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 14:55, 22 June 2006 editNescio (talk | contribs)11,956 edits Starting a proper RFC that mentions all views← 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="messagebox standard-talk"
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
|-
{{American English}}
! rowspan="2" valign="top" |
{{Article history
! align="left" |
|action1=GAN
<big> ] for ]:</big>
|action1date=September 1, 2006
| align="right" |
|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
| 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.
{{WPMILHIST|War-on-Terrorism-task-force=yes}}
{{pb}}Thoughts? ] (]) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
{| class="infobox" width="270px"

:Looks to be a good place to start. ] (]) 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:

{| 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>
||
|| 43,880<ref name="dol.gov"/><ref name="projects.propublica.org"/>
|- |-
|]''' | ''']'''
|| 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>
||
|| 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>
|- |-
| '''Total'''
|]'''
|| 27,163
|
||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
|| 117,961

|}
== Consensus - "War on Terrorism" ==

After discussing the relationship between the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism, we have reached a consensus over how do deal with this at Misplaced Pages. As the "]" is a specific, defined campaign, waged by the USA and its allies, they have full ability to define it, and carry it out as they choose. The campaign is a campaign being waged by them against those they have labeled terrorist groups and state sponsors of terror. As Iraq was labeled a state sponsor of terror , and as the Iraq War has always been stated as a part of the War on Terrorism , it is a factual statement to say that it is a part of this campaign. The main objection to this was that it allegedly allows the United States and allies determine for the world who is, and who is not a terrorist/state sponsor. This is untrue - this specific campaign is against those ''they see'' as terrorists/state sponsors, thus avoiding any issue of NPOV. Another problem arose in discussion, however, dealing with how to represent this fact in the related articles. Some raised concerns that were we to merely state it as part of the War on Terrorism, it might not be clear to people that it is stating it as part of the specificly defined conflict. To address this, we have come to a compromise in which quotations are used in the infobox, ex. Part of the "]." We beleive that this removes any doubt that it is referring to the specific campaign, described at the article's namespace. We came to both of these conclusions through an extensive discussion, and beleive it to be a valid consensus based on the strength of the arguments. If anyone has any objections that are relevant to this decision, please raise them here. ] 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'd just like to try to rephrase that and see if I get it right. The US isn't the world arbiter of who is and is not ''really'' a terrorist or a sponsor of terrorism. Nevertheless, the US sets up campaigns and whatnot, and it gives them proper names, e.g. "]", etc. They've named one of their campaigns "The War on Terrorism", and although it is argued that this is a prejudicial misnomer, it is the name they chose. Recognizing that the Iraq War is part of that particular campaign, as classified by those carrying it out, is not really a problem. It's just that the name of the campaign exploits the ambiguity between proper and common nouns to make it appear that any action in the campaign is actually carried out for the purpose of fighting terrorism, defined in whatever way people think of it intuitively. To avoid this prejudicial aspect of the name, we're putting it in quotes, to highlight the fact that it's being used as a proper noun, and that we aren't making any claim as to the appropriateness of the words "War" "on" "Terrorism" to describe what's going on in Iraq.
:Meanwhile, the article will be sure to address the controversy over the causes of the war, and their putative relation to terrorism, which is what this naming issue is really about.
:Is that just about right? If so, I support the solution described by Rangeley and myself. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, that is correct. ] 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:I support this decision, please read ] for a further rationale as to why quotations should be used. --] 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:: So does this mean we can finally remove the NPOV and US-centric tag in the template? --] 06:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I am not sure why the NPOV tag was ever there, once the US Centric tag went up the other should have come down. As for removing both, as long as its represented by the quotation marks it seems it would be ok to remove both tags. I will start to write up something on the controvery over the inclusion of Iraq War. As per the agreement. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 10:06, 21 June 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 still have a problem with putting this in the title. I do understand though that this is a US-defined term--so if we have to use this Republican rhetorical device, can we at least label it "Part of the U.S. War on Terrorism" since that a better descriptor of the conflict.] 13:24, 21 June 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.
No, we determined that to label it "Bush's" or "United States" then it would not represent all of the players involved, because many of the operations have no US involvement whatsoever. The quotes do enough to show it is a proper noun, not a description. The article makes it clear what this proper noun is. ] 13:29, 21 June 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.
However, the Iraqi front in the WOT is solely defined by the U.S.--other nations are fighting terrorism, but it's really the U.S. that has defined the Iraqi conflict most recently as part of the WOT. Sorry to rehash this argument, I must have missed part of the discussion earlier.] 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Thoughts? ] (]) 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Every part of the WoT is solely defined by the US/allies. We decided that, however, stating that it is the US War on Terror implies they are the only player, something that is incorrect. Thus we compromised on quotes to make it clear that it is a proper noun. We have talked about this exact topic here ] 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds good, I just wanted to know if the "US" label had been discussed. The quotes on WOT work for me. Nice job on a very small but very difficult piece.] 16:11, 21 June 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)
This works for me - whether you consider GWOT a real & valid thing or a US fantasy/excuse, it 'exists' and is part of the rhetoric - the quotes appear to do it justice in both interpretations yet does not automatically lend legitimacy; nicely NPOV IMHO. I do have another quibble though...] 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you, I was beginning to think I was crazy. --] 15:35, 21 June 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)
== Casualty Figures ==
:::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)
The infobox shows ''55K Insurgents dead or jailed'' - that would imply that it's good to get them off the street (true) but it also implies that somehow it doesn't matter whether you kill them or just lock them up (forever?? if you consider it equiv to dead??). It also implies that *everyone* locked up is a bad guy. There is pretty well unanimous agreement that this is not so (the debate ranges from 'possibility of a few erroneous arrests & a very small percentage' to 'most are illegally detained' - but in either case it makes the 55K a dubuious figure) This figure really needs to be broken out into separate Killed & Detained. The other quibble is that the civil casualties are all on the left side of the table; whihc implies that they were all caused by the right side of the table, which is patently not true - Saddam's folks and insurgents have been responsible for a lot of them too. Can the civ figure be placed across both columns somehow?] 14:12, 21 June 2006 (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}}
I have noticed your second complaint, but I dont know how to deal with it really. How do we determine which civilians were killed by which side? ] 14:14, 21 June 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-->
:Its correct according to the Iraq Index. Since its obvious in a war torn country they do not have specific numbers of who is an insurgent and who is a terrorists, since they are almsot one and the same. They have included terrorists into the insurgent numbers. As for civilians killed, the number I provided by the Iraq Index includes only those killed by combat related incidents, not crimes, this excludes war crimes. What this means is that Iraqi's killing Iraqi's for their TV is not included in this number. There is a seperate number for those killed by combat operations and crime, also in the source. As for what it implies ... they are just numbers its not implying anything. Its almost like if you had a statistic of murders in prisons and then went on about how they may be innocent. They are guilty to the effect that they have been arrested as insurgents or terrorists, thats all I can really offer you. The number is about jailed/killed, and so its quotes as such. As for who is illegally detained, this is not the forum for political belief discussion on legallities of detention of insurgents or "freedom fighters". --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


== "Second Persian Gulf War" ==
::I do not mind if people provide alternate sources, however they have to be based on a reasonably sized study, one more larger and respected then the Iraq Index. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:41, 21 June 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)
Agree that 55 is bogus, just looked at the cited ref & this figure is a most interesting extrapolation from what the doc already says are questionable figures. The civ stats are not much different - a range 18K-34K would prob be more in keeping with what Brookings says; the 33,334 lends a false air of accuracy and reliability. Absolutely - we don't know who killed who re. civs (yes, early on in war it was heavily Coalition 'collateral', but not since then) Which is why I'm thinking have the civ figures stretch across both collumns so it doesn't specify or 'assume'' who the perpetrator of civ deaths was - would do this, but my box-format-edit skills are abysmal {{smiley|4}}...
:I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. ] (]) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Nor am I suggesting that Brookings is bad; it's what I use day to day - just that in this case the use of it is somewhat misleading - the cell that the 33,334 came from says '18,961-33,334' - an honest use of those figures would be to quote the range or the median, not to use the upper limit. ] 14:53, 21 June 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)
:I have no issue with this, I used the top half number because the previous number cited over 100,000 which was just civilians dead, not differentiating if they died of anything related to combat even, it was also done on shakey methods of taking the total dead in one town, where heavy fighting had gone on, then using that % with the total population and assuming that % of dead was in every city. So I kept the higher number to prevent a fight over such a low number basically. I have no personal preference as to using the whole range. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:04, 21 June 2006 (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)
:::''it was also done on shakey methods of taking the total dead in one town, where heavy fighting had gone on, then using that % with the total population and assuming that % of dead was in every city.'' If you're referring to the ''Lancet'' study, well, no, completely wrong: in fact, it was done in precisely the opposite way: data collected in Fallujah was specifically '''excluded''' because it was an outlier. See ] and this American . --] | ] 07:08, 22 June 2006 (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)
::::The study counts people who died, not people who died due to the war. The Iraqi Index specifically counts people who have been killed by some sort of military action. And contains a seperate number for people killed by crime, not related to military action. There is no reason to include the number of people dead, when it could have been some guy making love to his wife in the heat and having a heart attack. Its inappropriate to attribute every death to the war. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 11:51, 22 June 2006 (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)
::I dont know how to split the cell either. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:10, 21 June 2006 (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" ==
Thanks; I tried but with grotesque results - I've posed the question at ].] 15:50, 21 June 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)
Good point Bridesmill, I would also like to see the Iraqi civilian number put more in the middle--however, we also have to keep in mind that some of the Iraqi civilian dead might also be counted as insurgents, or terrorists, or militia, etc. The same problem can also be seen in the "Iraqi Security Forces" number--some of those might also fall into the insurgent category (those who have infiltrated the ISF for example) so how do we count them? Personally, I have no idea.] 16:08, 21 June 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)
:The source I am using has seperate number for Security Forces killed, so its already stated they are not. As for the whole "what if" thing, we have to assume they are not. For any poll or statistic you can then say, how do you know you counted the right ones, that person may really be an alien ... as an extreme example. But since the poll does differentiate, civilians are non combatants, meaning they are also not security forces, terrorists, insurgents etc. Yes I do know he may have seemed like a civilian but really been a terrorist, its the same with any stat, you in the end can never really tell. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 16:16, 21 June 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)
] over at the Infobox home has kindly activated the 'Casualties3' field, I just did it on the article; not totally sure if it's the final answer but I think a step in the right direction.] 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


:ok, thats totally fair. ] (]) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm thinking contractor dead is a valid figure, but perhaps blended in as part of total Coalition dead (in interest of keeping infobox concise). THey are different form 'pure' civs, in that most of them are simply employees (often ex-military) of the military - technicians without uniforms. ] 16:48, 21 June 2006 (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 ]. 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)
: I just felt they should not get their own group. If you want to add that total, to the other total and maybe put a footnote and at the end of the page state this is what happened, that seems fair. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:47, 21 June 2006 (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. ] (]) 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===
::Sorry I think there is a misunderstanding, contractors should be moved to civilian dead if anything. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
here is the proposed text:


<blockquote>
==WMDs==
So where do we go from here? I am sure there will be tons of reports and people analyzing the report that got leaked stating WMDs were actually found, furthermore I did not even know that Deuffler last year stated that insurgents had been using some of those chemical munitions. Anyone have a link to that report? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


;Political impact


<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>
==Disputed ==
This title is only to suppot the link on article. Do not comment here but farther down.
===Starting a proper RFC that mentions all views ===
A severely biased poll has been started on which the initiators of that poll refuse to mention links to previous discussions that opposes their view. Also it only presents their take of the debate, attempts to balance this POV poll by inserting the opposing views are repeatedly deleted. Since this is not a fair poll I have started a RFC which adequately states what the debate is about. Also the massive deletion of comments on that page makes it absolutely impossible to use it as a fair instrument to determine this dispute.
Results of the previous polls were:
*''16-10'' are saying that Iraq is not part of the War on Terror and therefore the infobox should not state it as such, since a controversial statement does not belong in anyinfobox as per ].
*''14-4'' are saying that Iraq is not part of the War on Terror and therefore the infobox should not state it as such, since a controversial statement does not belong in anyinfobox as per ].
*''10-3'' WMD was the prominent -that is, not terrorism- reason advanced by the Bush administration to invade Iraq.


Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.
The previous debates for what this poll is really trying to address can be found there:


;United States
==== What this is '''not''' addressing ====
*The name of the ]. Currently, Misplaced Pages's article on the conflict is located at vthe ], and until it is not located there, this is the name of the conflict as far as other articles are concerned.
*Whether the Iraq War was justified. This is not an attempt to justify, or use Misplaced Pages to justify the War in Iraq. There is no agenda being pushed other than that of presenting facts to Wikipedians.
*What the Bush administration was asserting, since it is not about what Bush said but whether Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism.


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>
==== What this '''is''' addressing ====
*Including Iraq in ''part of the "War on Terrorism"'' means that the US went to Iraq to fight terrorism.
*''Part of the "War on Terrorism"'' is not the same as ''stated by the US as part of the "War on Terrorism."''
*That it has been established by the Bush Administration that Iraq was involved in international terrorism and the Bush administration had no way of knowing otherwise.
*Resulting in the recognition of the ] as part of the "]."


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>
==== Why it is alleged to be part of the War on Terrorism ====
*The United States and its allies began the military campaign known as the ], a campaign whose goal is ''"ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified by the U.S. as terrorist groups and ending state sponsorship of terrorism."''
*Saddam Hussein's regime was considered a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the United States government.
*The United States and its allies began the Iraq War as a stated part of the War on Terrorism, both pre-war, and since it has begun.


The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, ], labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous. <ref> , Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024. </ref>
==== Why it is alleged not to be part of the War on Terrorism ====
*War on Terrorism lack inclusion or exclusion criteria. We therefore do not know what the limits are of this war and subsequently can't decide what is and what is not part of this war. The idea that ''when Bush says it is part of it then it is'', clearly opens up ] making WOT dependend on what ever Bush thinks and not on objective and verifiable criteria.
*It is not up to President Bush to decide for the entire planet what is and what is not part of this war.
*Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was no terrorism of significance present so suggesting the US went to Iraq to fight terrorism is at best not substantiated by the known facts.
*US intelligence stated prior to the invasion that no proof existed of any link between Iraq and international terrorisme, more specifically no link to 9-11.


;United Kingdom
====Comments ====
In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.
Please leave your reponse to this indicating whehter you think Iraq was invaded as part of the WOT or that it is incorrect to assert that the US invaded to fight terrorism in Iraq.


One article in 2023 noted:
'''People that oppose including Iraq in the War on Terror, because they think that "part of the War on Terror" is a statement of fact and inappropriate for such a disputed topic.'''


<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.
#'''Comment''' per ], views must be attributed. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox: ], not even for the Nicaraguan government, or the U.S. government for that matter.
<p>
#:Also, I think it was zer0faults who incidently brought up a logical contradiction in including Iraq in the "War on Terrorism": premises: 1. The War on Terrorism is ongoing. 2. The War in Iraq is over. 3. The War in Iraq is(or was) part of the War on Terror. 4. There are currently terrorists in Iraq. logically: if the iraq war is part of the war on terror, the war on terror is ongoing, and there are still terrorists in iraq, then the war in iraq is ongoing. This contradicts premise 2. removing any one of the four premises removes the logical inconsistency. premise 4 is empirically supported; verifiable; sound, so at least one of the premises (1,2,3) is not. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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>
#::Wow talk about a flawed logic statement. Do you see where your flaw is? That assumes that the War on Terror and Iraq War are the same, not that they are linked. Let me give you an example. 1) WW2 ended in 1946 2) Battle of Moscow ended in 1942 3) Battle of Moscow was part of WW2 4) Soviets still defend Moscow. Obviously this means that the Battle of Moscow then did not end in 1942, contrary to historians, but ended in 1946 because the soviets still defended Moscow after 1942.
</blockquote>
#::Furthermore noone said the War in Iraq got rid of all terrorists. Your logic statement assumes that the terrorists would have to be removed in order for something to bring it to a close. Its almost like stating there are Jews in Germany so the Holocaust is still going on. maybe one day you will see wars are not Black and White. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
{{talkrefs}}
#
'''People that support including Iraq in the War on Terror, because they think that since President Bush has said Iraq is "part of the War on Terror" it is sufficient to make it a fact, and it is irrelevant whether such a statement is factual or supported by evidence.'''
#
#
#




--] (]) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
====Discussion====
:Consider I commented already can you cease to edit this poll. Thank you --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 10:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Adding information is not altering the discussion. It only facilitates the access to the relevant information, which you and your partner eagerly want participants not to find.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::If I comment on something, then you change its context, its not facilitating anything. Its misrepresenting what I had choosen or spoke about. Now that you have your poll here, which you seem eager to change whenever you want, regardless of what people say during that time, you can leave the other alone and stop attempting to vandalize it. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Novel idea, inserting links to previous discussions and evidence of deleting comments is considered altering the debate.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 11:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Changing statements previously agreed to by other is actually vandalism. You caused confusion with Kizzle above as you can see by doing it. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you for pointing out that your massive deletion of other editors comments is vandalism.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


== Military situation ==
*Furthermore this is misleading '''"That it has been established by the Bush Administration that Iraq was involved in international terrorism and the Bush administration had no way of knowing otherwise."'''. It is written to assume a negative, which is distateful. It is implying Bush could have known that Saddam didnt engage in international terrorism. However its already been noted he did fund the PALF, which is a fact. SO the question itself is misleading is it not? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 11:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::It is about ''what do we consider terrorism'' and ''what conduct constitutes support of terrorism''? I already exdplained that if ''links to terrorism'' suffice then the entire planet is supporting terrorism.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#:::So you feel funding suicide bombers is not participating in international terrorism? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::::I think that funding and training OBL is in no way differnet.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 12:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#:::::Good then you agree that Iraq being labeled as a terrorist nation by the United States was not wrong. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::::::I never disputed that, I merely pointed out that ''in the name of consistency we would also have to label the US as terrorist nation''. Since you are not willing to do that I do not see why I should agree with you using a double standard.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#:::::::Who said I did not agree with you, I think the US Government is evil, I think we slaughtered a bunch of Japanese people to test a toy. However proving and believing are different things. My personal opinion is the US is a bunch of terrorists in nice suits. Again, however, no nation on the planet recognizes the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, the US a permanant member of the UN Security Council however recognizes Iraq as one. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::::::::Furthermore the Global War on Terrorism is against nations that are state sponsors of terrorism and terrorists themselves. Hence why your circular logic fails, noone recognizes the US as terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism. If a nation ever did, then yes they would be able to technically attack the US and state its part of the WOT. However Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, as you have been pointed out about before. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::::::That makes your above question misleading as it is assuming there is no link to Saddam and terrorists. Please note this. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#:::Do not edit my comments, its a seperate point. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:01, 20 June 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)
#What do you propose was the reason for gonig to war if not terrorism? If we are to reach a concensus you have to share with us your views so we can find a middleground. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#:Contrary to you and your friend I was not present when directly following 9-11 Bush decided Iraq had to be invaded. So, I am not privy to that information. What I do know is that this administration advocated several reasons for invading that are not compatible with the facts. '''1''' WMD, contrary to what the administration said there was not rocksolid evidence of SH having WMD. If anything there was rock-solid doubt as to the veracity of that claim, '''2''' Links to AQ, again many were not convinced by the available evidence, therefore this also is at best a disputed reason, '''3''' UN resolutions, the fact that mister UN himself dismissed this argument says enough., '''4''' et cetera. Point is, none of the advocated reasons were at any time considered to be '''undisputed and undeniably true'''. That is, outside the administration.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 12:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::Will you concede you are wrong if, I can prove the UN even told Saddam not to make any more terrorist comments? I can prove that the link was not only suppose to be to AQ, but to terrorists in general and finally I can prove that the fear of WMDs was that they would fall into terrorist hands. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#:::I do not doubt you have such information, just like I have information countering that. What we have is a ]. Nobody has sufficient evidence, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, he is right. Therefore, since the dispute cannot be settled at this time we should not be advocating either side, see ]. Stating as a fact that Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism clearly is suggesting that is the correct and only interpretation. Which it can't be since there is a dispute.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 12:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::::This is not a stalemate now that you are wrong. How about you layout what you want me to prove and I will attempt to do so. I can provide proof, in the form of Res 114 that proves terrorism was a reason, as well as proof that WMD concerns were linked to the idea they may spread to terrorists, as well as Bush's speechs to the UN that says WMDs may get in the hands of terrorists, I can provide sources that link Saddam to the PALF and funding of suicide bombers, I can provide proof that the UN issued a warning to Saddam about terrroism. So what proof would you need supplied to prove Saddam is linked to terrorism and I will drag it up. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


== Rudeness ==
''Repost from my page:''
I have asked you on the Iraq War article page, the comment you moved to discussion, what evidence would convince you. You asked for a discussino and in an attempt to reach a concensus. I would like your feedback. Thank you --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
*To repeat what I already stated in the multitude of discussions
:*If invading Iraq was to fight terroism we should prove Iraq was a terrorist state.
:*If funding terrorism makes a country a terrorist state all countries that do so should be considered terrorist states.
:*If ties to terrorism suffice to invade a country we should accept that every country that has these ties can be invaded without being bound to the UN charter.
:I'll add others but it's a start<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Iraq was on the United States list of nations that sponsor terrorism. They have admitted to funding the PALF suicide bombers fund. The United Nations has warned Iraq about terrorism. That takes care of part one. Point two is something you hope for or wish for, its not something that can be provided with facts, so its void. Number 3 is also something that cannot be provided with facts because its once again somethnig you hope for, so its void. Give me things that you need facts to support and I will do so, do not ask me the meaning of life and why the UN lets Isreal have a bomb and noone else, im not a mind reader. Ask for things to be proven for a fact, that you need proven to see theother side, and I will try to provide them. More questions please. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Also, this may be a language barrier thing but, State-sponsor of terrorism, and Terrorist state, are not the same thing. One is a nation that funds or permits terrorists to operate within it, the other is a state that opperates as terrorists. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Stop the rudeness to iran ] (]) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Just keep the links and remove your comments, what is so hard about that? Your comments are actually factually false. You are stating a vote took place over if the WOT and Iraq are linked, however the polls state the question as, should the WOT be in the infobox. This leads to people voting, no it shouldnt be in the infobox since its debated if they are linked. This is not them saying if they feel its linked, its them commenting on the inclusion of it in the infobox. If you remove your commentary then feel free to remove mine as well, Just leave the polls there. Also do not say they are about this topic, cause they are not, say related, but even then if they are all about the infobox, then you should say they are about the infobox, or main reason for war, do not misrepresent them to be about the WOT IRaq War link. They are not. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:What rudeness are you talking about? ] (]) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)


== New draft ==
====Comments regarding the alleged NPOV of questions====


I have an draft ] beacuse section in this article is too long.
*Your poll makes no sense, it says you are seeking no justification yet it says '''"that it is incorrect to assert that the US invaded to fight terrorism in Iraq"''' these things are mutually exclusive. That is seeking a justification, is this some kind of trick to get people to vote in the wrong direction? YOur are in fact attempting justification for an action it seems. Very tricky. COnsidering you started this, will you cease to vandalize the other? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#:To determine what is the '''reason''' behind this invasion is not a '''justification'''. Please read about reason, validation, justification, explanation and you will find they all mean something different. Since many comments were deleted from the other "poll" I consider it evidence of an agenda by the initiators and violation of NPOV to disallow any other view than those of proponents.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 10:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#:::To clarify, I may be able to explain why a murderer did what he did, but that in no way is a justification for his deeds. So explaining and agreeing with something are two seperate things.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::::You seem to never answer the question, what do you feel was the reason? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#::How can we not be seeking to justify something if you are covertly attempting to say what happened in the future, after the invasion actually took place? Also what do you think is the reason that the US invaded Iraq? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 10:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Unfair criteria for people supporting, why is there negatives attached to one view and not the other. This is clearly a bias statement made disuade people from voting in this direction, its almost shameful. This poll seems bias. People voting in this directino would be voting against "facts" according to your questions. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
**My response to this has been deleted by Zero, but I am sure he will reinsert it.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
***I told you to give me the dif so I know what it was, and I gladly would. However you rather post here then get the dif. I wonder why. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
****Restoring the comment myself since Zero is today more interested in deleting comments than having a fair debate based on all information available.
****It is your own argument, if Bush says it is then it is, since he has the right to name anything he likes. Also see statements in your poll explicitly mentioning that this is not about the facts.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup>
*****Its not my poll, noone owns Misplaced Pages space, however the "other poll" says its not about justifying anything. Its about why the war was started, not what happened after it began. This is like the 8th time I have told you this for some reason. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
*******This indeed is about the why, and the title you propose asserts that the why is fighting terrorism. That is fine by me if you can provide sufficient arguments to explain that there is no dispute regarding that subject. Of course, no dispute '''outside''' the Bush administration.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
********Who said there was no link between Saddam and terrorism? the UN even reprimanded the Iraq government for terrorism, why do you keep ignoring this, its becoming as if you do not want to acknowledge facts. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
********Were Jews burned as a sacrifice to the Gods during WW2? Because that is what Holocaust means, so unless you would be saying we should change the title of Holocaust as well since it does reflect what really happened. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
*****Whats this have to do with my comment above? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
*****I want to see the dif, because gonig through it, I did not see that comment, its also note dated properly so it wasnt a copy paste. Its also not in relation to what I wrote above. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
******Responding to "irrelevant whether such a statement is factual or supported by evidence," I only observe that your own argument is that Bush gets to decide and this debate is not whether it is true or not.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
********The arguement, for the 9th time, is that the US Government get to decide who it goes to war with in its own campaign. Nomen Nescio does not get to pick where the US goes, nor do I. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
**********Why do you keep ignoring the ] which clearly forbids the US to do anything outside of its border resembling a ]? Thereby making any opnion the US has null and void, since international law gets to decide and not Mr Bush.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
***********So no Jews were killed in WW2 because anything that Germany did was null and void since it was acting under a war of agression? So by logic that removes WW2 from ever happening also. Also its a pretty big violation of NPOV to ignore the US view all together, and that comment will be noted. If you really think that since it was illegal, it didnt happen, then I can no longer discuss this with you, and your comment will be noted, you are not looknig for a middleground or facts, you are looknig to supress or paint badly anything that resembles an action by the US. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
******Cute, I am still waiting for more facts to provide you with, or have I satisfied all you are asking for? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 15:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


The draft is not yet completed. ] (]) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
=== The crux of the matter ===
Look, its cool and all that you decided to make your own discussion, but rather than debate on and on and on about two different things, I beleive I see the sole hitch in all of this. You, Nomen Nescio, do not beleive the United States has the power to determine what terrorism is for the world. This is true, for instance you mentioned the moon wont be made of cheese if the USA says it is. This is also true, and that goes without saying. However, this is a seperate issue. The United States began a campaign against people they label a certain thing. They can label whoever they want this thing. The label doesnt need to be accurate, for instance I can go around labeling people losers. It might not be true. Lets say I beat up the people I labeled losers. Does it matter if they were losers, or not? No, because they were beat up for the label given to them, therefore to recognize I beat up those I labeled loser is correct. By recognizing that I beat up those I saw as losers, we are not justifying my actions. We are not even calling, or giving credit to, calling the people losers. We are just recognizing that I targetted the people I called losers. Maybe I dont even really think they are losers, and I did it because I have low self esteem and want to tear others down. Doesnt change a thing. I still labeled them losers, and attacked those who I labeled losers. The United States began a campaign against those they '''labeled''' terrorists and state sponsors of terror. Thats the premise of the campaign. They might not be terrorists. But they are targetted because they are labeled terrorists or state sponsor of terror. By recognizing that the USA is waging a war against those they label terrorists and state sponsors of terror, we are not justifying their actions. We are not calling, or giving credit to, calling them terrorists or state sponsors of terror. We are just recognizing that they targetted the nations the USA labeled State sponsors of terror, and people terrorists. Maybe the USA doesnt really think they are terrorists, and it was done because Bush had low self esteem and wanted to pick on smaller countries. Doesnt change a thing. They still labeled them terrorists/state sponsors, and attacked those they labeled as such. Do you see the difference between this, and giving the USA the power to be God? The USA has power to determine what labels to give others, and determine how it sees people. If it then goes on to wage a campaign against those they see as a certain thing, we inherently must recognize it. Just like we must recognize that the Nazi regimes actions against those they labeled "enemies of the state" are all linked in the same genocidal campaign, we must recognize the US and allies campaign against those labeled "terrorists and state sponsors of terror." Whether or not anyone is actually an enemy of the state, or whether anyone is actually a terrorist is quite beyond the point. ] 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


== Addition of ] to infobox ==
:The crux is that your analogy only works if nobody had told you in advance you were wrong, what we already established in my similar analogy. Everybody can make a mistake, but a doctor that has been warned by his colleages not to operate since they believe the patient will die, cannot explain operating anyway and then the patient dies with: I thought he would live. Nonsense, ''if you are warned'', time and again your presumption is highly dubious, if not wrong, you can't defend yourself by saying, ''nevertheless I still thought I was right''.


{{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)
:Of course, Bush can label anyone he likes, however, to make this a discussion of facts we need '''verifiable criteria''' why he labels a person/country as terrorist. Are there real plans being made to attack the US, or is Bush simply eliminating those he dislikes? At this point, without '''objective criteria''' there is just no way of knowing on what grounds the WOT is fought. Heck, he could outlaw research into global warming, or alternative fuel, on account of it being a threat to national security. If he says so, it is. Therefore the logic that by labeling someone a terrorist that is enough ecidence you introduce circular logic.


: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)
:Further, under international law the US is not allowed to wage any war without UN support or out of self-defense. We can rule out self-defense, unless you know of any imminent threat from Iraq. Leaving the UN, and since the UN has the last word on it they too are involved in the debate: what constitutes terrorism and WOT. Remember, this is not limited to US territory, by its own definition it is a fight involving the entire planet. Why can only the US decide how to call this global concept?<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 16:54, 20 June 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)
::If the doctor was warned that removing the tumor would kill the patient, yet still does it ... Did he not still do it to remove the tumor? This also goes to justification, oddly enough during BLix's last statement to the UN he did not say there was no WMD's he said that components of chemical and biological weapons were still unaccounted for. Also Saddam's links to terrorism are facts, so the portion related directly to terrorism, if one were seeking justification, would actually be correct. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::you open up two answers: '''1''' The doctor was operating to save the patients life, although he was explicitly told that the patient would probably die, '''2''' he was operating to remove a tumor but was explicitly told the tumor probably was benign and not a malignancy. In either case the doctor went ahead after being told his premise was flawed, so he cannot fall back on the excuse he thought he was saving a life (clearly he knew death was more likely), nor that he was removing a tumor (as he already knew it probably was not). As to the links to terrorism, feel free to explain why we use the ] of designating Iraq a terrorist state, but ignoring the identical acts by the US, Israel and other countries.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I dont have to explain why there is a double standard, write to your elected official and ask why his country has not labeled the US a state sponsor of terrorism if you want to know why noone else does it. Stop wasting our time with your unhappiness at your countries lack of action against what you feel are injustices. This is not the forum for you to wage a protest of your or another governments actions. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::I have also already explained to you why Bush labeled Iraq a "]". The country was funding suicide bombers to act against the state of Israel, the same state he fired SCUD's at for no reason duringi the first Gulf War. So he was actually funding terrorism against a member nation of the UN. He admitted this already, its not an allegation anymore. Your question of, is Bush eliminating those he dislikes, does not have to eliminate all other reasons. Maybe Bush did not like Saddam, but tis not Bush who picks who state sponsors of terrorism are. I pointed this out to you before, I do know if you understand, but Bush is not the one that gets to pick who state sponsors of terrorism are. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Again, nobody denies SH had contacts with terrorists, however, logic dictates that when we apply this consistently you are saying that the US is free to invade any country they call a terrorist state. An overt attempt to eliminate ].<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::You are saying the US used the designation of a terrorist state correctly, then you are assuming they will use it incorrectly. YOu are not drawing a connection. The fact that even the UN cited Iraq for terrorism should be enough for you. Noone is saying the war is illegal, however you have now admitted that Iraq had ties to terrorism, this means there inclusion on the State Department list of state-sponsored terrorism is correct. Which means there is no reason to believe since they did have terrorist ties, that the Iraq War was not aprt of the Global War on Terrorism. Thank You Finally! Also I really do not care if US attacks a small island full of natives with 10megaton nukes, you have finally stated that Iraq had links to terrorism, which means there inclusion on the state-sponsor list is valid and renounces your own misgiving about the US intent, which should have never been an issue in the first place. Like Rangeley said, I do not care if they even eat babies. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Because something is illegal does not erase that it happened or that it was part of a larger invasion, I pointed this out to you already in regards to Germany and WW2. Their invasions of well, most of Europe, were wars of agression. However as you will probably note if you look at the WW2 article, those invasions are listed, they are not removed on the basis they were illegal. This goes to show that the legality of the invasion, does not remove it from its greater context. Also the definition of Global War on Terrorism, according to its article, does not mean the whole world. I think you should read the opening paragraph for more information. It specifies who is involved and why.--<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Nobody disputes there is a war in Iraq. The dispute is whether this war is about fighting terrorism in Iraq. Don't use a ] or ]. If GWOT does not include the entire world, please explain to what geographical location it is limited, and if these limits may change as Bush decides otherwise.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::You already admitted their was links to terrorism, you validated the reason given by the administration. If you have some controversial theory such as oil, which the government of France was buying illegally to help Saddam circumvent a UN programme that was suppose to supply humanitarian aids, or something along those lines, then you can state them and let everyone decide if they believe you. However since you now admit to know the Iraqi government had links to terrorism, and the war on terrorism is a fight against countries of that type, then its obviously included. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Last but most importantly, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. This statement '''"Heck, he could outlaw research into global warming, or alternative fuel, on account of it being a threat to national security"''' is an example of crystal ballism. As for the UN, they are not actually part of the Global War on Terrorism, the article specifically states: '''"a campaign by the United States, NATO, and other allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism."''' So no, the UN would not have the final say, or possibly even a say at all. Which would explain why NATO is conducting operations in Operation Active Endeavor without the UN ever even voting on it. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Since you're promoting the idea that anything Bush says is part of the WOT, it is you who is trying to predict the future. I still have to see inclusion/exclusion criteria and verifiable, objective arguments as to what constitutes terrorism and WOT. To assert ''WOT is what Bush says it is'' just won't do since it is ]. That definition makes my example not a prediction but a logical consequense. Just as observing that an apple will fall to the ground when you release it is no prediction but simply applying the laws of physics.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::You dont have to see inclusion criteria, its a war. Show me inclusion criteria for Cold War, WW1, WW2, show me a government inclusion exclusion list for any conflict. You already stated that Iraq had links to terrorism, that means by your own personal definition of terrorism, the exact thing that the war on terrorism is fighting, Iraq is included in. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 18:53, 20 June 2006 (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)
== A GWOT Compromise Proposal ==


== Human Rights Abuses ==
Sorry, I'm new to this dustup, but I have two suggestions.
# How about, instead of "Part of the ]" at the top of the Iraq War infobox, we put "See also ]" at the bottom of the infobox? My reasoning:
## It's the frackin' infobox, not the article. This compromise will let people click through to the GWOT article, which states, accurately, that the Bush admin considers Iraq to be part of the GWOT.
## Yes, this would leave both sides a little disappointed, but it would resolve the issue and let both people get back to editing the articles.
# Nomen and Zer0, I love you both, but if I could make a small suggestion, I think it would be best if you both post one or two comments a day on this subject and leave it alone.
## You're both good, committed editors, but between you, you're putting out so much text that it's difficult for other people to contribute to the discussion.
## Neither one of you will lose the argument if you let the other one have the last word any particular day. You've both explained yourselves very well, and I'm confident that everyone knows how you each feel on this subject.
Thanks, and I hope nobody takes offense -- I appreciate all of your work on these and other topics. ] 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:I would never take offense to useful advice. The reason of the mess on this page is why ] was setup. I think the arguement is done anyway, Nomen has admitted above finally that Iraq had ties to terrorism, considering this admission and the fact that the war on terrorism is on ... terrorism. I think the issue is finally put to bed of it being factually linked, however un justified it may be. Also I would accept see also as well since it is coming from the "voice of reason" in most of my disputes. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::You jump to conclusions. Having ties to terrorism does not prove the the invasion of Iraq is about fighting terrorism. Heck, Iraq has one of the largest oils reserves, does that prove the invasion was about oil? Or how about this, another fact is that SH is known to have met with US officials in the past and they send money and technical support. This proves that the invasion was about hiding the US involvement in the invasion of Iran. No, SH was wearing green uniforms and Bush was making a fashion statement by removing a leader that wears green uniforms. What I am trying to say is that stating two facts does not prove a ] between them. Nice example: ''fact 1:'' Cheap horses are rare, ''fact 2:'' rare items are expensive. Therefore, following Zero's logic without really thinking about it we connect these two statements of facts, ''since cheap horses are rare, and rare items are expensive we have proven that cheap horses are expensive. QED'' <font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Read UN Res 1441, HJ Res 114, etc. Your conspiracy theories aside, you have now already stated that Iraq had ties to terrorists, the war on terror is about fighting terrorists, iraq was attacked because bush said they had WMDs they would give to terrorists and links to terrorism. Its all together now since you admitted it. Everything else is conspiracy theories. The US goes to war over oil, cause it hates Islam, cause its spreading christianity, to win the elections, to let US soldiers shoot at middle eastern people, to eat babies ... sorry I cant get over that last one. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 20:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::What do you think of TheronJ's proposal? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I would prefer that we did not change that, as there is no reason to treat that portion differently from other war's infoboxes. I am still for having it state "Part of the ]" and have an overview in the War on Terrorism article. Though, if this isnt accepted by Kizzle I would accept 'Part of the "]."' ] 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::There's all sorts of logical proposals that don't involve "conspiracy theories," stabalization of the Middle-East, combating pan-arabic movements, maintaining a physical presence in the Middle East, exerting American hegemony as stated in the PNAC documents. Invading a country because it supports an anti-Israel terrorist group seems to be far from American interests and would seem to fail a simple cost-benefit analysis. --] 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Those would be possible motives for the entire War on Terrorism as well. But I stated this before some place, something can have ulterior motives, and this doesnt make it any more or less part of a campaign. For instance, a battle in the ] might have been officially stated as part of the campaign to push Germany out of Africa and alleviate the Eastern Front, but the exact location might have been chosen by a general who was looking to find some sweet lovin' in a specific North African village. Even with hormonally charged ulterior motives, it does not alter the officially stated campaign for which it is under. By recognizing the campaign, we do not rule out ulterior motives from playing a part. ] 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You keep harping on with endless repetitions of your claim about an alleged "officially stated campaign" and add all sorts of outlandish comparisons but never produce any reliable and neutral sources in support of it. The Iraq invasion may well be part of a larger scheme, but not of the "war on terror". Even if everything you say were true, it would be a larger campaign that is tagged by the US administration with the misnomer "war on terror". When will you finally realize that Misplaced Pages cannot be the place to parrot White House propaganda? ] 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Because as much as I disagree with Rangeley on the form in which we present the "War on Terrorism," I believe he is correct in saying that if we use the meaning of "War on Terrorism" as a label for American foreign policy post-9/11, then technically anything can fit in. Now whether these things are ''justified'' is an entirely different manner, and that is an argument that is much easier to win in my mind. But if we are treating the "War on Terrorism" as simply a label for foreign policy, then it can fit whatever the Bush administration says. If Bush says lets invade Canada tommorow because it's part of the "War on Terrorism," then by all means it gets included even though its fucking crazy. But this is a purely semantics debate, if you want to start talking about justification I think you'll find it a bit tougher than the avenue you're currently pursuing. --] 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Why use an ambiguous label when we just as well can use the neutral description "American foreign policy post 9/11"? ] 03:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (] 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC))
::::::::::Same as we use "]". --] 03:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::That title seems to be in dispute. In addition, the "war on terror" is not the name of a particular military campaign as far as I know. So it isn't the "same", anyway. ] 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::It is one in a long string of phrases to describe American foreign policy post-9/11, "The Long War" and "Global Struggle Against Islamic Fundamentalism" being others. --] 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Authorization of force: "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;" . In this press conference with Bush, Blair, Aznar, and Barasso before the war, Bush states the UN must address Iraq and be responsible "for the capacity to win the war of -- the first war of the 21st century, which is the war against terrorism." And another, which was March 8th was a speech entitled "War on Terror." In it the President states "This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror" with one front being the capture of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad, the other being that the weapons inspector from Iraq has reported to the UNSC on his findings. He goes on to say "He (Saddam) provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries." And finally, on May 1st, Bush announced "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on." . I hope that clears things up. ] 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Your quote from the Joint Resolution very clearly mentions the "war on terrorism" in connection with "United Nations Security Council resolutions". At the time the resolution was passed, the administration had hoped that a UNSC resolution would authorize force in the context of the "war on terror". The information that Iraq was "harboring terrorists" was spurious at best and had been reported false before the invasion. Ray McGovern, a former CIA official recently challenged Rumsfeld in public why he lied about that fact. SC members stated that Iraq was not about the war on terror. The SC did not authorize force. The US invaded anyway, but not to enforce a UNSC resolution which would have been in furtherance of the war on terrorism, but for other stated reasons, namely the alleged "immediate threat" posed by Iraq's alleged WMD capabilities based on information that also turned out to be false and made up of whole cloth. So there's no doubt the administration tried to link the Iraq invasion to the "war on terror", right from the beginning on 9/11/01, actually, but was never able to establish this link in reality. That Bush babbles about "victory" while the resistance increases and his soldiers are dying is more proof that WH statements cannot be taken at face value and not stated as fact on Misplaced Pages. ] 03:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (] 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC))


Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
The administration has always claimed that it was part of the war on terror (how big a part has varied a bit), at least in that the "axis of evil" were sponsors of terror. Much as there were other ''Casus Belli'' invoked, the reality is that today it is inextricably linked to the war on terror, given the magnet that Iraq (and the coalition forces there) has become in terms of those fighting under the banner of death to America and those with agendas in terms of the middle east(and that is the reality whether you originally called it GWOT, WMD, Oil, Crusades or just a hate-on for Saddam). So while the original aim was debatable, reality now isn't. Yes, there's a background of all sorts of other things, democratization, oppression, call it what you want, but in the foreground and lurking everywhere is facets of GWOT. The problem is 'what to call it' I am not sure if it is reasonable, in light of the complexity of the situation, just to put 'GWOT' in the infobox as that would be over-simpifying things. The text discusses causes & consequences in depth, and as a de facto standard none of the other Persian Gulf Wars list anything as to Casus Belli or rationale in the infobox. In other words, leave it empty & discuss in text.] 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture ] (]) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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: