Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lincher (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 26 September 2006 (GA failed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Iraq was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 26, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Template:FAOL Template:V0.5

/Archive 1: April 2006

Adding some info to the introduction

Hello,

the following is a translation from the german Misplaced Pages article and would make a good addition to the introduction, since right now, it contains no information to the current situation at all, .

Since the Iraq-war of 2003, Iraq is in the state of military occupation by an international force lead by the USA and can only be regarded as a partial sovereign nation. A return to stable governmental structures has yet to be realized.

user:Narjuko

Accuracy of Religious Adherents

I don't care either way and was always under the assumption that Iraq was ~66% Shi'ite and ~33% Sunni making up anywhere from 97-99% of Muslim Population with the other generally defined as Christianity and "others"...but I noticed that recently it was edited up to 75% Shi'ite! Is this a politically motivated edit, or is there actual proof to back this up?

News from Iraq

British troops are mobilizing on the Iranian border http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060830&articleId=3097

Appears the numbers have been changed since the previous posting. Current numbers appear to be inline with past expectations (1979 numbers: 93-95% Muslim, 50-55% Shiite, ~25% Sunni; Source: Nyrop, Richard F., ed. Iraq: A Country Study, 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: The American University, 1979.) Unless anyone feels the need to question the current citation (CIA's The World Factbook, 2006), appears this issue is closed. -- Matt

Iraq's Official Name in Arabic

Iraq's official name in Arabic is not Aj-Jumhuriyah Al-'Iraqiyah. This translates to English as The Iraqi Republic.

It was changed in the late 80's or early 90's to Jumhuriat Al-Iraq. This translates to The Republic of Iraq.

Rightly so, the change was to make an emphasis on Iraq and not Republic.

Can you please rectify.

Hello!

In concordance with the information above I today corrected Iraq's official name in arabic letters to جمهورية العراق (Republic of Iraq). (Previosly it was الجمهورية العراقية - which transscribed is Al-Jumhuriya(t) al-Iraqiya(t) = The Iraqi Republic). / -- NM 194.47.110.98 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened it's back to the incorrect name, Aj-Jumhuriyah Al-'Iraqiyah???

Politics=

Northern Iraq belongs to Kurds and they named it appropriately 'Kurdistan'. Kurds have always wanted that region as a part of their "country" and have took it quite effortlessly I might add. Iraqi Arabs feel like strangers when they visit northern Iraq (Kurdistan) and even the small percentage of Iraqi Arabs that live in the north get harrassed by Kurds. But still Kurds are not happy with controlling northern Iraq, they want to be fully independant from Iraq and will not stop until they achieve this goal, with the help of their allies (America) they may be able to accomplish this. Not only do Iraqis have to deal with constant terrorism but once thats finished, the Kurds as well.

Sir or Ma'am, As someone who has extensively traveled throughout "Kurdistan" in northern Iraq, I find your statement judgmental and rather prejudice. In all my travels between June 2004 through November 2005, I have found only a few instances where a Kurdish person was harassing an Arab. On the contrary, I have witnessed several Arabs that have been harassing Kurdish and Assyrian men, women, and children especially in the city of Kirkuk. The reasons for the hostility between Arabs and Kurds have a lot to do with the history of the region. "Kurdistan" was conquered by Arabs in the 7th century and later by the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century. After World War I, "Kurdistan" was split between Turkey, Syria and Iraq with the Kurds being a minority in each of those countries. Within these countries, Kurds were treated as second class citizens which resulted in hostility towards the ruling class. As far as Iraq is concerned, this prejudice resulted in the Kurdish uprising during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's in an attempt to regain a self governed country. The result of the uprising was severe punishment such as the mass execution of Kurdish citizens (as in the gassing of Kurdish villages which Saddam Hussein has been charged of) and the systematic removal of Kurdish families from the city of Kirkuk to be replaced by Arabs. These actions have furthered the hostility between Arabs and Kurds. Since the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, the Kurdish people have supported the change in government and have participated in every step of the new government. For your statement that America will help them become an independent state, you obviously do not have a background in U.S. foreign policy and did not pay attention to the developments at the start of the Iraq invasion. The United States is an ally of Turkey which has a large portion of their country being where Kurdistan once was. The result of an independent Kurdistan in Iraq has the potential of causing Kurdish people to rise up in mass against the Turkish government and demand that portion of Turkey to be free as well. It is this reason that the United States has been very careful not to allow the Kurdish people to split from Iraq despite the fact that they have control of the northern part of Iraq. Instead, the United States has been persuading the Kurdish people to take an active part in the new government. This is the reason that the Iraqi constitution was written as it was. With the Kurdish input in the constitution, Iraq no longer considers itself an Arab nation but as a diverse multi-ethnic nation that is part of the Islamic world. The Kurdish people are the 4th largest ethnic group in the Middle East with between 25-30 million people. Whether they decide to join together and form their own country or not will depend on the fairness and equal treatment within the countries they reside in. Either way, if they did become their own country, who could blame them.--Joseph Robert 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My statement is not judgemental at all. Arabs do not want to live in Northern Iraq, because they feel they are in a different country. Kurds have "taken over" the North with no respect to the Arabs, Iraqi Turkmens, and any other ethnic group living there. It is evident all over Northern Iraq. One can expect to see many "Kurdish" flags all over, with not a glimpse of the Iraqi flag. Kurds also and more importantly have their own government infrastructure, police, army, and special forces which an Arab citizen has no part in. However, in the new government of Iraq, Kurds are greatly a part of it. How fair!! And perhaps the occassional harrassment you have seen of Kurds by Arabs is due to the fact that ARABS ARE LOSING THEIR COUNTRY TO KURDS!

The harrassment that Kurds endure (if any) is not a bad exchange for controlling the North of Iraq. And the only reason you don't see many Kurds harrassing Arabs in the north is because there are no Arabs! Arabs have fled if not fleeing the north! So Kurds focus on harrassing, sometimes murdering Iraqi Turkmens since they are a peaceful ethnic group that lives mainly in the north. The Kurds have successfully "gotten rid" of Arabs and are focussing their efforts against Turkmens because they are a selfish people that want everything for themselves. "Sharing" is obviously not a word in Kurdish vocabulary. Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds in retaliation of Kurds trying to control northern Iraq not because of prejudice! Why didn't he gas Iraqi Turkmens or Assyrians if he was so prejudice? Answer: Because they live in Iraq peacefully and do not "have plans" to take a chunk of Iraqi land! Saddam put Arabic families in the North because he did not want to lose his country to Kurds. I don't agree with him gassing the Kurds, however that is something he did for the unity to remain stable. Iraq is an Arab nation, consisting of 70% Shii'a Iraqis! and the other ethnic groups have to be aware of that. Just as the many Muslims in the United States have to realize that they are living in a Christian United States.

And if you support Kurds getting their own country then perhaps you should give them some of your country, I assume its the US. Why doesn't the US give Kurds some states, afterall they have more than enough. How would you feel if an ethnic group start terrorizing the US because they wanted the North of America? Perhaps, only then it would effect you. Since Iraq is not your country you do not care who it belongs to, so your comment is expected. Only someone in the same situation would understand not someone as feeble minded as you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamimi111 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2000 U.S. Presidential Election

This page has some vandalism everywhere especially in the history section. I'm to change some if any one sees anything tell me.

I've actually got a bone to pick here....a few days ago I wrote a section saying 'since the appointment of George W. Bush as US President by the Supreme Court in 2000, etc. etc.' and someone keeps coming along rewriting it as 'elected'. Now, from current US contitutional jurisprudence, Bush was official appointed, and it is in fact a pure lie to say he was elected. I've tried changing it back a few times, then I was blocked for vandalism! We have to be accurate here, from a normative viewpoint, he was appointed. - so much for honesty! Martin Edwards

---> Please abandon this political tone. It is what is turning wikipedia into a non-resource. You are emphatically asserting viewpoints which are simply not as ubiquitous as you apparently think they are. --Thomas G. Marshall <---

Sounds like this argument for the George W. Bush entry. - Kavanagh

Pursuant to the actual SCOTUS opinion or Misplaced Pages's review of it, the Supreme Court found that the Florida Supreme Court violated state election law in ordering further recounts in the contested counties, and ordered such recounts cease and desist - the court made no mention of choosing a candidate. The Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint the President of the United States, nor did it assert such power in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). -- Matt

Death Tolls

Well no, because it is in the context of the 2003 invasion. It's all academic now, someone has put a far-right wing slant on the modern history section. The most sickening thing that was written refers to a 'kill-rate'.....I hope the statistics, and the kill ratios are good enough for you! Whoever you are, I must say that any person who excuses the killing of fellow human beings lacks moral values. Martin Edwards.

If you find 'kill-rate' to be sickening then the word can be changed, as you did. That does not discount the importance of measuring the change in mortality rates over time. A decrease in the mortality rate is a fundamental improvement in the human condition. Kavanagh 20 June 2006 11:01 (EST)

I hope that you are comparing apples with apples and not oranges. For example, does Saddam's total of people killed include troops who died during the Iran-Iraq war? I suspect that it does, especially as Iranian casualties are mentioned. The number of Kuwaitis killed seems suspiciously high, there was a good deal of inaccurate propaganda information floating around at the time of the first Gulf War. Does the total include Iraqi soldiers killed by Coalition forces during the first or second Gulf Wars? Does it include the people who are supposed to have died as a result of the UN sanctions? The source is not clear from what I read. I am not trying to whitewash Saddam, but it should be clear what is being compared and the figures should be verifiable from more than the one source (which reads as having a strongly anti-Saddam pro-American POV.Dabbler 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dabbler, good point on the scope of the mortality definition. The source isn't clear enough to differentiate causes of death. I agree the distinctions are important. Regarding deaths as a result of sanctions, the U.N. should have designed and operated a more effective sanctions program - audited it for internal corruption.

However, the sanctions would have been immediately removed had Saddam Hussein complied with outstanding resolutions. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein siphoned of $10 billion (16%) of Oil-for-Food revenues and used kick-backs on oil contracts with complicit arms-dealing nations to acquire weapons. In short, Saddam's actions deprived Iraqi civilians of the funds necessary to purchase food and medicines through the program. Kavanagh 21 June 2006 13:45 (EST)

--RF80 12:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)== Modern History ==

In the modern history section, can we fix the sentence that reads in part "...continued to remain in the country...", it's very redundant. I suggest "...remained in the country..."

Iraq was invaded and occupied in March 2003 by the United States and allies

I believe occupied is too much of a biased word to be used. I do believe that liberated is much more of a proper word since it reflects the true intentions of the US-UK alliance and has been used in most reputable sources.

Liberation is a very POV word to the many other people who believe that the invasion was based on political lies and false premises and consider that the current condition of the Iraqi people is not much improved in many areas and worse in some areas than it was before the invasion. Dabbler 11:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the take over of one nation by another nation through force is an 'invasion'. Liberated connotes a sense of 'freed', thus automatically implying the US was correct. 'Invasion' is a better word, it is neutral. (Martin, user)

I think a better, more neutral term would be along the lines of "Overthrowing of old government and Reconstruction"ColdRedRain 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Better describes the true intent, which was to simply overthrow the government and reconstruct Iraq.

ColdRedRain 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I can agree on that ColdRedRain. That's a very neutral term that describes the action without infering any bias or position in the matter. Nice work on your neutrality stating! Props... From Citybug

I think even that is oversimplifying what actually occured. The word "cccupation" isn't biased if it is also correct in it's use and is precisely what is occuring there: a coalition force of substantial strength is in place in Iraq to keep peace and to assist in the reconstruction of a suitable government for the Iraqi people. That's an occupation in all the classical senses of the term. Is it favorable? Hell no. No country likes to be essentially under the control of another, there's no sense in glossing over what is actually occuring. Shadowrun 21:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an occupation, pure and simple, in objective terms. In that opening paragraph we are not to imply the intentions of the parties, merely to set a premise for discussion. 'Liberation' is a subliminal word, used to promote the 'virtues' of the invasion. We are occupying Iraq, as we have our troops there, simple as that.

Some right wing nut changed the modern history of Iraq so it conformed with Republican views. As a returned Marine, I find his/her interpretation extremely offensive. Iraq is a freaking mess.

Whoever the Republican is who is changing the modern history/post-Saddam iraq section, you are a cold-blooded killer. How dare you trivialise the displacement that has taken place in Iraq. It's all about politics and money for you, isn't it? Compare Saddam's 'kill rate' (as you so eloquently put it), with Bush's kill rate.!

Your labeling of my motivation, metabolism, criminal record and U.S. political party registration is incorrect. If one defines George W. Bush's 'kill rate' as deaths that the U.S. military is directly responsible for, then that is about 3.8% of fatalities reported. - Kavanagh 10:28, 20 June 2006 (EST)

Kavanagh, your commentary is so right wing its not funny. I'm a returned soldier from Baghdad and what you have written is offensive not only to US troops, but to the American people. We are killing as well, however you continually remove any reference to this. So much for democracy. Additionally, don't mention George Galloway without refering to Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Iraq to meet Saddam. Plus, it is not a liberation in neutral terms (this is what the administration is saying...not the basis of a passage in an encyclopedia). Keep it neutral, not pro war. Lewis Douglass

Lewis, thank you for your service in Baghdad. Your experience may suggest otherwise, but I sincerely believe that U.S. servicemen aren't working to harm the Iraqi people. Rather, they are risking their lives to try to help the Iraqi people build a better life. This after decades of tyranny in a region of the world where the west accommodated dictators for far too long. I don't believe that I've removed reference to any U.S. missteps in this Iraq article. In contrast, I strive to find the hard numbers and chronological order to put each item in to context.

Rumsfeld's visit with Saddam was a bad move. It was a zero sum game to find common cause with Iraq against the American hostage-takers in Tehran. Important for the comparison with Galloway, Rumsfeld visited before Saddam committed acts of genocide against the Kurds and other crimes against humanity. In contrast, George Galloway aided Saddam after these crimes were well known and throughout the period of U.N. sanctions.

I'm not pro-war. Labeling my position as right wing is funny because the objectives I support are most clearly explained by one of Senator John Kerry's foreign policy advisors, Thomas P. Barnett. I'm pro-supporting and protecting free society in the Middle East. The sooner that the Iraqi National Guard can handle internal security and protect the fledgling democracy the sooner the mission of the U.S. in Iraq will successfully conclude. - Kavanagh 10:22, 21 June 2006 (EST)

I'm sorry Kavanagh, I don't agree. You're sources are very pro-war. What's more, you continually remove any content critical of the war. Please replace the word 'liberation' with occupation....liberation is a word that contains an intrinsic pro-US slant. It is up to the reader to determine whether these people are 'liberated', not you. However, the occupation of one country by another country's troops is just that...an occupation. Additionally, you need to do some more research...Sadddam carried out massacres in 1982 (noted in US media in November 1982), yet Rumsfeld visited in 1983. It was up to a human rights activist called Galbraith to lobby the US senate; it was not until 1988 that a strong policy change was made. Rumsfeld, Reagan, Bush Snr et al. knew about the atrocities throughout the eighties, yet it was up to extinsic powers to lobby for change. We were supplying Iraq with funds etc. when we had actual knowledge of their activities.

You mention that Rumsfeld's visit was a 'bad idea'...you admit it privately, now admit it publically.

Finally, and with all due respect, I am tired of quasi-academics going around claiming how they 'want a better life for these people'. I've been over there, and I can tell you that's the last thing we are doing. Your comment 'I believe the US servicemen aren't working to harm the Iraqi people' is offensive to those of us who have seen the reality. The absolute truth doesn't lie in your books and your academic papers, or what you see in the news, it lies in the reality on the ground. Please climb off the ivory tower, as people are dying. If you think this is so moral, then go over and fight yourself. Acknowledge the deaths caused by the US, because at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether it is Bush or Saddam killing, these are still God's children. The entire region is destabilised, and it has resulted in the exponential rise of terrorist groups. So much for a 'war on terror' - Lewis Douglass

Mr. Douglas, I'll ignore the political, academic or warmongering labels and instead discuss the substance of the matter.

Some two days ago I identified the Iraqi deaths that the U.S. military is directly responsible for: about 3.8% of fatalities reported. Then someone whitewashed that information from the article a few hours later. Those fatalities are a small fraction of the lion's share of deaths that result from insurgent and terrorist attack. In fact, killing civilians, primarily Shi'ite, is al Qaeda's prime objective in Iraq and most elsewhere. Massive civilian carnage motivates al Qaeda. In the U.S. it couldn't be more different, a soldier accused of murder, even a single count, is tried in court - as Camp Pendleton witnessed today. It is al-Qaeda in Iraq that wants to destabilize Iraq - and even Iran - as outlined in documents recovered from Zarqawi safe house.

Many dozens of foreign dignitaries visited Iraq during the course of the Iran-Iraq war. They came because Iraq was a arms sales jackpot: Saddam was pulling in 10% of all global arms sales. Rumsfeld's 1983 visit garnered a lot of attention today because of his role in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the 1980s he was part of limited relationship that resulted in the U.S. selling Iraq about 0.5% ($200 million) of the arms it procured. As I said before, bad move.

But it's significance in the context of the other 99.5% of arms sold to Iraq by world powers? If Rumsfeld's 0.5% arms sales relationship is considered significant, then the Iraq Modern History section would be bulging with all of the defense ministers and heads of state that visited Iraq from China, France and the USSR to execute their arms deals.

I guess everyone has their own reality. In your experience, coalition soldiers helping Iraqi civilians is 'last thing we are doing'. I've spoken with a handful of soldiers who had tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been inspired by their determination and pleasantly surprised by how well they articulate the objectives that the

Mr Kavanaugh, this is my final post. Whenever I add even something to the discussion board, I'm now blocked for 24 hours. (I purposely stopped writing on the article for this reason...I don't even have a right under the first amendment to write on the discussion board).

Democracy is a wonderful thing Mr Kavanauh, but I can tell you we have not freed these people. I have seen the direct effects of US bombs. We've destroyed sewerage, electrical, hospital systems over there. US bombs have done this. The children of Baghdad literally play in the sewers and emerge covered with faeces. This wasn't the case before the war. We have not fixed the damage caused by the initial invasion. I've seen a little girl choke as the hospital had been bombed by US weapons, and there was no ventolin left. She died. I've personally transported the bullet ridden bodies of Iraqis to the morgue...the bullets were American. How can you say 'thanks for being part of that?'. We've given them democracy, but we have given them chaos. Does the imposition of democracy override the chaos we have given them, especially when the new Government is not that much better? There is no freedom from fear, Mr Kavanaugh. These people are frightened. Of us, and of the terrorist groups that our policy has helped create. I've heard civilians tell me 'things were better under Saddam...at least we had water'. And that's saying something. Saddam was a butcher, but we have created a worse situation. Think of the 50000 that have died....Saddam was a murderer, but he wasnt killing that many in the years before the war.

Why is it that democracy is the lowest common denominator? These people are voting in clerics who wish to impose sharia law...it's a repeat of the democratic system in Iran. Palestine, Algeria, Iran are democracies...does that make them free? And you should know, the new Government's human rights record so far isnt that much better than Saddam's. Alreadly, the 'new' police and army have committed some gross atrocities. What is freedom? Is it what the US says at the barrel of a gun? These people hate us, because of what we have done to them. They wish for a Government the complete opposite of what the US wants...so much for the imposition of a representative democracy! The reason Iran voted in their Government was very much due to the Iraq situation. This government is now looking to WMD. It seems the war has actually CREATED WMD.

It's all relative, I suppose. You say the terrorists are hiding in the shadows, but isn't Bush hiding in the shadows by pulling the trigger 20,000 miles away? The people who have lost legs and arms sure don't see Bush as the liberator! That's postmodernism for you, I suppose. In 2002, many reports suggested the removal of the secular Hussein was just what Al Qaeda wanted...and we gave them what they wanted. We are responsible for the 50000 that have died due to the situation we have created. We have completely destabilised that country, and it is starting to spill over. The world is watching...they cannot believe the US thinks Iraq in 2006 is the same as America in 1776. We have literally opened a can of worms, because we are so short-sighted that we can't understand the cultural and religious dynamics of the region. The Iraqis are further from freedom than ever. I fought in the war, and am sick of seeing children killed for an 'experiment'. With all due respect, I am tired of hearing people sit in their Western countries speak of the 'progress', and other political catchphrases. I am tired of hearing people think Iraq's problems can be solved by imposing a Western style system. These people are dying, Mr Kavanaugh, and I cannot believe you don't understand that we created this situation. It's not just the fault of the situation we created.

One last point, you have totally contradicted yourself. You said Rumsfeld shouldn't be noted, as there were many people at that time (high turnover) etc. I agree. Why is it that you make sure George Galloway et al. are mentioned, but not AWB? Why not the American interests? Keep in neutral.

With all my heart, I hope the Iraqi people will one day be free from the nightmare we have given them.

- Douglass.

Mr Douglass: A final reply to your final post.

I do not doubt the existence of the devastation, gore and carnage that Iraqis experienced. It is real and needs to be put in to both current and historical context.

Coalition planners went to great lengths to spare Iraqi infrastructure during the invasion precisely because they intended to immediately support the development of a new Iraq from the wreckage of Saddam’s tyranny.

While war involves the ‘management of violence’ with destructive consequences, the assault on Saddam’s forces was the most precise in the history of warfare. Today, the rules of engagement that vulnerably restrict the tactics of coalition soldiers are intended to protect the lives of innocents. Giving many threatening persons the benefit of the doubt. Those that violate are prosecuted.

Insurgent tactics couldn’t be more reverse: the bombing of marketplaces, killing of faithful in mosques and assaulting law enforcement recruits in line for training. Sabotage of infrastructure by Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda operatives has stymied the pace of reconstruction – not wanton damage by coalition forces.

Saddam’s wars cost well over half-million lives in the Middle East and his internal assaults on non-Sunnis resulted in hundreds of thousands more dead. Many like yourself who yearn for Saddam underestimate the degree to which he destroyed Iraqi society.

Today the percentage of Iraqi youth enrolled in school greatly exceeds enrollment during Saddam’s government and Iraqi oil revenues are now funding projects of public benefit instead of building Saddam’s palaces and fattening his arsenal.

Do you detest the new Iraq so much that the only alternative futures you prefer are either Iraq under the boot of dictatorship or Iraq terrorized by Sunni overlords and al-Qaeda militants?

While the main stream media and you cultivate the perception of chaos across Iraq today, the growing prosperity of Iraqis is ignored. The inflation rate of 70% in 2002 has fallen to 25.4% in 2006. The Iraqi unemployment rate of 60% in 2002 has been reduced to 30% in 2006. Iraq’s economic output in 2004 was $90 billion, more than double the output of Saddam's last year in power. That type of performance doesn’t happen in a quagmire.

Among Iraqis, an ABC poll from December found broad optimism. They must not be watching American television news channels.

It seems that you share the opinion that the people in the Islamic world are unfit to chose their own leaders. That they require dictators to keep them in line. The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Democracy wasn’t imposed on Iraq. Elected Iraqi delegates drafted a constitution that was approved by a popular vote. While some Iraqis may wax nostalgic about life under the Ba’ath party, the electorate has clearly supported the new republic.

This is a unprecedented achievement in a region where most suffer under tyrants and terrorists. Kavanagh 28 June 2006 11:40 (EST)

Kavanaugh- Id like to see you say all of that to an Iraqi civilian.....look them in the eye and say it. What you see in theory is different from practice. tell the iraqi dead that dying at the hands of US weapons is different from dying under the hands of the insurgents, and that it should be 'put into context'. How disgusting. Additionally, there was no 'detesting' of the new Iraqi government any more than a detesting of the insurgent groups and Hussein.

1) 'Saddam's War's cost a half a million lives in the middle east'....and vietnam cost how many? 2) 'Many of you who yearn for Saddam'....it has been made very clear throughout all postings that Saddam was a murderer. That statement by you is basically an admission that you have lost the argument...you are starting to sound desperate. 3)To be a patriot, Mr Kavanaugh, is to have the balls to stand up and say something when your country has gone off course. Not to stick with the status quo, and taking part in a mind-control experiment. Maybe George Orwell was right. 4) To say I have the same opinions as many extremists in the Islamic world is an incredibly unsophisticated argument, lacking any depth. You sound increasingly paranoid. 5) Thanks for the economic figures, your supposition will take you far. Have you ever heard of the UN 'Happiness' Index? The Iraqis are very pleased at their inflation figures, and I've heard them often say it refer to it....some of the most unstable nations in the world have strong economic figures. 6) Your comment about education...hate to say it buddy, but there are very few functioning schools over there....most kids play in the gutters. Literacy has dropped dramatically, and in many of the regions that have voted in Sharia law, the girls are now denied education. the schools have been bombed both by us and the insurgents. Would like to know the origin of that dodgy information of yours. How can you say these things when you haven't seen it yourself? Stop using second hand knowledge.

Mr Kavanaugh, I said that was my final post, however many of the things you have said are unconscionable and un-American. Get over to Iraq yourself, and stop sitting around posting on discussion board information about a topic you know only from theory. You are an insult to the US military, and to humanity to use your political leanings in order to condone killing.

Don't you dare question my patriotism. I've fought for my country, and I'm proud to be an American. I want freedom for all, but I disagree with killing. I've seen past the politics since my time in Iraq. It's about blood and bone, not about economics and politics. We are literally replacing one dictatorship with another (don't think for a second that all democracies stay that way) . This is coming about due to the brutality we have shown in this country; these people hate us for what we have done and a secular system is the last thing they are thinking of here! All we are doing is allowing Sharia law to thrive (even some of the provinces have Sharia as their criminal code now). I think you need to understand the dynamics of the situation, and until people like you do, they will keep on dying, and so will we. Your arguments (mostly your final one) sounds paranoid and unsophisticated. When in doubt, just call somebody a Saddam-lover and anti democracy advocate! I am neither of those things (and you know it) and to call me that is to disrespect the three years I spent in that country. How dare you.

From a humorist viewpoint, you sound like the members of the Soviet Govt. who claimed they could bring about Communism in Afghanistan....just keep believing it comrade!

Wake up to yourself. How would you feel if something awful happened to a member of your family, and you were told to 'put it into a historical context?'. Yet, you are saying the deaths of 50,000 will be treated in such a nice way. You sound like such a nice person.....

It was Pilate who said 'what is truth?'. No offense, but you appear to be stuck within the parameters of your own realm. I will not be called 'pro-Saddam' merely because I despise the human cost of this bloody war and I wish to see beyond the set categories.

- Douglass

You really think liberated is right? Its not pal! Iraqi people didn't invited them so liberated is not correct!

• • I think uve spent 2 much time in the books Kavanaugh. This is sheer blooded murder not economics so much 4 humanity maybe u should start arguing professionaly rather than slinging insults - the sign of a poor debater**

A vote of confidence for the sane and measured position of Kavanagh, who ironically cites John Kerry as a source for his "right-wing" views. -- Matt

-Will tell the kids playing in the sewers and who have lost their parents that they are now free!

Kavanagh & Douglass, you both make reasonable points from differing perspectives but have veered a touch from the point. An invasion would be if a force went into an area with the intention of remaining there (as the Germans did in Poland 1939), however there have always been timescales discussed and admissions that the US will not be in Iraq indefinately thus this can only be an occupation. Liberation is a biased term and should not be used in a factually based article. RF80

Mr Douglass- I have also been to Iraq. While it is definately far from a good situation, I disagree with your assertations. My experiences over there (Aug 2005-Feb 2006, 3rd Bn 6th Marines) are a complete 180 from yours. What time frame and unit were you with?

Regarding the point that "An invasion would be if a force went into an area with the intention of remaining there," the definition of "invade" is "entering by force." It doesn't include the intent to remain. Regardless, the U.S. clearly does intend to remain, as it has built a dozen permanent military bases in the country and a fortress embassy the size of Vatican City in the capital. --Mr. Billion 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

dont worry, mr douglass is blocked. he can no longer come out with anti-american nonsense his msgs show how much he hates america

In response to the definition of invasion. The following is taken from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary for the term invade. Invasion, invaders, etc all have similar definitions.

Main Entry: in·vade

Pronunciation: in-'vAd

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin invadere, from in- + vadere to go -- more at WADE

1 : to enter for conquest or plunder

2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE

3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE <doubts invade mind>  : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

Now who out there thinks we "entered for conquest or plunder". The situation is bad out there, but if you think this, you have serious problems.

Given that many people believe that the whole endeavour was principally to gain secure access to Iraq's oil reserves, plunder may be appropriate. Definition 2. is manifestly true and Definition 3 "to affect injuriously and progressively are arguably true given that Iraq id moving from a united if oppressed secular country to one riven by open strife between religious and ethnic groups which may end up breaking along its ethnic and religious divides. 192.75.48.150 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the invading forces clearly did conquer (defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms; gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms) the defending forces and their territory, so it's specious to claim otherwise. Mr. Billion 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This dosen't have a neutral point of view, it's is very right wing and pro-bush.

Tell me about it, all you have to do is change the word 'liberation' to occupation (as it really is), and you're blocked for vandalism. I checked the guy who blocked me....he was from North Carolina (surprise, surprise)! Everything is from such a US relative perspective.

I'll start by saying that I am a conservative American living in the South, though I opposed the war when it started, and continue to do so. I think that the best word is occupied - it merely means that there are troops there. There are troops there. 'Liberation' is POV, in that it assumes that the current persons there are freeing the citizens, whether admins want to admit it or not, whereas 'invasion' has the opposite POV, in that it implies military conquest for its own sake. Occupied, and occupation, though, are merely the state of having troops in the country, which is true (though I'll admit that when I hear the word occupation, the first thing I think of is Bajor). --Milton 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Improved location mapping for Iraq

I've adapted a graphic template devised by our Croatian friends to create what will hopefully be an improved method of providing locator maps for Iraqi places. It's no longer necessary to create a separate locator map for each location. Instead, all you need to do is to specify a set of coordinates for the location in question and add them to the following template:

{{location map|Iraq|label=<place>|position=<left/right>|width=<number of pixels>|lat=<latitude>|long=<longitude>|caption=<whatever, leave blank if you don't want one>|float=<left/right/none>}}

Here's a practical example. Al-Qa'im is at coordinates 34.366944, 41.138889. We want a small 150px wide locator map without a caption, and with the placename right-aligned to avoid it sticking out of the side of the map. The map on the right is produced using this code:

{{location map|Iraq|label=Al-Qa'im|position=right|width=150|lat=34.366944|long=41.138889|caption=|float=right}}

See Template:Location map for more information and further instructions on syntax.

To obtain the coordinates for any given place, you will need to look it up on the NGA geonames database and look for the coordinates in the "Map Information" box. You'll then need to convert these values to digital coordinates, which you can do using the converter at http://www2.comp.polyu.edu.hk/~04329143d/Location.html . The template uses only digital coordinates. -- ChrisO 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sanctions

I noticed that User:Kavanagh made an edit falsely claiming that abuse of the oil-for-food program had killed half a million children in the 1990s, which is not supported by the cite given. What the cited link said was that if Iraq's decline in child mortality in the '80s had continued to the late 90's, half a million deaths would have been prevented. The link says that the sanctions were the likely cause, not the program set up to alleviate the sanctions' consequences. The link makes no mention of the oil-for-food scandal.
The article now says that "Over four thousand firms were implicated in the UN Oil for Food Scandal for allegedly receiving bribes and payments from Iraq." This is also not supported by the cite given (it says 4 thousand were involved in the program, and 2 thousand were accused of abusing it), but more importantly the number of firms around the world that abused the program isn't relevant to an overview of Iraq. I'm changing the article to include information that fits in with the sentence preceding it. --Mr. Billion 23:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Continued

This passage in modern history struck me as highly biased:

Taking advantage of perceived Iranian disorder in the wake of the Iranian Revolution, Iraq invaded Iran launching the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988. During this long conventional war, Iraq attacked Iran with chemical weapons and deliberately killed many Iranian civilians with such weapons.

any thoughts?

raptor 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence was produced by kavanagh, whose edits sometimes seem to be somewhat short of neutrality. The first sentence, I think, is more or less what actually happened, though it could stand to be reworded. --Mr. Billion 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article on the Iran-Iraq War does talk about 100,000 Iranian civilian deaths by WMD's. I think that almost has to be deliberate - look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the tone of the above excerpt is a little POV. --Milton 16:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is so biased it's not funny....easily one of the worst Misplaced Pages pages. It's very right-wing, and pro-war.

Why is this so pro Iranian?

"Taking advantage of perceived Iranian disorder in the wake of the Iranian Revolution, Iraq invaded Iran launching the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988. During this long conventional war, Iraq attacked Iran with chemical weapons and deliberately killed many Iranian civilians with such weapons. Throughout the conflict, world powers supplied arms to Iraq. The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million (0.5% of total arms sales to Iraq) in weapons. In the end, Iran repelled Iraq to a standstill and the political boundary between both countries was restored. The Iran-Iraq war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and an estimated 160,000 to 240,000 Iraqis died."

As an iraqi with family who are veterans in this war I put great emphasis on this subject. For example it states that the reason for iraqs attacks was the revolution and the disorder, however it was not as stated in the page about the Iran-Iraq war. The stated reasons are long border disputes since the days of the safavid empire, the arab people of kuzkestan or arabistan. Who the iraqi's beleive are part of their nation, in addition to Ayatollah Khumini's trying to incite an islamic revolution in iran "as saddam has expelled the ayatollah from iraqi soil after request from the shah". In addition to ayatollah khomaini's describing the iraqi regime as infidel and trying to incite a revolution among the kurdish population of iraq "after all they speak similar language and have a very similiar culture". There is also demonization of the iraqi regime as killing of civilians was by both sides, the U.S sold iran weaponry and ammunation to iran through israel and then directly "look at iran-iraq war page". It should also be mentioned that ALL accusations of iraq beggining the war were after the iraqi invasion of kuwait, thus they should not be cited. This should either become neutral or excluded from the article.

Civilian Casualties

I included a link a website explaining how the 100,000 deaths was deduced . It was from a poll. Iraqbodycount.com lists specific incidents and from that places the casualties around 40,000 or so. I think both these are worth mentioning, but that the article should mention both of them in their context. --Milton 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Iraq-Iran War Description is Biased Towards Iran

In general the whole article about Iraq is written from an American point of view. What stands out the most is the description of the Iraq-Iran war. Both regimes were at fault in starting the war. The article fails to mention that the Iranian regime was trying to export its revolution to the rest of the world. There were countless provocative actions commited towards Iraq prior to the war. The article ignores the fact that Iranian forces started shelling the Iraqi side of the border prior to September 22, 1980. The article does not mention attacks agianst Iraqi civilian institutions prior to the onset of open conflict. Examples include the bombing of Mustansiriya University and the Ministry of Planning.

Invariably that is likely to be the case as this is the English Misplaced Pages. I suspect rewriting the section to be less biased might be beneficial. With regards to the article 'ignoring' certain elements. Its going to be virtually impossible to include every single cotroversial issue of the war here. That would probably be better suited the article about the war itself. After all if you go to say the United Kingdom page you don't see a large portion of it about the first and second world wars. I suspect re writing or rewording may be benefical if its done in a heavily cited NPOV way. --WikipedianProlific 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator: Chaldean reverted my contributions without real explanation (saying "rvt the ruining of the article"). Part of your job, as I understand it, is to protect the article from unexplained removal of material. My contributions were fully cited and contributed significantly to the article. Please protect the article. --NYCJosh 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Arab Iraq

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "Arab Iraq", "Arabian Iraq", and "Iraq Arabi" all the same thing? The current Name section makes it sound like "Iraq Arabi" was a distinct region different from "Arab Iraq". Kaldari 09:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image of the Toppled Statue of Hussein

I seem to remember hearing on the news that U.S. troops were not involved in any way except as spectators in the toppling of Saddam's statue. I remember this only because someone made a point of the significance of it, as if to say that the American troops were not behaving as conquerors, but rather "allowing" the people of Iraq to remove the "symbols of their oppression," as Americans like to believe our army always functions. I also recall hearing by word-of-mouth that Al-Jazeera was supposedly appalled at American journalism for glorifying the toppling of the statue, when according to them much of the Arab world viewed the act as the work of a minority group of extremists from within Iraq. I could be wrong, but would the author of the caption which says, "American troops toppling a statue of Saddam Hussein," please cite their source, or could someone please clarify? It may seem like a small detail but I think that being clear about who exactly toppled the statue is important to understanding the significance of that picture's place in history. --Techgeist 04:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The statue scene was largely staged as a photo-op. The huge crowd of Iraqis wasn't actually that huge, but most U.S. media avoided the larger context in favor the ratings-getting magic of the iconic moment. The Iraqis tried to pull the statue down themselves, but were unable. So the Americans looped a chain around the top and pulled it down with a truck. Here is a very good article on the subject. Here is a short BBC photo set of the event. A longer Boston Globe photoset. Sourcewatch article on the event with a small collection of links, some better than others. --Mr. Billion 06:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Excellent links. --Techgeist 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

They used an armoured recovery vehicle to pull down the statue. Dudtz 9/22/06 6:15 PM EST

Article Adminstrator, Help!

Chaldean again reverted my fully cited contributions: Revision as of 20:19, 18 July 2006, based on the allegation that it was "horrible" because I have citations next to the contributions and not in footnotes. The remedy for this "problem" would be to put the citations in footnotes. Deleting my contributions is vandalism in the guise of some sort of tidyness. This is not the first time. Please see talk page a couple of sections up. Then it was some other excuse. Please stop this!! What am I supposed to do with this guy? This is supposed to be a collaborative efforst. --NYCJosh 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision of history section

It seems there are some revisionists here who would prefer to avoid any mention of Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and are trying to cover it up. These war-crimes are historical fact and further attempts to cover it up will be fixed. Anyone care to explain the attempted cover-up? Tashtastic 12:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's a conspiracy. --Mr. Billion 23:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern History

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the following included sentence: "Iraq was invaded in March 2003 by the United States and allies in response to an eventually discredited threat of nuclear weapon development by Hussein and established a Coalition Provisional Authority to govern Iraq." I searched through the various sources for that paragraph and didn't find anything related to the official reason for the invasion, further I believe the conclusion regarding Hussein's weapons programs are still inconclusive. I don't know how to fix it, any ideas? GromXXVII 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Independence

The article claims that Iraq won independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1919, but wasn't it owned by Britain from 1919 to 1932? (British Mandate of Iraq)--Fox Mccloud 15:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just some news on Iraq

British troops are mobilizing on the Iranian border http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060830&articleId=3097

Deterring Iran

The main article states "Recent (2006) conservative commentators have indicated that the actual reason for invasion was to create a democracy in Iraq for the sole purpose of deterring Iran."

I think it should be stated what Iran is being deterred from.

--Nat 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of article

There's some text in there of "ẽf ФДŅÐÃḌθ". I'd try to remove it myself, but I'd want to remove any other vandalism done in the same edit. The vandalism is at least 100 edits old.

Should the article be semi-protected so that vandalism doesn't chew up the edit history? Andjam 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Occupation of Iraq

In regard to the reasons for invading Iraq.

Article said "Iraq was invaded in March 2003 by the United States and allies with the stated reasons that Iraq had not abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons development program according to United Nations resolutions, that it had links to Al Qaeda, and that it had known, effective Weapons of Mass Destruction. Later, it was indicated that the reason was to remove an oppressive dictator from power, and, even later, that the goal was to bring democracy to the middle east."

I corrected this, stating "Blatantly incorrect information. Bush's 2003 state of the union address clearly mentioned all these things PRIOR to the war. The article claimed that these things weren't mentioned until afterwards."

User "Dabbler" said "I read 2003 State of the Union address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html) and it does NOT mention all these things." and reverted my change. Dabbler is wrong.

Here is a quote from the January 2003 speech: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."

He is very clearly saying that Saddam is a cruel and oppressive dictator, and the liberation of Iraq will be better for their people. The liberation was Saddam being removed, and a new (elected) government replacing it.

Thus, it cannot be said that "Later, it was indicated that the reason was to remove an oppressive dictator from power, and, even later, that the goal was to bring democracy to the middle east."

vandalism

as of 207.29.128.130 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

1. Well written?: Fail

2. Factually accurate?: Fail

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: O. K.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Fail

Additional comments :

• The article fails to give a lead section in accordance with the WP:LEAD guideline.
• Can there be a citation for the section on the name.
• Image:Saddamstatue.jpg isn't tagged; Image:Iraq 50 dinars Rewers.JPG doesn't have a valid tag.
• Please remove some weasel words and words that pertain to our present time such as recent, actual, etc.

This article may be broad in coverage but it lacks in many criteria asked by the GA process. Please read carefully the guidelines at WP:WIAGA and submit it again once they are met. Lincher 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees