subject matter. Where did that come from? - 69.221.238.1 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I THINK THIS IS BECOMING BETTER[edit]

I THINK THAT INTRO I MADE IS GOOOD LOL. SOMEHWONE PLEASE HELP WITH MAH BROKEN ENGLISH/GRAMMAR  :))))--Dah Dope Boyz' 18:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)