Misplaced Pages

Talk:Iraq War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:37, 10 April 2006 editPeter bergquist (talk | contribs)119 edits →I'm glad to hear there is intelligent life on Earth!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:43, 15 December 2024 edit undo2600:1001:b128:a069:c805:f112:660f:a404 (talk) →Human Rights Abuses: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{| class="Talk-Notice"
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{American English}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=September 1, 2006
|action1result=failed
|action1link=Talk:Iraq War/Archive 4#GAC
|action1oldid=73281431
|action2=GAN
|action2date=February 14, 2007
|action2result=failed
|action2oldid=107945964
|action2link=Talk:Iraq War/Archive 10#GA nomination on hold
|currentstatus=FGAN
|itndate=1 September 2010
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=c |B-1=y |B-2=n |B-3=y |B-4=y |B-5=y |US=yes |Middle-Eastern=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Kurdistan|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|global perspective=yes}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USMIL=yes|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}}
}}
{{To do|collapsed=yes}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 34
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(183d)
|archive = Talk:Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}

== Casualty Table ==

Per ], it sounds like it may be useful to migrate some of the infobox fields into the article body. The ] solely examines Iraqi casualties. Therefore, I propose the addition of a subsection entitled '''Casualty Overview''' and, in it, three tables of the form:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Forces !! Killed !! Missing/Captured !! Wounded
|-
| Force1 || X dead || Y missing || Z Wounded
|-
| ... || ... || ... || ...
|- |-
| Total || XX || YY || ZZ
! rowspan="2" valign="top" |
! align="left" |
<big> ] for ]:</big>
| align="right" |
|-
| colspan="2" valign="top" style="background:#FFEFDF; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" |
Use <nowiki> <s > and </s ></nowiki> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:
* Remove POV
* Clean up the multiple wiliking in the article a little bit.
* Add more references.
* Remove (or at least simplify) the multiple ''references'' to the same external article.
|} |}
There would be one table each for Coalition, Iraqi, and civilian casualties. This would allow us to make a single, high-level figure for the "Casulaties" section of the infobox, provide more detail in a piped link, and also direct the reader toward the article on casualties if desired. We'll also need to revamp the citations currently used in infobox; currently it's a lot of tabulation of values with bare URLs, which I think we can do better on.
{{pb}}Thoughts? ] (]) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


:Looks to be a good place to start. ] (]) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{| class="infobox" width="270px"

Alright, since I got that encouragement and no objections, here's a first stab at the Coalition Casualties Table:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Coalition Casualties
|-
! Force !! Killed !! Missing/Captured !! Wounded
|-
| ''']''' (post-Saddam)
|| 17,690<ref>260 killed in 2003, 15,196 killed from 2004 through 2009 (with the exceptions of May 2004 and March 2009), 67 killed in March 2009, 1,100 killed in 2010, and 1,067 killed in 2011, thus giving a total of 17,690 dead</ref>
||
|| 40,000+<ref>{{cite web |url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/77707.pdf |title=Iraq War |publisher=US Department of State |access-date=18 November 2012}}</ref>
|- |-
|''']'''
!align="center" colspan="2"|]<br/>]
|| 4,821 (4,421 US,<ref>The US ] and the ] list 4,505 US fatalities during the Iraq War. In addition to these, two service members were also previously confirmed by the DoD to have died while supporting operations in Iraq, but have been excluded from the DoD and DMDC list. This brings the total of US fatalities in the Iraq War to 4,507.</ref> 179 UK,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishFatalities.htm |title=Fact Sheets &#124; Operations Factsheets &#124; Operations in Iraq: British Fatalities |publisher=Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom |access-date=17 October 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091011220157/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishFatalities.htm |archive-date=11 October 2009}}</ref> 139 other)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx |title=Operation Iraqi Freedom |publisher=iCasualties |access-date=24 August 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110321080348/http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx |archive-date=21 March 2011 }}</ref>
----
|| (US): 17 (9 died in captivity, 8 rescued)<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/pow-and-mia-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-fast-facts |publisher=CNN |access-date=5 June 2014 | title=POW and MIA in Iraq and Afghanistan Fast Facts}}; As of July 2012, seven American private contractors remain unaccounted for. Their names are: Jeffrey Ake, Aban Elias, Abbas Kareem Naama, Neenus Khoshaba, Bob Hamze, Dean Sadek and Hussain al-Zurufi. Healy, Jack, "", '']'', 22 May 2011, p. 6.</ref>
||32,776+ (32,292 US,<ref name="defensecasualty">{{cite web|url=http://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf |title=Casualty|access-date=29 June 2016}}</ref> 315 UK, 210+ other<ref>33 Ukrainians, 31+ Italians, 30 Bulgarians, 20 Salvadorans, 19 Georgians, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513160916/http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18470 |date=13 May 2011 }} 18 Estonians,{{citation needed|date=February 2023}} 14+ Poles, 15 Spaniards, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402233014/https://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/17607/soldier-dead-after-attack-on-spanish-convoy-in-afghanistan |date=2 April 2019 }} 10 Romanians, 6 Australians, 5 Albanians, 4 Kazakhs, 3 Filipinos, and 2 Thais, for a total of 210+ wounded</ref>)<ref name=mil>Many official US tables at {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110303054755/http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm |date=3 March 2011}}. See {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110602035127/http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-total.pdf |date=2 June 2011}}</ref><ref name=antiwarcasualties>.</ref><ref name=icasualties>iCasualties.org (was lunaville.org). Benicia, California. Patricia Kneisler, ''et al.'', {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110321080348/http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx |date=21 March 2011}}</ref><ref name=ukcasualties> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061114214203/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishCasualties.htm |date=14 November 2006}}. UK Ministry of Defense. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004051608/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInIraq/OpTelicCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm |date=4 October 2012}}.</ref>
|- |-
|]''' | ''']'''
|| 3,650 <ref>{{cite web | url=https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/WarDeathToll | title=Human Costs of U.S. Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones &#124; Figures &#124; Costs of War }}</ref><ref name="dol.gov">{{cite web |url=http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/dbaallnation.htm |title=Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) – Defense Base Act Case Summary by Nation |publisher=US Department of Labor |access-date=15 December 2011}}</ref><ref name="projects.propublica.org">{{cite web |author=T. Christian Miller |url=http://projects.propublica.org/tables/contractor_casualties |title=US Government Private Contract Worker Deaths and Injuries |publisher=Projects.propublica.org |date=23 September 2009 |access-date=23 October 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727185847/http://projects.propublica.org/tables/contractor_casualties |archive-date=27 July 2011}}</ref>
|
||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
|| 43,880<ref name="dol.gov"/><ref name="projects.propublica.org"/>

|-
==Financial Costs==
| ''']'''
What happened to this section? It appears blank on the page as of Apr 3, 2006...
|| 1,002+<ref>185 in Diyala from June 2007 to December 2007, 4 in assassination of ], 25 on 12 November 2007, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514132150/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/iraq/main3504599.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3504599 |date=14 May 2013 }} 528 in 2008, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161210152350/http://www.cfr.org/iraq/finding-place-sons-iraq/p16088 |date=10 December 2016 }} 27 on 2 January 2009, 13 on 16 November 2009,{{cite web |url=http://www.france24.com/en/node/4926131 |title=Thirteen anti-Qaeda tribe members killed in Iraq – France 24 |access-date=14 February 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429002216/http://www.france24.com/en/node/4926131 |archive-date=29 April 2011 }} 15 in December 2009, 100+ from April to June 2010, 52 on 18 July 2010, total of 1,002+ dead {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090418161020/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?pagewanted=print |date=18 April 2009 }}</ref>
:anon one, that text was deleted by vandal ] on Apr 02. I have restored the text. -- thanx for noticing.--] 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
||

|| 500+ (2007),<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print |work=The New York Times |first1=Solomon |last1=Moore |first2=Richard A. |last2=Oppel |title=Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq |date=24 January 2008}}</ref> 828 (2008)<ref>{{cite web |author=Greg Bruno |url=http://www.cfr.org/iraq/finding-place-sons-iraq/p16088 |title=Finding a Place for the 'Sons of Iraq' |publisher=Council on Foreign Relations |access-date=26 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161210152350/http://www.cfr.org/iraq/finding-place-sons-iraq/p16088 |archive-date=10 December 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
==POV?==
|-

| '''Total'''
This paragraph seems very pov to me: "According to opinion polls, the war was unpopular from its beginning in many Coalition countries. The war's unpopularity was reflected in widespread protests, including the largest worldwide protest in human history on February 15th, 2003 (eg., a day of ]). The Iraq War was widely viewed by many critics as counterproductive. Many viewed the war as improper (being a moral and ethical violation) and ] under ]. By the summer of 2005, there was an increase in the number of individuals in the ] that felt the same way."
|| 27,163

||
A lot of uses of the word "Many", "Widely viewed", "many critics", etc. It claims "many" opinion polls, but does not cite them. It claims the largest world wide protest, but this is currently under factual debate and is inaccurate information. There is no compelling reason for anything but the last sentence to stay. ] 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
|| 117,961

|}
:But that's honestly the reality on the ground for anyone living in Europe. One hardly needs to cite polls in the Spanish or Italian case for example, both of which participated initially anyway. The only major country in Western Europe with significant support for the war was the UK. Sure, look it up, back it up, but it's common sense to people who follow contemporary politics.<small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 14 Feb 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

::I have added some ref's for the oppion polls. There are lots of ref's for lots of differnt commentators from very differnt political views claiming that the Feb15 series of protests was biggest ever in history (no need to specify "human" history as that just reads like hyperbol) on the ] page. I have not read any comment arguing that these were not the biggest protests, could you point me towards some? The protest in Rome is listed in the 2004 ] as the largest anti-war rally in history.--] 13:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

==cleanup headline text==
The "Headline text" header is showing on sections 4 and 5 of the ToC. How do I remove this (I didn't change anything to make it like that, I just noticed it as I stumbled across) ] 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


==Non Aligned Country opposition==

That information is inaccurate. While the other list of countries against the war is accurate, saying the "majority" of the NAM members are against is inaccurate as the majority have not even made official statements either way. ] 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
:The header text and the explanation text are in conflict. While the header states "Countries against", the explanation text merely says the list is of countries that did not support the war. The list is correct in the latter sense, but not in the former.--] 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, THAT's why it looked weird to me. Can we fix that? ] 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

== Zarqawi's connections to Al-Queda/Iraq ==

While reading the article, I happened to notice that Zargaqi's connections to Al-Queda were reffered to as only beggining with his public pledge of allegiance to Bin-Laden. A brief analysis of his autobiography makes it quite clear that he was well-aquainted with Bin-Laden, as well as the larger community of fundamentalist Islamic militants, by as early as 1991, and that these connections continued during his relocation of operations to Iraq, as evidenced by his operations in the Ansar al-Islam camp in Northern Iraq, which has been alleged by intelligence agencies and local witnesses to have connections to Al-Queda, a likely claim given the organization's ubiquitous ties to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.

Sources supporting this are numerous, two I used are here: http://www.worldhistory.com/zarqawi.htm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

On another note, while I understand and deeply respect the open-ended philosophy of Misplaced Pages, I think the issues involved in the Iraq war are too contentious at present to be alterable by anyone who visits the site. I would advocate that on certain topics where are large amount of suspect information and language is routinely slated for editing, (such as is obvious here) that the general editors of the encyclopedia consider temporarily closing the topic and determining among themselves the best information, perhaps only accepting submissions for further alteration. <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

== The Lincoln Group ==

Where should I put information about the ]? --] 20:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

: @ the ]? ]

==informationclearinghouse?==

Removed: ''In the siege of Fallujah, any person suspected of being an enemy combatant was to be targeted - at any age, with the regualar guidlines being someone over the age of 16. This information and more can be seen in the documentary - "Fallujah - the hidden massacre"''' ... from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm
] 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


== POV Removal ==

I remove the following sentance: ''Unfortunately, the emergence of a theocracy after a civil war still seems a very real possibility.'' The sentence was found in a paragraph detailing what the supporters of the war were saying, so not only was the above phrased in a non encyclapedic way it also was located in the wrong section. ] 04:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

== Deletion ==

I have deleted the paragraph stating that the U.S. used posion gas against civilians in Fallujah. The military used white phosphourous gas as smoke screens which is perfectly legal. This can be found at] 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
:Hasn't it been established that it was being used as a weapon? Perhaps drawing a parallel with Hussein's use of the same materials in combat is going too far, but I'm not sure it's right to assume that it was being used for smoke screens. Anyway, the assertion has no citation, so it's OK to delete.--] 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

White phosphorus is not a gaseous grenade. It is an incendiary grenade. The whole "poison gas" thing is media propoganda, from people who have probably never used a phosphorus grenade before. Phosphorus grenades are used in 3 situations: To ignite sensitive, non-metallic material for destruction, to mark an area with smoke, and as an anti-personell weapon. People believe mistakenly that it is a chemical weapon because it burns people. In fact, it is a thermal weapon, and the burns are thermally/fire delivered. Oh, and I've been to Fallujah: If anyone used poison gas there, we'd know because hundreds or possibly thousands of people would have died from it.

Anyway, I agree with the other people on the talk page saying there is WAY too much POV in this article. ] 21:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:I could not agree more. The POV appears to be consistently pro the war in iraq as well. I think a NPOV warning should be placed on top of this article. ] 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== Protest Sizes ==
] ] ''removed documented from "largest documented worldwide protest" - are there larger undocumented protests?'' ... A problem is that each generation and news media coverage thinks it is seeing the largest protests ever, the largest humanitarian disaster ever, and so forth. Should there be some link to some history of protests, as a proportion of the population of the day, to show how protests against the war in Iraq compare to protests aganst the war in Vietnam, against having nuclear weapons, in favor of Civil Rights, and other topics? ]|] 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

::Ok, I can't find much evidence, but it definitely is worth mentioning that it was one of the biggest protests ever, with hundreds of thousands marching in different countries, and in London there were at least a million people. Can anyone else find more research on this? ] 13:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Last November, up to 200,000 people protested in Trafalgar Square when US President George W. Bush was in London for a state visit. Ahead of the Iraq war in February 2003, police estimated that one million people descended on the capital to protest the looming invasion, while organisers said the figure was nearer two million. "

:I have no problem with claims of extremely large protest demonstrations. My problem was with an implication that protests against this were the largest ever.
: I had indicated several areas that could be contenders for that claim. ]|] 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

More info on the size of the Feb15 protests can be found at ]. While it is true that there is some contention about whether the individual protests were the biggest ever for the countries they were held in, I have not read any serious assertion that on sum (i.e. world wide) this was not the biggest protest in history. There are lots of ref's to commentators who talk about these being the biggest ever protests on the page.--] 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

== "Declaration of War" bit ==

The article alleges that since the US never issued a declaration of war, the Iraq "war" isn't a real war according to international law. The treaty of international law which states that wars have to begin with a declaration is the '''Hague Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities''' from 1907. Its first article states:
:''The contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.''
Thus, an ultimatum is considered another equally valid initiation of war. In his ], ] speech President Bush stated:
:''Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.''
In my eyes this qualifies as "an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war", and thus the war can be considered as much a real war as if it had begun with a formal declaration. &mdash;] 06:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::It's a war when there are soldiers fighting and dying, bombs being dropped, and so forth. Thus it is perfectly valid to speak of the ], even though there was no formal declaration of war or even an "ultimatum". Whether it is a legal war or an illegal one is a different matter. ] 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:::My point is that there is no basis in the claim that the Iraq War isn't a "war". Its ''legality'' is certainly a matter of debate, but I think it's absolutely certain that from any possible viewpoint it is nevertheless a war. Parts of this articles alleges otherwise. &mdash;] 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

*Just because a war wasn't officially declared by congress, does not mean it was not a war. AND...just because war was not declared, does not mean it was not lost. Finally, why is there a ] if there was no war? ] 17:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**Because it is technically a "conflict" since war can only be declared against a state.


Since we need congress to declare war on a country, then we are in a conflict or a battle not a war because it was never legally declared. Also how can say we declare war on terrorism and then only focus on Iraq? When there is terrorism within the US and within every country in the World. So would declareing war on terrorism mean we declare war on the World? Also, A memorial does not mean from a war. There are memorials all over the world for people who have lost their lives doing something heroic weather it was a war, conflict, battle, or even a heroic rescue. People want a memorial for 9/11 when that wasn't a war it was an attack that many were lost for doing something heroic. (hunnybunz)

== This whole topic is POV ==

Why is there not a "Disputed" header at the top of this topic page? Practically everything in here is skewed to one point of view or the other and it's hard to decipher what is fact from fiction. The same applies for the 'Invasion of Iraq' topic as well.

::Go ahead and put the appropriate tags on it then, I agree with you. ] 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I am not sure how to go about doing that.


::::either am i, but this article is so full of crap, even from the first sentence - iraq was invaded by coalition forces (lead by us and uk) - it wasn't invaded exclusively by the us and uk. wikipedia is always full of this kind of progressive POV crap. doubleplusgood wikipedia. <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 30 Jan 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

You can dispute the article by putting <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki> at the top of the article.You must also explain your problem with the article here on talk. ] 03:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

== formal and informal name ==

First sentence of article: ''The Iraq War or War in Iraq1,2 is both an informal and a formal American term''

What is the source for this being a _formal_ name? ] 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== War Justifications ==

I don't remember anything about the war in iraq being about democracy (the last point in that list) back when the Bush Administration was touting it; I'm pretty sure that came later. Anyone have a source on that? ] 14:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' might be a giveaway there... but maybe it isn't. Just my thinking. (t.z0n3)

== POV! ==
Im putting a POV sign on this article. My problems with this are that we must agree that the "no-fly-zones" prior to the march 2003 war were in fact according to UN standards ILLEGAL, and that the note about the largest demonstrations EVER were simply deleted and not modified. I dont have the time to give you the references but i remember a figure of millions of people from the whole world, were out demonstrating against that war.] Sanchez 14:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be unilateral. The largest demonstrations part was deleted because it could not be verified and cited. And we "MUST" not agree about anything, regarding the no fly zones. They were perfectly legal as part of the terms of Iraqs cease-fire after the Gulf War. Do not be so demanding, it won't help you get your way here.] ] ] ] ] ] 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

: Swatjester, if you remove the POV tag, please respect other edits in the article. ] 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

::Jester, this is clearly a POV article, as is every war in history. As a matter of fact, one cannot have any description of nations, depiction of events or anything historical without having some kind of bias. If the POV sign is removed, people who read this article think that the article is accurate and can be used to cite. As you see, the length of this thread testifies, that this issue is clearly political. Please let the sign stand, until the issues are cleared. My proposal is that one should have two versions, or more of the article, so that a person can read both points of views and make up ones own mind. Sanchez ] 11:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Very good point Sanchez. It would be good to at least balance the POVs, so people can decide for themselves what side they are on. It really is impossible to leave POVs out of a war discussion because people have different points of view on what happened and is happening. '''Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.''' --Richard Armour -->That I think sums it up, as far as POVs are concerned.--] 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's called content forking, and isn't allowed here. This is an encyclopedia, we only make one article here from a neutral POV of things here. We don't make different versions of articles with different POV's to satisfy both sides, please see WP:NPOV for details. As for citing, nobody should ever cite wikipedia as a source on any article......everyone should know that. ] ] ] ] ] ] 13:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooops...I actually didn't mean to revert the POV tag back out, I clicked on the wrong thing in popups. I'll go ahead and put it back up. ] ] ] ] ] ] 13:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

:I have commented about the size of the protests in the talk sections above (] and ]).--] 13:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

== British Soldiers Torturing Children Caught on Video ==

The following text was added to the top of the page - while someplace for it should be found, it's certainly not at the top of this article.

:Eight British soldiers brutually assult three Iraqi children, repeatedly hitting them with their fists and clubs, and kicking them in the groin. The soldiers batter the children's heads with blunt weapons, while the children scream and beg for mercy. Fifteen or more British soldiers not participating in the assult casually watch it happen and do nothing as a boy screams, "please, please, please..."

:The camera man makes violent and obscene comments that mirror the hatred and blood-lust of the soldiers.

:As horrible as this atrocity is, it is important that the world and history know the truth. The video can be downloaded from any of the following links:
*
*
*
*
*
*

&mdash; ] | ] 15:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

News coverage that includes video recordings of actual events are not "talk" issues. They are objective, tangible recordings and are, by definition, history. (History is a recording of the past.) Talk is about opinions. Facts, including videos that capture historical events, should be on the article's page.

You can discuss the ramifications of a video on the talk page all you want, but the video itself is a historical record and should be on the article page. In this way, videos are no different than a digitial picture of the U.S. Constitution.
--

First off, according to the NPR link, they are teenagers, not children. Big difference, considering in Iraq teenagers are often involved in gang violence, sometimes even against the soldiers. Furthermore, the teenagers were throwing rocks and makeshift grenades at the soldiers, again according to the NPR link. So if we're going to be talking about showing all the facts, we need to actually DO so.] ] ] ] ] ] 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Second, the video is still an allegation according to the NPR interview, it has not yet been confirmed. I'm not saying don't put it out at all, I'm just saying wait until Tony Blair's investigation completes it's findings and proves it before putting it up. If you do put it up before then it will need to have an "allegedly" before it. ] ] ] ] ] ] 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Yeah, Tony Blair won't try to cover it up. Like he and George Bush didn't try to cover up the fact that they tortured to death prisioners of war in Abu Ghraib *]. Or the fact that America and Britian are using Soviet secret prisions. Furthermore, the video is hard evidence. You aren't serioiusly suggesting that some frat boys dressed up as British soldiers equiped with actual military hardware (assult rifles), went over to Iraq, and staged this whole thing in the middle of a warzone! Or maybe you are suggesting that the whole video was made by using special effects. If this was 1945, you'd be telling us not to include any footage of the Nazi concentration camps until the Germans had concluded that they commited war crimes. Gee, if only all criminals could be their own judge and jury like our politicians are.

::::Tony Blair and George Bush didn't do anything at Abu Ghraib themeselves. Nor did the rest of the resepective armed forces condone it. You can make fun of the investigation all you want, but remember the UK army was already framed for a fake abuse incident once before. Are you saying the 9/11 commission didn't find anything? It's possible for a government to investigate itself bipartisanly.] ] ] ] ] ] 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:: And as for your suggestions that those children *deserved* what happened because they alledgely throw rocks at soldiers carrying assult rifles, well quite frankly, I find that as offense as suggesting that America deserved the 9/11 attack because of its foriegn policies. There was no excuse for 9/11, and there is no excuse for Abu Ghraib, and there is no excuse for what those soldiers are doing on that video. Until this kind of behavior cannot be covered up or accepted, the Spanish Inquistion, the Holocaust, and Abu Ghraib will continue to happen forever. Both sides are wrong. Attrocities have been committed on both sides. And until the war criminals and terrorists on both sides are brought to justice, the killing will continue. The best thing America and Britian can do is hold every war criminal in their armies responsible and take the ethical high road for once. If the principles upon which our countries are allegedly founded are so good, then the best way we can promote them is by actually living by them.

::::I didn't say they deserved it. But, you and I do not know what happened outside that video. I've been to Iraq, I've seen 8 year old kids holding pistols shooting at american troops. So don't immediately defend them just because their children: children can be warriors too as africa shows. I do agree with you that all war criminals should be held responsible in the armies.] ] ] ] ] ] 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: In any court of law in your country or mine, this video evidence would be more than sufficent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. It's funny how video evidence is unquestionable when the government uses it against civilians -- something I remind you that Britian is doing to an extreme with its road surveillance program that tracks every single place that you go (based on license plates being read by roadside cameras) -- but when video evidence is used *against* the government, it's all of a sudden an unreliable source like a drunken witness, and you can't tell what is real and what's not. If this same exact video had shown civilians assulting someone, you can bet your butt that the government would be saying that the video evidence conclusively proves guilt. Quite frankly, this video is of much, much higher quality and clarity than the video evidence (usually taken from close-circuit camera systems) that is used to convict murders, rapists, muggers, and even bank robbers who talk on their cell phones during their robberies. -M

::::: As for "Tony Blair and George Bush didn't do anything at Abu Ghraib themeselves"... I don't know about Tony Blair, but George Bush prevented United Nations personal from observing the Abu Ghraib war prision to prevent human rights abuse. It is blantantly obvious to everyone in the world that the reason for this was solely because Bush and his administration wanted to abuse human rights and wanted no witnesses. It is further obvious that if given the chance, the Bush administration would have prevented the digital photographs and videos of torture from reaching the public, which goes against everything a democratic system of government is based upon. The people have a right and a need to know the truth about what their government does or it's not a government of the people and there are no checks and balances. Again, if there were only a dozen instances of the British and American governments violating the ], I could chuck it up to a few bad apples. But this is the six hundredth time they were caught. -M

:No one is trying to hide anything. I think we can all agree that this issue bears mentioning, however the blurb as it stands is decidedly not NPOV, nor does it fit the formatting guidelines for a Misplaced Pages article. Please save the theatrics for personal blogs and try to write a neutral account. I'd prefer not to have to block anyone over a content dispute like this, however if this reversion continues there may be no other way except to lock down the article until a version can be agreed upon. Also, please refrain from personal insults and accusations and assume good faith! -] 19:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

::Loren is saying it perfectly. I'm not saying that I don't want it in there. I'm saying it cannot be at the top of the article, before even the disambiguation note. That's ludicrous. Furthermore, your format is unencyclopedic and linkspam, and needs to be reworked. Once all that's out of the way, THEN I can begin to argue my reasons for opposing it's inclusion.] ] ] ] ] ] 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Just move the links, which are legit and should be in the article, to a recent events section at the end of the article. That way, it's just like *every* other article about human history. The recent events section should be updated as news happens. Misplaced Pages is a live encyclepdia, and the Iraq war is ongoing. The fact that it didn't have a recent event section so far is ludicris.

> Swatjester, justify the removing of the link to the article http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10561. The article text clearly is neutral point of view. Is there something you object to in the article, other than it was written by Muslims? Furthermore, if anything we should be adding more articles and external links, not just removing the ones you don't like. If you think an external link has point of view, then add another external link with a different point of view. Misplaced Pages is, after all, an encyclopedia and should have external links that show all points of views.

I'll give you an hour to justify the removal before adding it back. I know your watching this article like a hawk, as am I.

- M

::reasons...Misplaced Pages is not a link farm. NPR is widely regarded as a non-controversial source. It says the exact things the article says. We don't need both. Plus, the article while itself is NPOV written, the website itself has many links I would consider biased "Palestine: stolen land"? come on. Links at the bottom to bush bashing? I have no problem with Islam, and I'll defend the right for this video to be on this page as far as it goes. But I feel that link is extraneous. ] ] ] ] ] ] 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::: I'm not sure we can consider other articles written by the same source to be a legitimate reason not to link that that article. After all, every news source from Fox to the New York Times runs editorials and biased newstories. If you refused to site an article in a news source that contained any biased article, there would be no news sources left to reference. However, I offer the following compromise. We'll let the next Misplaced Pages user who comments here decide whether or not to include the article link. Can I trust you to have the integrity to NOT call up one of your friends and have them post a "don't include" opinion? -M

:::::Of course, I'm a little offended you would think I don't. ] ] ] ] ] ] 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::: So will a third party give a yea or nea on this external link: *

::::I'd advise you to visit ] for your third opinion request. ] ] ] ] ] ] 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right too, there should be more links added....but we don't need more than one or two on any active topic. The NPR link and the article said the same things, but which one looks more Nonbiased? NPR does in a heartbeat. ] ] ] ] ] ] 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:: I disagree with limiting external links to just one or two. Print encyclopedias, graduate thesis, and academic papers (which are typically the size of a full encyclopedia article) typically have dozens or external references (the paper equivalent of a hyperlink). As long as the links are well organzied and have a blurb next to them, this is not a problem. The article on ] has 37 external links as of right now.

:::: No you're misunderstanding me. I'm referring to no more than one or two on a particular topic. i.e. the beating videos. If we had 2 links for the videos, a link for an article about the war, a link to an essay about muslim reactions, a link to some other essays etc that'd be great. But having a huge number of external links per topic per page is extraneous. ] ] ] ] ] ] 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think there needs to be a link to the video from a different site. a) the current video link goes to an error page, direct linking not allowed. b) the current link goes to a page entitled "8 american soldiers brutally beat iraqi children" which is clearly incorrect as they're obviously british soldiers. I'm sure someone here can find a better video link, if not then I will. Oh and on another note....ironically CNN has no news coverage on their website about the video. Nor does fox news. nor does abc news] ] ] ] ] ] 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===THEY WEREN'T CHILDREN! ===
As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say "http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"

:Two Iraqis claimed today they had been among those beaten in Amara, saying they would take legal action against the UK military and seek compensation.

The allegations by Bassem Shaker, 27, and Tariq Abdul-Razzak, 14, were presented to the media at the office of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the coalition forces."

A 27 year old doesn't seem like a child to me. Furthermore:
"Mr Shaker said British troops fired volleys of rubber bullets at the protesters in a bid to disperse them.

Witnesses and officials at the time said British troops and Iraqi police had fired at armed, stone-throwing protesters, killing six people and wounding 11."

"Assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades"

The article makes NO mention of children whatsoever. So before you all let your emotions run wild over this: a) they weren't children. b) they had hand grenades. c) they lied about their demonstrators being killed. None of this excuses the abuse. BUT we all need to approach this with a clear head. ] ] ] ] ] ] 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:There is no indication that those who were beaten up had any weapons. ] 11:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

===YES THEY WERE CHILDREN! ===

(Stop deleting my comments on this talk page. This is considered vandalism)
:: You are so full of it. No one has been deleting your comments. I've been responding to your comments by countering your spin with truth. I've added my comments next to or under yours so people can see both. If anyone here is a vandal, it's you for deleting the links in the first place. It just goes to show how afraid military personel are of truly free speech, and what a crock it is to say that our soldiers are "fighting for freedom." It's more like fighting against freedom.

As for whether they were children or not, well the guardian.co.uk, hardly any friend of bush or blair had this to say "http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1709524,00.html"
:Two Iraqis claimed today they had been among those beaten in Amara, saying they would take legal action against the UK military and seek compensation.
:The allegations by Bassem Shaker, 27, and Tariq Abdul-Razzak, 14, were presented to the media at the office of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the coalition forces."
:A 27 year old doesn't seem like a child to me. Furthermore:
:"Mr Shaker said British troops fired volleys of rubber bullets at the protesters in a bid to disperse them.
:Witnesses and officials at the time said British troops and Iraqi police had fired at armed, stone-throwing protesters, killing six people and wounding 11."
:'''"Assailants in the crowd lobbed three explosive devices at them, believed to be hand grenades"'''

:'''Do you have any evidence that they were actually grenades or that the soldiers even really believed they were grenades?
:Seems to me that the soldiers would be shooting or taking cover rather
:than beating and groin kicking if they actually believed grenades were
:being thrown at them. Watch the video. The soldiers are clearly acting
:in hatred and blood-lust, not self-defense. There is NO justification
:for their actions. Defending them is like defending a child molestor
:or serial murderer.'''
:The article makes NO mention of children whatsoever. So before you all let your emotions run wild over this: a) they weren't children. b) they had hand grenades. c) they lied about their demonstrators being killed. None of this excuses the abuse. BUT we all need to approach this with a clear head. ] ] ] ] ] ] 02:24, 15 February 2006

:::The video SHOWS children being assulted. You don't need to read an article, watch the video.

::First of all, torturing a 27 year-old ain't acceptable either! Second, a 14 year old is definately a child. I had to wait until the Olsen twins were 18 because at 14, they were kids. The same goes for Tariq. From the video, it's obviously a child's voice screamming "please, please, please". I guess if your only 18 your perception of what constitutes an "adult" is different from those of us old enough to pay mortgages. So ask your parent if a 14 year old is an adult or a child. There's a reason we don't let 14 year-olds drink, vote, drive, "consent" to sex with adults, or sign legal argreements without a guardian. By the way, can we get a verifiable source of the ages of the victims as well as the identities of the criminals?

:::I never said it was acceptable, but at 14 you are definately a teenager, not a child. 14 year olds can throw a grenade and shoot a rifle, and know the consequences of their actions. Furthermore 18 isn't the age of majority in Iraq so far as I know. In much of the world the drinking and driving ages are 14 and 16 , as well as sex. The US isn't the whole world. The verifiable source was included in the guardian link. As for the child's voice, there is an investigatino into whether the tape was dubbed over. Read the link I sent. ] ] ] ] ] ] 03:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::::14 is a kid, period. Again, ask your parents. A 7 year old has the ability to throw a grenade and shoot a rifle, and knows the difference between right and wrong. That doesn't make a 7 year old an adult. The fact that 8 British soldiers would repeatedly assult a 14 year old and that over a dozen other British soldiers would watch it happen and not stop it, does say something very significant about the British army. The video footage clearly shows that the soldiers were not acting in defense or in an legitimate peace keeping or order restoring manner. They were acting in pure hatred and blood-lust, no different than gang thugs. I know you *want* to believe that the British army is innocent of all wrong doing, but its obvious to any objective third party that they are guilty of many heinous actions. And quite frankly, most American citizens and most British citizens and virtually the entire rest of the world, are going to continue having a very low opinion of the British and American military until both governments take responsibility for the war crimes committed. Britian and the United States are acting like the bad guys and will go down in history as the bad guys unless they make some drastic changes including taking responsibility for these atrocities, and ensuring the world that such atrocities will not happen again. As long as people white-wash these despicable acts, the whole world knows that they will continue. Quite frankly, I'm hoping that the two governments will be forced to changed by popular dissent before someone in the middle east is driven to detonating a nuclear device in London or Washington, DC. The way I see it, if we don't clean up the scum in our military, this scenario is inevitable. Even if you don't give a rat's buttock about the value of human life in foriegn countries, it is in your own selfish interest to stop these atrocities because such actions always cause more atrocities to be committed in return. That is why it is important to make sure these events are not covered up.

::::The truly unfortunate fact is that this atrocious behavior is not the exception to the rule. It is the norm. Both Britian and the United States have been caught red handed too many times for such events to be unrepresentative of the military. When people ask me if I support our troops, I say no and then I point to this video and many other videos and pictures. If our troops want our support, then they are going to have to take these matters seriously and purge their ranks our any soldier or officer who would commit, order, condone, or cover up these crimes. Any one who commits such an act is a criminal. Any one who follows an order to torture a person is a criminal. They should be treated as such. The only way your army can earn back our trust or respect is to stop covering up these actions and making excuses, and let fair trials bring these people (Bush and Blair included) to justice.

I'm not going to argue with you any further. Please donot take this personally, but I do not think you can view this with an open mind.] ] ] ] ] ] 05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::Ditto

:::First of all, "teenager" and "child" aren't mutually exclusive. A teenager of 14 is a child, just as a teenager of 19 is an adult. The video should be added, with the text introducing it giving the information that is generally accepted to be accurate. Sources for that text are widely available as the content of the video is widely known. Whether or not the acts depicted are justified or not isn't our concern; we're not interested in reviewing the facts anyway. Personally, I find this article to be slanted in favor of the US occupation. There's virtually no detail on the Abu Ghraib atrocities, no mention of the number of Iraqi civillians killed, etc. If I get around to adding content, I will, but as it stands, this entry is SEVERELY POV biased. ] 02:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, this article is little more than propoganda as it currently stands. There is no mention of the people tourtured to death, of people who were forced in naked homosexual pyramids, of soldiers who used attack dogs to bite at the genitals of naked, unarmed prisioners of war, of the boys and girls under the age of 10 who were killed by American soldiers, of the even younger children who watched their unarmed parents shot and killed by American/British troops. A lot of ommissions that might show a not-so-nice side of the war. -M

::By the way, I would have supported taken Saddam out of power even without ANY evidence of weapons of mass destruction, if only we didn't replace him with a far worse monster: our militaries. In an ironic twist, our troops used the exact same torture rooms that Saddam used. Any objective, neutral point of view article has to include the attrocities that have been committed without white-washing it. To omit this acts would be like having an article on World War II without mentioning the holocaust. -M

<B>SWAT</B>, being able to throw a grenade and shoot a gun is not a rite of passage to adulthood. The United States Government (indirectly, through the CIA) trained ] in El Salvador to fight against the ]. Were these forcibly conscripted children (who were as young as nine) adults? I appreciate that a United States soldier such as yourself is participating with wikipedia; however, I currently can't see how this article has a NPOV. --] 08:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


::Sean: I understand this article is VERY POV. Note how I've not been involved in this discussion for the past what, 10 days now? It's just too stressful dealing with people who have never had to deal with the personal experiences of having children shoot at them. Let me put it into context for you. About 3 months after my unit entered Baghdad, around July/August-ish, I was on a M240B machine gun post on top of our barracks. I was monitoring a street in front of our compound known as "ambush alley" when I noticed a woman perhaps in her mid teens (16, 17, 18 maybe?) in black hijab fiddling with a package directly in front of our building. I called it in over the radio and as our QRF was preparing to come out I ordered her verbally to stop. She did not, but I couldn't do anything as I had no proof that she was doing anything wrong, and at the time our ROE did not permit the firing of warning shots. I watched aghast as she pulled out a pistol, gave it to the 8-year old child she had with her, and pointed at me. The child fired between 4 and 5 rounds in my direction, one coming as close at 4 feet from my position. I tried to fire my weapon at them but as this all happened shortly after assuming my post, I had erred and not visually inspected the weapon before taking charge of it....the last guard shift accidentally loaded the rounds upside-down and they would not fire. By the time I had performed remedial action and fixed it, the woman and child fled but were tracked by the QRF who had just arrived on scene into their house. The package was found to be a modified 60mm mortar shell rigged as an IED, and they had a bombmaking factory in their house as well as a mortar tube and several rounds. I'm not speaking for the child, but the girl knew exactly what she was doing. She made an adult choice, a conscious decision to do it. Want another instance? A soldier in my unit was fired upon by two 14 year old gang members in Iraq. A long, in-depth investigation was done into the shooting as to whether they had any ties to militant groups but the fact was found that they just stole their parent's AK's and started gangbanging against the Americans. That's an adult decision to make.

You can all misrepresent my opinion all you want, but I'm only defending that the ones in their teens should be considered adults. It's ludicrous to claim that an 8 year old is an adult. But the fact is in much of the non-western world, you are a man at the age of 16. In Judaism, the passage to manhood begins at 13. In African countries it can begin in the 14-16 period. That is ADULT whether our western customs like it or not. The world is not centered upon our American beliefs, and it's high time that we started accepting that in ALL situations, not just the ones we deem acceptable. (Oh, it's ok to shout that we're spreading our american imperialism with our viewpoints on democracy, and religion, but god forbid we kill or beat armed teenagers with hand grenades and suddenly we should be demanding a US-centered viewpoint.)

Now I only came back here by request. I'm absolutely sickened by the brainwashed vehemence and anti-US hatred expressed by so many so called "liberals" on Misplaced Pages. So I'm going to stay out of here again, and any further questions about it can take place on my User Talk (click my name in my signature). Cheers. ] ] ] ] ] ] 09:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


I'd further like to clarify one thing you point out in your example Sean: The CIA's clandestine operations are not the dictated policy of the Department of Defense, nor necessarily that of the President. As is mentioned in a link from the article here on the National Clandestine Service, the CIA's Directorate of Operations is required to conduct an estimated several tens of thousands of activities that would be considered by a host country as "illegal" yearly. Their agents are placed in great danger on a daily basis, and as such, their activities cannot be directly supervised by the DDO. I don't say this to defend individual agents, or justify past actions, just a warning against the habit of painting the "big bad government" with a wide brush..... So many people here like nothing better than to bash our government, bash our military, but yet make no effort whatsoever to understand it, to gain knowledge of it, or even to join it and effect change from the inside. It sickens me. When I was fresh back in the states from my deployment, and coming to terms with my PTSD, I nearly took my own life after being spit upon and called a baby-killer by some brainwashed hippy who, upon questioning from one of my friends, knew nothing about the military, did not know me, didn't know the basic concepts of civics and american government. Unfortuantely that's the view that I get from many people who claim to be "liberals" or "anti-war" on wikipedia, indeed on the internet as a whole.

I find that the only way to win, is to not play the game at all. If you want further enlightenment, you can talk to me on my talk page, but as for this I'm going to stay stress-free (as much as possible) and keep away from here. ] ] ] ] ] ] 09:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:There is much about the US I'm very fond of, but sometimes what a branch of the US government does is revolting. To disagree strongly with "our government" -- glad you recognize it is <i>ours</i> and not yours -- is not necessarily to bash it. I think many of us would argue that we feel it is our duty to strenuously disagree; to do so is to honor what so many of our forebears sacrificed for. I'm sure you'll agree.


::I'm not a liberal. I actually consider myself to be an Independent. Thank you for your insights, although I still do not agree with you. You must understand that we have differing world views, and that is all. --] 07:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

:::In the english language the word adult is generally not used for people under the age of 18. If you want to use it differently you need to explain it in the article in order not to be misleading. I am sorry for your personal experience, ], it shall however not lead to redefining words and opposing legitimate criticism of abuse. Given that you describe yourself as suffering from a post traumatic stress disorder I think you make the right decision not to edit articles you currently seem to be unable to deal with in a levelheaded way. Please calm down and do not personally attack others as "brainwashed" or spreading "hatred". ] 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

== "Declaration of war" blurb ==
The "declaration of war" blurb in the second paragraph is a hypothetical "example" of the controversy which only serves to obfucsate getting to the real controversy over the definitive usage of the term Iraq War (which itself is rather limited). To my knowledge there is no debate about referring to the Iraq War as a "war" due to a lack of formal Congressional declaration. Some still claim that the Vietnam War should be referred to as a "military action", but even that usage is so limited that it makes any debate "settled." Because there is no application to the current conflict, its usage is unnecessarily hypothetical and is therefore out of place, out of context, and out of order. -]|] 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

== Costs Of War: Civillian Deaths, Allegations of Abuse And Torture==

A section should be added that correctly illustrates the costs of this war. This article seems to be assuming the position that most western media takes: to whitewash over the distruction and civillian casualties that have been produced by this war. The section should include abuses and atrocities committed by both sides, of course...Any ideas? ] 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:The article mentions damages to the Iraqi infrastructure under "Costs of War" but there is no mention of what the Coalition has done to improve the infrastructure, which I'd be willing to bet far outweighs the damage done to it. ] 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)KevinPuj

== Why isn't the Casualties template used here? ==

Why isn't ] included on this page? &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Good question. I would support using your new template --] 08:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

== Torture ==
"Numerous human rights abuses, most notably those at the Abu Ghraib prison led to widespread criticism of the occupying forces."
Is it correct to say "numerous?" Yes there were abuses, but nothing accepted as standard procedure as far as we know right? We could say, "A series of abuses" or something like that. ] 13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:A series sounds good to me. ] 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)



==Featured Arabic version==
]<sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> helped with the translation of this article. I copy it from my talk page to allow everyone to benefit from it. Thank you very much, ]<sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> ! ] 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I wouldn't consider the article being featured in the Arabic Misplaced Pages a definite sign of any extra information or even better representation of facts. The Arabic Misplaced Pages has much lower standards than most other versions. In other words, the English version which is basically written based on media information looks more neutral in my opinion. Having said that, I will describe the Arabic article and let you decide if you would like to use any of the information.

:Introduction: List of names used to refer to the war, e.g. Operation Iraqi Freedom, Invasion of Iraq, Gulf War 3. Stating that the coalition was called the Coalition of the Willing, and 98% are US and British forces.

:War-rationale. Since all items were originally imported from Western media, I don't think there's a need to use any of this section.

:Anti-war speculations: This is a list of hypotheses why the US went to Iraq. Most items listed are either urban legends, scientifically invalid, or just too unencyclopedic. E.g. the claim that "the US went to capture the world's largest oil reservoirs," while it is well known Iraqi reserves are by no means the largest (let alone the fact that it is not economically viable, and even if that is true, there are easier ways well known in the oil industry). All other claims are again not backed up with any sources.

:WMD: This section if filled with quotes, from President Bush to the Time magazine to other people and reports. All of those are translated from English and are therefore available without translation.

:Relations between Saddam and bin Laden: 9/11 report, other congressional hearings and reports.

:War from legal perspective: Mention of War Powers Resolution, and some information from and , both originally in English.

:List of countries in the coalition and those against the war.

:Prior to invasion: History between 1991 and 2003

:Combat. No sources cited. Various information not linked together.

:"Iraq after April 9": Only listing allegations of items looted from the museums.

:Casualties: All numbers except two are replaced with "?", the other two are the "verified casualties in Iraqi civilians (unsourced, 31,160)" and "unverified casualties (unsourced, 100,000 to 194,000)."

Let me know if you would like anything else in the article translated. - ]<sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

] notes the following on his talk page:
The important differences between the Arabic article and the English article are:
*The Arabic article has a section about the legality of the war
*A list of nations that supported the Iraq war (percentage of support was sometimes included)
*A reference to opposition to the war (Three is a picture of protestors in London)
*Reasons given by the American government for the war.
*Reasons given by protestors for the war. ] 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


==False Information from Eagle==

Eagle does not have the authority to represent the Arabic section of Misplaced Pages, he is representing his own opinion, we in Arabic Misplaced Pages who participated in the article will translate it as soon as we can, Eagle have minor editions in the Arabic article of Iraq invasion which was deleted later because it was biased in nature. Again eagle is only representing himself and he is not the writer of the article. ] 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


while Eagle just wanted to put his own opinion in teh arabic article without discussing it in the discussion page , other editors like Classis_971 did professional work by adding a work supported with refrences ... What eagle considered silly about the iraqi Oil , is really mentioned here ... maybe we havn,t that high standards for featured articles ..but at least we work honestly and avoiding any POV --] 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)



:::Calm down guys, fortunately we are not at war here. And thanks a lot for letting us know what the Arabic article covers. Good to have an exchange. ] 01:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

==UFO sightings duing Iraq War ==
Have there been UFO sightings during the Iraq War?, if so here are the sources I'd found.

http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=598
http://www.rense.com/general37/filers41603.htm
http://www.ufodigest.com/newsletter/2003/2003-04-17.html
http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/baghdad.htm
http://ufocasebook.com/iraq040304.html

] 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate article to ask about UFO sightings. Nothing in the article mentions anything about UFO's having any influence whatsoever on any events related to the Iraq War. ] 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

:Thats why I put the sources here in the talk page, so someone can write about UFO sightings in Iraq. ] 20:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise we should add some sources describing Bigfoot aiding the insurgents. I know I guy whose sister's friend read about it The Star. I'll see if I can find the link.

== Opening paragraph change ==

The official DoD policy in refrence to the Iraq War is to refer to it as Operation Iraqi Freedom, with a numeral after that to denote which "phase" (apologize already for an ambigious military term). I've been busted out too many times myself for calling it the Iraqi War! Gottalove the Military. ] 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:Thank God this encyclopedia is not owned by your DoD. ] 00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
: Perhaps the introduction isn't the best place for the term, but I think it is notable for inclusion. Many battles across WWII were known by their Operation name. Seems no different here. ] 04:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

== Harsh criticism of US Iraq policy ==

The following information is related to parts of the article, but I am not sure if it fits here: Insurgencies, frequent ] and sectarian violence lead to harsh criticism of US Iraq policy. . After the ] in February 2006 the US ambassador to Iraq, ] warned that sectarian violence spread might lead to a civil war in ] and possibly even the neighbouring countries. ] 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:Strange isn't it. You would think the criticism should be directed towards the insurgents, terrorists and sectarian zealots who are violating individual rights rather than US attempts to protect individual rights and democracy.--] 12:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

==Thoughts from the brain of a teenager==

Its kinda amusing actually. The US ousts out a dictatorship government and then replaces it with a so-called democratic government that would most likely be a puppet government that wins every election and favours the US.

By invading Iraq, the US really can't pull out of it now. If it tries to get out, the whole damn country will definitely collapse into a civil war.

Oh yeah, by the way, where are those WMDs that Bush kept talking about?

Thats all on my mind now.

] 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== ==Amends== Is it possible? ==

Why can't we just kiss and make up? What is it that seperates us from the Middle Eastern World?
Is it because our differences? Aren't we similar? Don't we hate each other equally? If so why?
I think this is deeply rooted in our relations with the Iraq War and it deserves thought.

Here is a quote: "The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?"
----Pablo Casals
I hope that means something to you.

'''Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.'''
----Guy de Maupassant
Think on that one too. Oh, and what ever happened to diplomacy? What happened to reason?
Just thought you mightlike to think about it.

--] 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:Is there any evidence of "hate" in the sacrificial role the U.S. played in freeing the Iraqi people? You commit an injustice by equating the coalition with those who spout hate and seek to terrorize or oppress. Nationalism based on racialism is the virus that poisoned the 20th century. Individuals not races and sects are what matter (and what has physical mass rather than just a subjective or conceptual existance), and a state that violates individual rights has no sovereignty worthy of respect and a state that protects rights has legitimacy even if it is defined by the racists to be an "exploitive" colonial or imperial power. --] 12:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

==I'm glad to hear there is intelligent life on Earth!==
You bring up a good point. This is the area of Foreign relations where things get muddled. First of all, did we really "free" or are we "freeing" the Iraqi people? They are in a state of civil disorder much worse than under the rule of their previous dictator, Suddam Hussien(]). Sure he was a terrible guy, but that doesn't justify the occupation and terrorization of a country's people. Surely the extension of the first Gulf war (headed off by Bush senior) into the "War on Terror", is a mockery within itself. It is not the Iraqis who are terrorizing us it we who are terrorizing them. Is it not? We ''invaded'' Iraq. First we were set to find WMDs that the President reported to have "thought" they had them and that we should go "get 'em." Of course there was no evidence found to back this "theory" up. Then, it became an operative to catch members of the Al Qeada(]). That was settled, but did really have to do much Iraq? At any rate it left the people in a worse situation again. Now it is the idea that we are going to "free" the Iraqis and give them Democracy. Absolutely outrageous! Who are we to say "our" ways are best(])? So, when you say that this has nothing to do with nationlistic values and imperialistic ambitions, think again. There is much to gain from this war economically in the U.S.(]), despite its high cost of life. Do you really think that the 21st century is immune to Nationalistic poison that you spoke of?
] 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


::I doubt there is much to be gained economically, unless the US were to take the oil, but there is no evidence the US is paying any less than market prices. Why blame the US for the current violence? The foreign terrorists and Bathists insurgents are not forces of nature, they are personally responsible for their behavior. If the insurgency were not going on things would definitely be improved over Saddam's regime, and for most of the people of Iraq things are improved even as they are. The actions of the US are justified, and those of the insurgents are not. BTW, even the failure to find WMD does not negate that reason for the invasion, because the US did find evidence that Saddam fully intended to start his WMD programs again once the sanctions ended. I agree we still have the nationalistic poison, we see that in the Balkans, the rising protectionism in Europe and the US, the Communist Chinese continued claims of sovereignty over the democracy in Taiwan and its occupation of Tibet. Note, China is not trying to get out of Tibet like the US is trying to get out of Iraq, etc.--] 18:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

''Dissent and Deliverance''

: I think the U.S. is going to benefit from the invasion of Iraq and its placement of government that has been proposed as some type of justification for our billigerent actions. You are right to state that there are cruelties on both sides, that certainly is a truth. However, the U.S. has tryed and is trying to escape these moral stains. Certain "scapegoats" were made by placing the reason for invasion on an evil dictator and his plans to manufacture WMDs, and possibly use them. Lastly our projected plan is to free the Iraqi people and give them democracy. The people who live there are in civil termoil and divided greatly between philosophies and regions. I am afraid, and when I say this I don't mean to make generalizations, that the people of Iraq are not prepared for a democracy or even know the first thing about it. They were under the rule of a dictator and will have a difficult time adapting to a new form of government. I have no idea what possessed us to do this, and I highly doubt it will prove successful. After we have established a strong national military station in Iraq and left them to their "democracy", it is doubtful that our ties with Iraq will be severed. With all the "help" we have given them, or trouble as you will, they will owe us something. Maybe it will be the monopolization of their oil or a say of what goes on in their country, and possibly they will be allied to us by default. At any rate it will be something of great value to the U.S. I can't think of anything more valuable then black gold. This, I theorize was the initial effort and plan of the Iraq War. This is but one imperialistic initiative that may begin the manifestation of something greater. Possibly it could lead to a global monopolization of markets (at least in the category of crude oil) and strong-headed policies bent on the fuel of greed--that has become our true failure in the care for the thoughts of others and their ways of life.--] 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Something I didn't know how to categorize was this category in the coalition forces part: {{bq|'''Injured/diseases/other medical*''': 51,139 (47,541 US,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-total.pdf |title=Global War on Terrorism – Operation Iraqi Freedom March 19, 2003 Through May 31, 2011 By Casualty Category Within Service |access-date=7 February 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110602035127/http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-total.pdf |archive-date=2 June 2011}}</ref> 3,598 UK)<ref name=mil/><ref name=icasualties/><ref name=ukcasualties/>}}
'''I think that it would be valuable to hear from someone from Iraq, preferably a citizen of Iraq and a U.S. soldier.''' This would really be the POV I would like to hear, but I know it would be difficult or unlikely for this to happen. I don't know enough about what the people in Iraq think, and it was wrong of me to judge so. However, it would be interesting to hear these POV of an Iraqi citizen and U.S. soldier. Sorry for any misunderstandings or bad judgements in my previous article.--Existential Thinker 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Some problems with this table: As mentioned above, the sources are a mess. I suggest we put in the casualties section each of those year-by-year figures, summing to a total, and put each year's reference there. Then the table can make do without a reference, as it's only summarizing the article body.
::::You want to hear the opinon of a US Soldier who served in Iraq? Too bad. I served in Iraq for a year, including in participating in the initial invasion. I tried editing this page for 3 months. I got sick of the rampant ignorance, the mindless euro-centric US hating, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld bashing etc. Just look at the self-righteous comments on this talk page: Anon's babbling about "Oh it was about the oil of course" like they're a famous political scientist, or an expert in national defense studies. If you want MY POV on the war, you can come find me on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to give it to you there. ] ] ] ] ] ] 03:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


I also note that some of the "sources" are, aside from being bare URLS, just links to Google Docs. We'll have to look more closely and purge the ones which aren't reliable.
:It was about oil, of course, but not about taking it, the US could have done that with fare less collateral damage to civilian life, and it would be easier to hold, since the oil fields are not densely populated. Saddam's only "right" to the oil was that he had the power to control it, so the "right" of the US was greater because its power was greater, and while in the short term there have been disruptions, in the long term the world will be better off if such wealth were not in the hands of someone with Saddam's intentions. The US has not taken the oil, but it has put the oil wealth in more reasonable hands, and is a powerful voice opposing the use of oil as a weapon and against the use of oil wealth for nationalistic and sectarian purposes rather than just material improvement of individual lives. There should be limits to anyone's ''"care for the thoughts of others"''. Individual human lives are not those worker ants to be used only to serve someone else's collective or reproductive purposes. I respect other life, catching mice in live traps and releasing them outdoors and shooing wasps out doors when possible, but I use anti-biotics and bug bombs when my life and health are threatened. Yes, part of me thinks the Bathist's or wahabi's are quaint lifestyles with as much right to be themselves as we have, but they are also quite virulent in their intent and hostility towards others who may not submit enough for their liking. Perhaps, a reservation or coventry can be set aside where they can practice and preserve their native way of life, but they are not so easy to tolerate when they aspire to modern weapons and to spread their "thoughts" through terroristic totalitarian control and with mindless mental drills in madrossas. It is racism or parochialism to suggest that these primitives have a "right" to that oil because of mere geographical proximity or somekind of collective tribal tradition. It is the demand and technology generated in the rest of the world that gives that oil value, otherwise it would still be in the ground and these virulent cultures would be oblivious to it and no more threat to us than the Sudan. If those in geographical proximity to the oil can't enjoy the wealth offered to them, instead of using it to oppress each other, and to seek to destroy the culture that gives the oil its value, then there are natural consequences they will face. It is to the credit of the US, that at great sacrifice in lives and wealth, it is attempting to avoid those natural consequences. Bush has faith that the individuals in this region have individual dreams and aspirations and are not just pawns of a virulent religious or sectarian collective. Yes, just taking the wealth, and leaving the dictators and collectives emasculated of its power would have been cheaper, but the lives of the individuals in the area would be even more miserable. The hope is that individualism and democratic self rule will influence Iran and Saudi Arabia. This expensive and sacrificial strategy would not work in populous Iran. There it would be best to take control the oil, and just starve the command and control of its wealth and power, and take pot shots at the leaders when they rear their successive virulent heads until a leader emerges who would be a better steward of the lives of the people and the wealth that just happens to lie in geographical proximity.--] 10:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Thoughts? ] (]) 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::OK...so what else are we going to do with oil than use it?--] 01:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


:Thanks for this. Two thoughts: (1) I'd be hesitant about taking ''too much'' out of the infobox; we should probably end up with more than "a single, high-level figure for the "Casualties" section of the infobox" (depending on exactly what you mean by that). (2) This work ought to take account of ] and vice versa. ] (]) 11:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
''The place where we differ in the understanding of the Iraq War is its purpose''
If we are really set out to bringing democracy and reconstructing Iraq then why did Bush start bombing Iraq again? He referred to the "air strike" intiative in Iraq as "Political maneuvers."
The Bush Administration is quite infamous for their fancy euphenisms and parliamentary rhetoric used to confuse a great deal of the fooled populus in America. It seems strange that we are trying to help a country with reconstruction while bombing more cities in that country. I fail to comprehend the logic of our Administration. Another suprising thing is the lack of evidence the Bush Administration has provided to back up their ideas or theories. In reference to IEDs in Iraq and our trouble dealing with them in the battle field, the President said they contained components from Iran. Although they said they had no evidence to back this up in the conference at The Defense of Democracy. Our strange strageties that we are using fit under a quote from Ed Helm (from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart)regarding our recontruction efforts, "we're not good at infrastructure, we're good at un-frastructure."--] 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


::Thank you for the feedback! In order, (1) That's valid. I was thinking the casualties in the infobox would have something like, "Coalition-allied: X killed, Y Wounded", "Iraqui-allied: M killed, N wounded", and "See ]" in a similar grouping to the current infobox. Is that still stripping out too much detail? (2) I agree emphatically. When I get more time, I might see about gathering some legitimate sources from that article to replace some of this mess. ] (]) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Why did Bush start bombing Iraq again?''' It is unclear when you mean by "again"? Operations since the toppling of Saddam or those that toppled Saddam? In either case precision munitions were used that carefully minimized collateral damage to civilian infrastruction. If you will objectively apply ] criteria, you will see that this latest Iraq conflict is arguably the most just war the U.S. has every fought. Compare it to the Serbian conflict, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc. where either civilian infrastructure was purposely targeted or conscript/slaves were used, or to the "Drug war" where nearly all victims are innocent civilians merely desiring to use or sell recreational drugs, and NOT oppress others. In criticising the U.S. efforts at "un-frastrusture", did Steward provide more than just a sound bite? Did he criticise the insurgent violence or assess how those efforts might have gone without such insurgent efforts and assess under just war criteria whether the insurgent actions are justified and what the "purpose" of those insurgents are?--] 12:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
:::It looks like (2) will probably be a two-way process, so I applaud you for the undertaking! On (1) I agree that killed and wounded is enough. I think it would be important to keep the Iraqi security forces and Awakening separate, but that coalition and contractors can probably be merged, and that we should probably retain "detainees" on the insurgents' side. "Documented deaths from violence" can probably be reduced to a single range. "Statistical estimates" is tricky; getting rid of them entirely seems wrong, but the range of different estimates is so huge (151,000-1,033,000) and that range represents some very different methodologies. ] (]) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I took a look at the ] article, and oh boy. It also has some majorly messed up citations. I think you're right that it's going to be a two-way street. Given the subject matter of that article, I'm thinking I should start refining that one first, have the more detailed discussions there, and once we have some presentable sections, copy (with attribution) them over to this article. @], would you be willing to take a look from time to time? I'm still pretty new at this, so I'd appreciate an experienced editor's eyes on it to help me avoid mistakes.] (]) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, these kinds of specific current event articles are often this. I'm absolutely happy to act as a sounding board as you improve the article (it's actually quite important that articles like this be reliable), but note that I'm in no way a subject expert, so it might also be worth dropping a line to the relevant wikiproject from time to time. ] (]) 16:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::(what you say about your planned approach is very sensible, imo) ] (]) 16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


{{reflist}}
::When I said "start bombing again" I meant the "Shock and Awe" (the spread of democracy) on March 10, 2003.--] 01:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


My question is this: If the United States wanted to show Saddam Hussein we were not playing games, isn't it sufficient that we went to war with him in the Gulf War "Operation Desert Shield August 1990-January 1991" and "Operation Desert Storm January 1991-April 1991"? There were also numerous airstrikes against Iraq from the time he threatened George Bush in January 1993 onward. The No-Fly Zone should have been enough to keep the Iraqi military in check, since Saddam was effectively unable to invade either Kuwait or Iran. The Coalition War against Iraq also never officially ended, since in the United States you are an Iraq War veteran if you served in the Gulf War, the No-Fly Zone conflict, or the Invasion of Iraq any time between August 1990 and the present. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
'''Let me make it clear then.'''
We have been occupying Iraq since the Gulf War, and you are right by stating my misquote (regarding Bush and the "again"). I meant to say the U.S. in general. Although, I was alluding to the original air strikes in the beginning of the war. I have no clue where you got the idea the this war is a "just" war. The lack of initial evidence in the invasion of Iraq was astounding. The fact that there was a cruel dictator does not justify our actions. The mere fact that we invaded without the proper U.N. authority, since the invasion was in direct violation of U.N. charter. This was a grave error by the current Adminsitration, therefore making the Iraq war a ''perfect example of imperialistic action and enterprise''. There is no way one can crawl from this hole, and the U.S. is trapped in it. That's my POV.--Existential Thinker 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
'''The only way one can justify our invasion of Iraq is if that individual sides with imperialism.'''--Existential Thinker 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, the only way one can oppose the invasion is to suggest that Saddam had more right to oppress the Iraqi people than the colalition had to liberate them. Your "reasoning" in this regard should be interesting. You forget that the UN is a fascist organization where nations and dictators have rights that supercede those of living organisms such as human individuals. Saddam's "sovereignty" was unworthy of respect. The initial evidence in support of a just war was astounding, a murderous dictator who had been defying UN sanctions and intent on acquiring wMD, an internationally sanctioned state of war existed already. Do you think the US would not have considered a externally imposed no fly zone on its territory a state of war? Iraq was firing a airplanes in the no fly zone and only the no fly zone was preventing Saddam from attacking the Kurds. The coalition had tried sanctions and other international policy actions for over a decade and only invaded as a last resort, and the war was fought by moral means a volunteer rather than conscript/slave military and the most precise targeting in history (to-date). Look at the just war criteria and see if there has ever been a more just war across all the elements.--] 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
:'''CORRECTION''', instead of "only", I should have mentioned that a '''true''' pacifist could also oppose the invasion or that someone wishing to get laid by conforming to peer group misperceptions could also justify opposing it.--] 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


== "Second Persian Gulf War" ==
::First off, your claims on the U.N. are very biased and unsupported by data,'''"You forget that the UN is a fascist organization where nations and dictators have rights that supercede those of living organisms such as human individuals."''' The U.N. is an international organization and remains relatively neutral in partisan and is affiliated with any sects. However, you claim they are fascists, even though they are manipulated by large governments, especially the U.S.(e.g. the Hutu-Tutsi issue in Rwanda and the invasion of Iraq). They are not totalitatrian or dictator like. They are easily controled by influential governments, and don't follow the idea of ], that is parallel to ].
:::Anon one. In the UN, nations have sovereignty rights that are acknowledged and protected even when those nations violate rather than protect the rights of their population. That is the fundamentally hegelian/fascist notion of the nation as a organism with rights to survive and defend itself. Look how careful the UN was to respect Iraq's sovereignty even though Saddam's regime was an abomination. Look how nations that are notorious human rights violators are allowed to serve on the human rights commissions, etc. The UN pays lip service to individual rights, but is far more concerned with the rights of nations. Cuba and China still impose severe restrictions on emigration, yet the UN has done nothing. The US oppresses innocent civilians who have done nothing more than use or sell recreational drugs, yet the UN not only supports the USA's "right" to do this, it supports the spread of this oppression to other nations.--] 09:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Greetings, @]. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the ] was known as the First Gulf War, while the ] of 1990–1991 was in fact ]. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this ] name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. ] (]) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I still fail to comprehend the reason that justifies the U.N. as a fascist organization. Often the U.S. tips off the U.N. in order to carry through with aggression policies (e.g. the Iraq War). I wonder why the U.N. didn't support the invasion of Iraq? My guess is that they didn't want to get involved in a international affair that could get them in trouble. In the incident in Rwanda the U.N. backed out of supporting the Tutsi minority because they lacked government support. It is taken for granted that they are an entirely independent organization, and they should be. However, they are easily manipulated by world dominating governments, such as the United Kingdom and us of course. The new evidence that has shed light on this problem with the pre-war plan and what reasons the U.S. had to invade the Iraqi nation can be found in the "War Planned in Advance?" section of this discussion page. It was found that in the pre-war "talk" Junior (formally known as George W. Bush) and Blair had decided that whether there were WMDs or not the war was to happen on the 10 of March, 2003. '''This is surprising because it shows us that the administrations plans were not in regards of finding WMDs, but taking out a dictator (which was placed there by the Bush senior, ironically), essentially continuing the Gulf War. On that very date that was projected by Bush, the "Shock and Awe", or the massive bombing assault was released on Bhagdad, bringing peace and democracy to Middle-eastern world.'''--] 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
:I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. ] (]) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
::::You are getting caught up in the details. The reason the UN is a fascist organization is right in the charter where it acknowledges the sovereignty and rights of nations. This comes into conflict with the rights of individuals and is a basic flaw that is institutionalized in how it is organized and makes decisions. In case you haven't noticed, Nations have the right to vote, whether they are violators of individual rights or not. It is the very notion that nations have an existance and rights beyond those of their component individuals that is fascist. The UN implicitly in many of its important actions acknowledges and respects the rights of nations to oppress their "own" people. Once you understand this, you will realize that all your talk about plans before the war is just irrelevant noise. The very existance and nature of the Saddam regime was carte blanche for anyone with better intent to take it and its supporters out. Saddam's regime had no right to exist necessitating respect.--] 10:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
:I strongly disagree with that. The ] claim here is in fact that the ] is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the ] article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the ] article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the ]. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the ] article, not this one. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the ] article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." ] (]) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
==PP==
Will we need to ask for page protection if the ] gets too much? ] (]) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


== suggest we need a section on "political impact" ==
::::You still fail to define the terms: '''Fascism'''- ''A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.''
Under what terms is the U.N. a fascist organization? They are not an oppresive or dictatorial government system. They are an international regulator in the actions and decisions of countries. Claiming the U.N. to be a fascist group is not only false, but the intentions are obviously to blacken their name. They probably had good reason to advise the U.S. that invading Iraq (''without any evidence on their claims, what so ever'') was unwise. In hindsight it is quite apparent that we stuck or selves in a thick quagmire in the beginning. The claims made to the U.N. is certainly your strategy in justifying the invasion. In your response, "you will realize that all your talk about plans before the war is just irrelevant noise." I thought it interesting that you made such a statement. This means we went to war on irrelevant noise, does it not? What does that make every million (exaggeration) reason that the Administration calimed after the war was started, about what the reason for our actions were. '''No, I'm afraid not, the Bush administration completed the invasion under the terms of what now is said to be democracy, even though its true ambtion were entirely imperialism. The dictator that was removed was our own doing, and the war we debate today is the job Bush senior couldn't finish, and his son is now finishing. Thus, is the Bush legacy and their grab for power in this world that has corrupted the people and the government. The government leaders that can be observed in the U.S., in my opinion, are completely moronic and incapable of any intelligent governmenting observable in the history of mankind. They deserve to be displaced from their seats of power before this war becomes a global affair, for it could be the end of us all.'''--] 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
:Anon One, I prefer a definition of fascism that retains its original meaning, I summarize/excerpt from the fascism article in the Encyclopedia of Philosphy. Fascism is a mixture of extreme socialist or syndicalist notions with a Hegelian or idealist theory of the state...liberalism saw the state simply as an institution created to protect men's rights, fascism looked on the state as an organic entity...to uphold the moral integrity and higher collective purpose of the nation.
:While the U.N. pays lip service in its charter to human rights, the charter also asserts the sovereignty of its member nations and in practice pays far more respect to that soveignty regardless of the member nations' records on human rights. By respecting Iraq/Saddam's sovereignty the UN and apparently you are accepting this fascist notion that nations have rights, whereas, the liberal position (read "classical liberal") is that the Iraqi state was not fulfulling its only legitimate purpose to protect men's rights and in fact was violating them.--] 13:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. ] (]) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::You still need to understand that fascism requires a dictator or totalititarian leader--which doesn't exist in U.N.'s circumstance.--] 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
:For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. ] (]) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
--] 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
::"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. ] (]) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. ] (]) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::obviously it seems that you ] this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. ] (]) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read ]. ] (]) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in ''all'' the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and ''all'' years, right up to the date today.
::::::so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. ] (]) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? ] (]) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., ] (]) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)


Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. ] (]) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
== POV -- still ==


:ok, thats totally fair. ] (]) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Folks, this article is very POV. I am opposed to the war and I think most reasonable people, when provided with ''accurate, neutral information'' also oppose it. Passages like


*The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as ''political legacy''. As such, it is part of the aftermath. ''If'' we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in ''good quality'' sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to ]. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. ] (]) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
''The more exclusive definitions of the "Iraq War" term...rest on rationalizations that tend to disagree, in various opinions, with direct or meaningful comparisons with other conflicts, though these are largely found in stated (or perceived) goals by the Coalition for the invasion and occupation. '''A better metric to determine precisely who the war is being waged upon should compare the number of unarmed civilian Iraqi deaths by the various combatants with the number of armed civilians and Iraqi soldiers killed in the war'''....''
*:the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. ] (]) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*:every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what ] means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. ] (]) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*::if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. ] (]) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::from, ]:
*:::<blockquote>
*:::A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
*:::...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.</blockquote>
*:::--] (]) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or ''point''. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. ] (]) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? {{small|{{strike|(My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.)}}}} ] (]) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. ] (]) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. ] (]) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. ] (]) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. ] (]) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)


===proposed text===
can't be in here. This is biased, uncited original research. The topic here is "rationalization", but this is trying to declare "who the war is being waged upon". Who came up with this "better metric" and why is it used at all in this paragraph?
here is the proposed text:


<blockquote>
The chemical weapons stuff is way over hyped. People were burned to death -- horrible yes. Chemical weapons -- no. The grenades utilize chemicals, just like every sort of grenade utilizes chemicals, just like every sort of bullet and bomb use chemicals (just like humvees and helicopters use chemicals). Merely using chemicals does not make a weapon a chemical weapon. Killing is a morally abhorrent thing, but keep the bias out. For anyone with a soul it would be bad enough to just say that people were burned to death by phospohorous grenades.


;Political impact
] 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
::::It's pointless to claim bias when you make blanket statements like "I think most reasonable people, when provided with ''accurate, neutral information'' also oppose it." Do you have any evidence to support that? What is accurate, neutral information? Is it the information you have? Have you been to Iraq, have you interviewed soldiers who fought there? My point is that your statement itself is POV, and asserting it as a reason for changing this article is grounds for disaster. ] ] ] ] ] ] 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


<s>The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. </s> at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the ] passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on |title=Situation in Iraq |publisher=Europarl.europa.eu |access-date=2018-08-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070213035323/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on |archive-date=2007-02-13 |url-status=live }}</ref>
:::::..And by stating so, you are also making your POV. Funny how that works?--] 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.
:As for the first one I think it's biased, please someone modify it. As for the second one, it seems good extra information to the reader, because they are internationally banned specifically as chemical weapons. --] 10:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


;United States
This article is nearly useless and unreadable. WAAAYYY too much POV, uncited sources, poor grammer, and generally just really crappy writing. Regardless of whether someone is opposed to the war or supports it--putting all these points and counter-points in an article just make the article more confusing and unreadable--not to mention a poor reference. Please stop adding things about how bad or good something is based on your pro/anti-war position and focus on adding actual relevant facts--let the historians sort out who was right or wrong.] 13:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” <ref> ,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian. </ref>
Listen, I am sorry for my extremist POVs, and if I affended you I hope you will forgive me. As you can tell from my articles I am at best an amateur writer, not to mention a minor. I understand all that the public domain in this discussion page has made several comments on my contributions, stating that I should drop my "biased" POVs. Maybe I have been unfair in doing so. I will work hard at being a little more balanced in my POV and support my articles with more data. I am working towards becoming a better Wikipedian and writer, fore I am new to Misplaced Pages. I thank you for your suggestions and comments and I hope you can give me some tips and pointers. However, I'll have you know that I am strong in my belief of what I think is right or wrong. I see these values on either side of the current war in Iraq. It is hard to weigh the rights and wrongs of each side, as you know. I am not trying to judge people for their actions and form irrational conclusions, for it would be wrong of me to do so. No, I am here to rationally distinguish certain wrongs on each side and back it up with some evidence. I have reason for my action. If this discussion page is more concerned with who is using POV or showing too much opinion in their articles, than getting to the bottom of things in a reasonable manner, then I will have nothing to do with it. POV or opinion is a right that we hold, and should be exercised, it makes us unique as indivduals. Facts are facts and that's a fact. However, how you interpret that fact is POV, and that is partof the beauty and intelligence that is valued in discourse. It is a value, I think that has been left to rot in our society. That is my POV on POVs.--] 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. <ref> , By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News. </ref> <ref> By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico. </ref> When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,” <ref> , BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine. </ref> <ref> , By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo. </ref>
Existential Thinker, I understand that POV can be a difficult thing to deal with especially on something like a war. But keep in mind, you can always create references to an infinite number of related articles on any subject. However, there needs to be at least one starting point that everyone can agree on from which to link these other articles. The main goal (especially with this article) is to present all the relevant facts and information and then link articles on relevant points.] 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, ], labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous. <ref> , Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024. </ref>
The removal of quotes wasn't discussed here. The deletion of large sections without good reasons is called blanking. I see no good reason stated here, so please do not blank the quotes again. --] <sup>]</span>|<span style="color:gold">]</span>]</sup> 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


;United Kingdom
I moved the Bush quotes to the ]. There was no analysis of the quotes within this article they were simply a list of quotes. Since all of the quotes deal with a time period before the war and contain language rationalizing the war, I feel they are a better fit to a specific article dealing with the runup to the war--rather than a general article discussing all aspects of the war.] 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.


One article in 2023 noted:
== The problem with this article ==


<blockquote> By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.
Agree with Publicus and Justforasecond that the article needs a lot of work but I think the major problem isn't POV, it's that the article starts off with long-winded, pedantic asides on terminology and rationales. We shouldn't be calling "Iraq war" an informal term, it is simply the standard term routinely used by journalists to refer to the fighting which started with the 2003 invasion and continues to this day. There isn't really much of a difference between "Iraq war", "Iraq War", and "war in Iraq". The first alternative, with lower case "war", seems to be more common in news reports, so we should just use that and stick with it. Also, though we should briefly summarize President Bush's justifcations for the war, the long passages from his speeches are not necessary. Primarily this article should present the basic facts, the groups involved and the phases of the fighting, with links to other, more detailed articles on each of these. ] 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
<p>
Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war. <ref> . Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023. </ref> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
{{talkrefs}}


::::I am new to Misplaced Pages could anyone give me tips on citing sources,etc?--] 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


--] (]) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with you about the "Iraq War" informal-formal stuff. Would anyone have any problem with simply removing all of that and replacing it with a much simpler intro from a previous article version? Here is a September 8, 2005 version of this article that I think has a much better intro: So what say you all, better intro or not? -- ] 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


== Military situation ==
:Also Publicus the long series of edits without any edit summarizes messes up the article history. Please use fewer edits and provide explanations in the edit summary box. It makes it easier for everyone to track whats going on with the article. -- ] 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? ] (]) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:: I think the version which Mr. Tibbs points to is much better, both in the introduction and overall structure. ] 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


== Rudeness ==
I like that intro too Mr. Tibbs--a lot cleaner. Sorry for the numerous edits wtout edit summary, a lot of them were just typos and moves within the article, housekeeping type stuff, etc. The article was just so unuseable, I guess I went a little edit-crazy-lol.] 13:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Stop the rudeness to iran ] (]) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be a subtle POV all through parts of this article. Take for instance the caption "Unrepaired infrastructure and a risk of being killed either by U.S. occupiers or insurgents had made life difficult to average Iraqis." The use of weasel words and phrases like "killed by U.S. occupiers " shifts the tone of the article to be somewhat anti-war. --] 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:What rudeness are you talking about? ] (]) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)


== New draft ==
::Oh I dont know, I think this article lookos okay to me. ] 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
:::As can be seen from the history, ] has not edited this page. The above comment was . He will be blocked if it happens again. ] | ] 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC).


I have an draft ] beacuse section in this article is too long.
== Saddam the top Opponent? ==
I think it is somewhat innacurate to have Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the top opponent. While they obviously were the opponent during the invasion itself, they are no longer being fought in the Iraq War. ] 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
:Quite true. Justifications for the war should also be expanded to include the racial or sectarian excuses the insurgents and al Qaeda use to justify their attacks upon innocent civilians. I doubt they would meet just war criteria. They didn't spend over a decade trying to resolve whatever issues they had in the U.N., they certainly haven't used moral means, and they didn't resort to war as a last resort. In fact things would be much better if they didn't resort to war at all. The desire to oppress others is not a valid justification under ].--] 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


The draft is not yet completed. ] (]) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
== Not Original Goals? ==
It states in the opening paragraph that it wasnt originally said that the war was for humanitarian reasons and democracy. This is false. ]. Donald Rumsfeld gave these as the reasons prior to the invasion. Saying that they werent given as reasons does accurately represent a common anti war talking point, however it does not accurately represent reality, or NPOV. ] 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


== Addition of ] to infobox ==
== War planned in advance? ==


{{U|Ben Azura}}, with , you would readd ] to the infobox. Per ], the infobox is to summarise key facts ''from the article''. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, ] applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: {{tq|Per ] - not supported by body of article}}. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, ]. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. ] (]) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Should something be added to the article about the Tony Blair\GWB meeting that said the war was planned in advance? I think the memo is linked as an external site, but shouldn't there be something about it in the article itself?


:I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? ] (]) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
] 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
::Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: ], ], and ]. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


:::{{U|Ben Azura}}, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. {{U|Swatjester}}, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. ] (]) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think you may find it interesting to know that the War was planned ahead of time in the talk that Dubya and Blair had pre-war. It was aggreed that the war would happen on the 10 of March, 2003, whether or not there were any WMDsand . It beats me. The new evidence on this is outrageous, however true, and I found it enlightening. That was what the "Coalitoin of the Willing" was about.--] 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
:This new evidence you undoubtably be placed in the artcle under ], as an un-justification. The evidence that has shed light upon the Iraq War, surely proves the aggressive tactics the Administration were performing. It did not matter whether they had any proof to go to war, only that it was to happen. The true reason is very much controversial and I don't wish to end in more POVs. This new evidence needs to printed in the article, and stated that it left all post-invasion excuses and "justifications" exempt from the Iraq picture. It was definitely not about WMDs because it did not matter, and all the other reasons were stated after the War started. All the "new" justifications" were probably, in my '''opinion''', excuses to keep the War a popular idea despite its true ambitions.--] 11:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


== Human Rights Abuses ==


Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
== Infobox POV? ==
See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture ] (]) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
"Instability and a massive amount of terrorist acts committed against civilians". I think that "instability" is debatable and so is the phrase "massive amount".
] 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)KevinPuj
:There are attacks killing dozens of people every other day, if you do not see that is a massive amount and creates instability maybe that is just your POV? ] 00:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:A "massive amount" of attacks implies a large quantity of attacks, there are at most several a day. ] 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)KevinPuj

Latest revision as of 16:43, 15 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good article nomineeIraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 1, 2010.
Current status: Former good article nominee
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconIraq Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconKurdistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArab world High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountering systemic bias: Global perspective
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Global perspective task force.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Military history / History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconBush family (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family

To-do list for Iraq War: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2014-07-31

Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:

  • Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources
  • More detail about humanitarian projects throughout the conflict by U.S. troops and private organizations.
  • Remove as much bias as possible and site sources. One example is in the 5th paragraph from the top which starts with "Some U.S. officials accused..." Which officials? Also, the report cited at the end of that sentence is intended to dispel the myth of Iraq's direct connection (the "smoking gun") to Al-Qaida, but the sentence does not address that the report confirms direct connections between Saddam's regime to other terrorist groups and its perception of the West (namely, America) as its enemy. The appearance of bias comes from the omission of the proven fact that the Hussein regime was directly connected to terrorist groups who viewed America as an enemy. (This can be read in the cited source.) This entire Wiki entry comes off as argumentative (arguing that this was a war of agression by Western powers against Iraq) and not as unbiased. This is just one glaring example. Please remove this bias or remove this entry. Thanks.

One thing that I think would be extremely relevant would be a timeline of important events; they have much of the information needed for it in the article itself, but it would be easier to read and comprehend if it was contained in a timeline.

I also think it should clarify whether there are still U.S. troops in Iraq and what their purpose is there if they are still occupying parts of Iraq. --Tarzane (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Update/correct civilian casualties. Estimates off by several hundred thousand. Ideally use a source other than a media article.

Section sizes
Section size for Iraq War (74 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 40,976 40,976
Background 6,441 6,441
Pre-war events 18,669 26,463
Opposition to invasion 7,794 7,794
Course of the war 24 131,961
2003: Invasion 13,890 13,890
Post-invasion phase 114 118,047
2003: Beginnings of insurgency 3,438 11,953
Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraq Survey Group 6,638 6,638
Ramadan Offensive 2003 1,877 1,877
Capturing former government leaders 2,800 4,487
Looting of artifacts from Iraqi museums 1,687 1,687
2004: Insurgency expands 7,279 7,279
2005: Elections and transitional government 3,150 3,150
2006: Civil war and permanent Iraqi government 3,922 6,106
Iraq Study Group report and Saddam's execution 2,184 2,184
2007: US troops surge 4,382 24,893
Planned troop reduction 1,646 1,646
Effects of the surge on security 10,944 10,944
Political developments 2,005 2,005
Tensions with Iran 2,255 2,255
Tensions with Turkey 3,024 3,024
Blackwater private security controversy 637 637
2008: Civil war continues 7,307 24,705
Spring offensives on Shiite militias 2,467 2,467
Congressional testimony 2,113 2,113
Iraqi security forces rearm 3,277 3,277
Status of forces agreement 9,541 9,541
2009: Coalition redeployment 65 10,720
Transfer of the Green Zone 1,513 1,513
Provincial elections 3,692 3,692
Exit strategy announcement 1,531 1,531
Sixth anniversary protests 1,319 1,319
Coalition forces withdraw 1,207 1,207
Iraq awards oil contracts 1,393 1,393
2010: US drawdown and Operation New Dawn 12,725 16,757
Iraqi arms purchases 3,095 3,095
The UN lifts restrictions on Iraq 937 937
2011: US withdrawal 7,883 7,883
Aftermath 17 9,508
Emerging conflict and insurgency 9,491 9,491
Casualties 15 3,392
Casualty estimates 3,377 3,377
Impacts 12 26,135
Economic impact 22 6,435
Financial cost 5,021 5,021
Reparations 661 661
Economic recession in 2021 731 731
Humanitarian impact 26 4,361
Humanitarian crisis 4,335 4,335
Environmental impact 29 7,527
Oil pollution 1,786 1,786
Radioactive contamination 4,493 4,493
Ecosystem destruction 1,219 1,219
Impact on the Global War on Terrorism 6,008 6,008
Impact on geopolitics 1,792 1,792
Criticism 11,584 11,584
Human rights abuses 103 14,871
By Coalition forces and private contractors 6,544 6,544
By insurgent groups 6,710 6,710
By post-invasion Iraqi Government 1,514 1,514
Public opinion on the war 73 8,878
International opinion 5,148 8,805
Iraqi opinion 3,657 3,657
Foreign involvement 26 5,791
Suicide bombers 1,702 1,702
Role of Iran 3,214 3,214
Role of Israel 98 98
Role of Russia 751 751
See also 604 604
Footnotes 30 30
References 30 30
Further reading 4,169 4,169
External links 5,217 5,217
Total 296,050 296,050

Casualty Table

Per the above section, it sounds like it may be useful to migrate some of the infobox fields into the article body. The existing section solely examines Iraqi casualties. Therefore, I propose the addition of a subsection entitled Casualty Overview and, in it, three tables of the form:

Forces Killed Missing/Captured Wounded
Force1 X dead Y missing Z Wounded
... ... ... ...
Total XX YY ZZ

There would be one table each for Coalition, Iraqi, and civilian casualties. This would allow us to make a single, high-level figure for the "Casulaties" section of the infobox, provide more detail in a piped link, and also direct the reader toward the article on casualties if desired. We'll also need to revamp the citations currently used in infobox; currently it's a lot of tabulation of values with bare URLs, which I think we can do better on.

Thoughts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks to be a good place to start. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, since I got that encouragement and no objections, here's a first stab at the Coalition Casualties Table:

Coalition Casualties
Force Killed Missing/Captured Wounded
Iraqi security forces (post-Saddam) 17,690 40,000+
Coalition forces 4,821 (4,421 US, 179 UK, 139 other) (US): 17 (9 died in captivity, 8 rescued) 32,776+ (32,292 US, 315 UK, 210+ other)
Contractors 3,650 43,880
Awakening Councils 1,002+ 500+ (2007), 828 (2008)
Total 27,163 117,961

Something I didn't know how to categorize was this category in the coalition forces part:

Injured/diseases/other medical*: 51,139 (47,541 US, 3,598 UK)

Some problems with this table: As mentioned above, the sources are a mess. I suggest we put in the casualties section each of those year-by-year figures, summing to a total, and put each year's reference there. Then the table can make do without a reference, as it's only summarizing the article body.

I also note that some of the "sources" are, aside from being bare URLS, just links to Google Docs. We'll have to look more closely and purge the ones which aren't reliable.

Thoughts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Two thoughts: (1) I'd be hesitant about taking too much out of the infobox; we should probably end up with more than "a single, high-level figure for the "Casualties" section of the infobox" (depending on exactly what you mean by that). (2) This work ought to take account of Casualties of the Iraq War and vice versa. Furius (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! In order, (1) That's valid. I was thinking the casualties in the infobox would have something like, "Coalition-allied: X killed, Y Wounded", "Iraqui-allied: M killed, N wounded", and "See #Casualties" in a similar grouping to the current infobox. Is that still stripping out too much detail? (2) I agree emphatically. When I get more time, I might see about gathering some legitimate sources from that article to replace some of this mess. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
It looks like (2) will probably be a two-way process, so I applaud you for the undertaking! On (1) I agree that killed and wounded is enough. I think it would be important to keep the Iraqi security forces and Awakening separate, but that coalition and contractors can probably be merged, and that we should probably retain "detainees" on the insurgents' side. "Documented deaths from violence" can probably be reduced to a single range. "Statistical estimates" is tricky; getting rid of them entirely seems wrong, but the range of different estimates is so huge (151,000-1,033,000) and that range represents some very different methodologies. Furius (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I took a look at the Casualties of the Iraq War article, and oh boy. It also has some majorly messed up citations. I think you're right that it's going to be a two-way street. Given the subject matter of that article, I'm thinking I should start refining that one first, have the more detailed discussions there, and once we have some presentable sections, copy (with attribution) them over to this article. @Furius, would you be willing to take a look from time to time? I'm still pretty new at this, so I'd appreciate an experienced editor's eyes on it to help me avoid mistakes.EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, these kinds of specific current event articles are often this. I'm absolutely happy to act as a sounding board as you improve the article (it's actually quite important that articles like this be reliable), but note that I'm in no way a subject expert, so it might also be worth dropping a line to the relevant wikiproject from time to time. Furius (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
(what you say about your planned approach is very sensible, imo) Furius (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. 260 killed in 2003, 15,196 killed from 2004 through 2009 (with the exceptions of May 2004 and March 2009), 67 killed in March 2009, 1,100 killed in 2010, and 1,067 killed in 2011, thus giving a total of 17,690 dead
  2. "Iraq War" (PDF). US Department of State. Retrieved 18 November 2012.
  3. The US DoD and the DMDC list 4,505 US fatalities during the Iraq War. In addition to these, two service members were also previously confirmed by the DoD to have died while supporting operations in Iraq, but have been excluded from the DoD and DMDC list. This brings the total of US fatalities in the Iraq War to 4,507.
  4. "Fact Sheets | Operations Factsheets | Operations in Iraq: British Fatalities". Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 11 October 2009. Retrieved 17 October 2009.
  5. "Operation Iraqi Freedom". iCasualties. Archived from the original on 21 March 2011. Retrieved 24 August 2010.
  6. "POW and MIA in Iraq and Afghanistan Fast Facts". CNN. Retrieved 5 June 2014.; As of July 2012, seven American private contractors remain unaccounted for. Their names are: Jeffrey Ake, Aban Elias, Abbas Kareem Naama, Neenus Khoshaba, Bob Hamze, Dean Sadek and Hussain al-Zurufi. Healy, Jack, "With Withdrawal Looming, Trails Grow Cold For Americans Missing In Iraq", The New York Times, 22 May 2011, p. 6.
  7. "Casualty" (PDF). Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  8. 33 Ukrainians, 31+ Italians, 30 Bulgarians, 20 Salvadorans, 19 Georgians, Archived 13 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine 18 Estonians, 14+ Poles, 15 Spaniards, Archived 2 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine 10 Romanians, 6 Australians, 5 Albanians, 4 Kazakhs, 3 Filipinos, and 2 Thais, for a total of 210+ wounded
  9. ^ Many official US tables at "Military Casualty Information" Archived 3 March 2011 at the Wayback Machine. See latest totals for injury, disease/other medical Archived 2 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  10. "Casualties in Iraq".
  11. ^ iCasualties.org (was lunaville.org). Benicia, California. Patricia Kneisler, et al., "Iraq Coalition Casualties" Archived 21 March 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  12. ^ "Defence Internet Fact Sheets Operations in Iraq: British Casualties" Archived 14 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine. UK Ministry of Defense. Latest combined casualty and fatality tables Archived 4 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
  13. "Human Costs of U.S. Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones | Figures | Costs of War".
  14. ^ "Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) – Defense Base Act Case Summary by Nation". US Department of Labor. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
  15. ^ T. Christian Miller (23 September 2009). "US Government Private Contract Worker Deaths and Injuries". Projects.propublica.org. Archived from the original on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2010.
  16. 185 in Diyala from June 2007 to December 2007, 4 in assassination of Abu Risha, 25 on 12 November 2007, Archived 14 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine 528 in 2008, Archived 10 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine 27 on 2 January 2009, 13 on 16 November 2009,"Thirteen anti-Qaeda tribe members killed in Iraq – France 24". Archived from the original on 29 April 2011. Retrieved 14 February 2011. 15 in December 2009, 100+ from April to June 2010, 52 on 18 July 2010, total of 1,002+ dead Archived 18 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  17. Moore, Solomon; Oppel, Richard A. (24 January 2008). "Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq". The New York Times.
  18. Greg Bruno. "Finding a Place for the 'Sons of Iraq'". Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on 10 December 2016. Retrieved 26 December 2011.
  19. "Global War on Terrorism – Operation Iraqi Freedom March 19, 2003 Through May 31, 2011 By Casualty Category Within Service" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2011. Retrieved 7 February 2016.

My question is this: If the United States wanted to show Saddam Hussein we were not playing games, isn't it sufficient that we went to war with him in the Gulf War "Operation Desert Shield August 1990-January 1991" and "Operation Desert Storm January 1991-April 1991"? There were also numerous airstrikes against Iraq from the time he threatened George Bush in January 1993 onward. The No-Fly Zone should have been enough to keep the Iraqi military in check, since Saddam was effectively unable to invade either Kuwait or Iran. The Coalition War against Iraq also never officially ended, since in the United States you are an Iraq War veteran if you served in the Gulf War, the No-Fly Zone conflict, or the Invasion of Iraq any time between August 1990 and the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.242.176.66 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"Second Persian Gulf War"

Greetings, @Swatjester. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the Iran–Iraq War was known as the First Gulf War, while the Gulf War of 1990–1991 was in fact also known as the Second Gulf War. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this WP:FRINGE name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. Skitash (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that. The WP:FRINGE claim here is in fact that the Iran-Iraq War is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the Iran-Iraq War article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the Gulf War article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the Iraq War. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the Iran-Iraq War article, not this one. ⇒SWATJester 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the Gulf War article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ⇒SWATJester 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." Dougjaso (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ⇒SWATJester 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

PP

Will we need to ask for page protection if the wp:disruption gets too much? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

suggest we need a section on "political impact"

I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
obviously it seems that you own this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read wp:AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in all the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and all years, right up to the date today.
so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, thats totally fair. Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as political legacy. As such, it is part of the aftermath. If we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in good quality sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to WP:OR. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what WP:OR means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    from, WP:OR:
    A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
    ...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
    --Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? (My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.) Gawaon (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. Sm8900 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. Sm8900 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

proposed text

here is the proposed text:

Political impact

The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".

Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.

United States

By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”

During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,”

The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, JD Vance, labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.

One article in 2023 noted:

By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.

Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war.

References

  1. "Situation in Iraq". Europarl.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
  2. [On the Iraq war, Jeb Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian.
  3. Donald Trump, Jeb Bush spar over Bush family legacy, By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News.
  4. Trump Goes Code Pink on George W. Bush: The Republican front-runner echoes Democratic talking points on 9/11, Iraq and Bin Laden By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico.
  5. Jeb Bush Reverses Himself: ‘I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq’, BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine.
  6. How Jeb Bush Triggered an Iraq War Watershed, By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo.
  7. JD Vance Criticizes Biden’s Support for Iraq War in 2003 But Pushes Hawkish Policy on China & Iran, Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024.
  8. How Iraq war destroyed UK’s trust in politicians and left Labour in turmoil. Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023.


--Sm8900 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Military situation

Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? Ali aj809 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rudeness

Stop the rudeness to iran 78.150.125.128 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What rudeness are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

New draft

I have an draft Draft:Course of the Iraq War beacuse section in this article is too long.

The draft is not yet completed. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Ayad Allawi to infobox

Ben Azura, with this edit, you would readd Ayad Allawi to the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, WP:ONUS applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, WP:BRD. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? Ben Azura (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: Ayad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ⇒SWATJester 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Ben Azura, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. Swatjester, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses

Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib. See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture 2600:1001:B128:A069:C805:F112:660F:A404 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: