Talk:Iraq War/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Iraq War Article      Iraq War Current Talk Page

      Navigation through Talk Archives      
  You are now viewing: Archive 5   

<<    BACK         FORWARD


Note: This archive was broken using Werdnabot. It is not in chronological order.

Contents

Recent vandalism and the War on Terrorism

Sockpuppet maybe? Rmt2m 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that was a possibility, it seems sorta weird how all these people popped up all of a sudden to make the identical edit. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Big cleanup

In this edit I cleaned up a number of typos and attempted to repair POV issues. The biggest one was the title of the section near the beginning called "War Rationale Post 1991 Gulf War," which was a remarkable misnomer since none of the events mentioned involved calls for invasion of Iraq. Aside from the PNAC, there weren't any groups putting up a rationale for invading Iraq until around 2002. There were several other fixes. I haven't touched the external links section yet, but those often need pruning. We also still need to clean up the repetition in the sections "Events following the 1991 Gulf War" and "= War Rationale Post September 11, 2001 ". I think there the article still echoes itself on Hans Blix's assessment of Iraq right before the invasion, and also on some other information. --Mr. Billion 07:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding Yahoo News links because they die after about a month

Whenever you put a link to an article hosted by Yahoo News, you're posting a link that will no longer work in about a month. I'm not sure it's exactly a month; maybe it's two. But every Yahoo News article I've seen has disappeared after several weeks. Here's an example of a dead link from January 17 this year. As far as I know, Yahoo does not archive most of the articles it hosts at all.
In this edit I changed a Yahoo link to a permanent link to the same article hosted by The Guardian newspaper, and avoided linking a URL twice by giving it a ref-name and having the second time it's cited refer to the original reference. User:Patchouli changed the text <ref name="DisbandMilitias"/> to another link to the same article hosted on yet another site, giving the edit summary "Added more link. I believe Yahoo! News are archived properly and they are pemanent links". I'm pretty sure that is a mistaken belief, since every article I've seen has not been properly archived. Yahoo temporarily hosts news articles from other websites. I predict that at the end of this year this link will be broken. Regardless, I don't see any point in duplicating a link. Somehow the URL wound up getting linked and listed in the references a third time. I've changed it back to the way it was.
See MetaWiki's entry on the ref element if there's any confusion on why it's better to use the ref name instead of multiple references to the same source. --Mr. Billion 05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Patchouli has again reverted the edit, apparently not understanding that the text <ref name="DisbandMilitias"/> places a superscript with a link just like the text <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6128399,00.html Iraq Political Groups Warned on Militias]] ''The Guardian'' [[5 October]] [[2006]]</ref> does, only this way it avoids having multiple entries for one URL in the Notes section. The version to which he reverted also has the ref text twice in a row for some reason. --Mr. Billion 05:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, part of the confusion was coming from bad formatting on my part. It's fixed now. :p --Mr. Billion 05:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! News links do die out; you are correct. I also couldn't understand, at first, that you were making multiple uses of the same footnote. Sorry.--Patchouli 06:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

War by any other name ...

Reference in the intro is made to the "Iraq War", also known as "the Second or Third Gulf War (and by the U.S. military as Operation Iraqi Freedom)".

What do the Iraqis call it? Should this be added for balance?

Gibberer 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Gibberer. I was wondering the same thing, does anyone have any idea what the Iraqis are calling this? Publicus 13:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A thought would be to check the Arabic wikipedia, but I don't speak or read arabic, so I'm not any help there. --Bobblehead 14:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Arabic Wikipedia doesn't seem to have split the Iraq war into as many sub-topics as en.wikipedia has. The only free automated translation service for Arabic that I know of is Google's. That translation of the arabic equivalent of 2003 invasion of Iraq gives the title as "War on Iraq." --Mr. Billion 17:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

I've deleted a section in this page because it sounded like it had a weasel-worded POV. If I am wrong, please send me a message; I will revert it.--Blue Moon Dragon 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Desertions

The article doesnt seem to mention the desertions that have been happening aswell as AWOL personel, i will add such a section, any comments? i think War Resisters Support Campaign and Darrell Anderson are good examples.Qrc2006 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonnotable. No inclusion. --Mmx1 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe not as exactly written, but i think its important to mention that many soldgiers marines airmen and seamen have deserted or gone awol over these past 4 years.Qrc2006 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you would have to find the link that the desertions and awol troops are directly contributed to the Iraq War, no link, no inclusion in the articule. Drew1369r 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree - if the number of AWOLs has risen significantly, and in ways attributable to the war, then the article on "Iraq War" should mention that fact. People examining the causes, effects or outcome of this war would expect to see evidence of the effect on morale and effectiveness on US forces, and probably expect to see it in the main article. 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)~

Insurgents dead or jailed

We shouldn't include people that were jailed.

They are routinely released such as part of Iraq's "national reconciliation plan" or other bogus plans. Furthermore, there are surely some who have been jailed multiple times.

Just focus on reported deaths.--Patchouli 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Insurgents dead or jailed : 67,000+[1]

Total combatants dead or jailed due to war: 72,000 - 100,000[1]:

  1. ^ a b "Iraq Index", The Brookings Institution, 2006-08-07.

Fishy figures

During the Vietnam Conflict news reports always said something along the lines of "Oh, at this offensive, hundreds died and at that battle thousands lost their lives."

Is the number of Iraqi deaths like that?--Patchouli 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

new civilian casualties study

New study out claiming as many as 655,000 civilian deaths thus far. Someone want to add this in? — ceejayoz talk 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obviously wrong. In order to reach that number there'd need to be 15,000-16,000 deaths per month. Over 2600 civilians died in the past month, and that was considered a bad month. GreatGatsby 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"It's quite obviously wrong" because your source for the 2600 number is "quite obviously right"? Can you provide any evidence that the numbers we've been seeing in the popular press are in any way more accurate than the Johns Hopkins study? It seems like you're arguing that the new casualty estimates are wrong simply because they differ drastically from previous accounts. But--and please correct me if I'm wrong here--isn't it generally acknowledged that there has been no reliable, systematic measure of Iraq mortality--neither by the US, the UN, the "Iraqi Authorities" such as they are, or anyone else? Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The 2600 figure doesn't quite stack up. According to DoD figures between May 2005 and June 2006 the estimated average daily death toll was 117, and this figure was only on the basis of incidents to which the coalition forces responded. That's an average of 3,500 per month, or 45,000 in a 13 month period. Presumably these figures don't include sectarian murders and kidnappings. This shows the DoD figures for one twelve-month period are almost equal to Iraqbodycount's for the entire post-invasion period. It shows how far out they are (Iraqbodycount that is). Cripipper 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You say ->>> "Over 2600 civilians died in the past month". You're probably accepting the headline figure for actual counted bodies (and likely in Baghdad alone). There are three provinces (roughly speaking, those west of Baghdad) which are thought to be worse. Random sampling of households all over the entire country is likely to provide a much more reliable figure than mortuary counts. Especially in a muslim country, where funerals are normally within 24 hours. PalestineRemembered 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Even the link says it is "based on interviews of households and not a body count." The study is a 100% disservice to accuracy and reality; it wants to dramatize the events.--Patchouli 02:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite disturbed at the new number--and I am agree with you that social scientists probably tend toward an anti-war bias--but I am reluctant to dismiss it out of hand. Also, there's a big difference between antiwar epidemiologists conducting a body count the best way they know how in order to prove a point, and antiwar epidemiologists "dramatizing" the facts. On what basis can you accuse Johns Hopkins of departing from the facts? Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Body counts are notoriously unreliable - Vietnam anyone? The main weakness in the criticisms of this study is that it has been conducted using the techniques the U.S. government itself advocates for estimating death tolls in war and disaster zones. Almost 2000 families were interviewed in 50 clusters across the country. They were asked who lived in the household before the invasion and who lives here now. They were then asked who had died and who had moved away. At the end of the interview the interviewees were asked to produce a death certificate for the persons who were alleged to have died. Over 90% of families were able to do so; this is despite the fact that it is recognized that in Iraq many deaths go unregistered. There is not a single prominent epidemiologist or qualified scientist who has faulted this report - only politicians, and political scientists. The Professor of epidemiology at Oxford University who was critical of the last report they did two years ago has said that he cannot fault this one. There may be some some sampling errors which could bring down the estimate to the lower end of the C.I. (ca. 400,000 deaths), but unless there is a fad among Iraqi families for fabricating death certificates, the science of this report stands up and is the best available guess we have about what the actual death toll is. Cripipper 11:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The might be such a fad because of consolation payments for the Iraqis. It is much easier than looting. However, I am just guessing.--Patchouli 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Then how do 90% of the interviewees produce a death certificate for their fake death? Gzuckier 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Telling the researchers that a family member died isn't going to get the person a payment, so I'm not sure that's amotive. They also don't take the word of the person they are interviewing. They have to provide a death certificate, burial record, or some other form of evidence that the person died. It's also worth noting that the study doesn't distinguish between civilian and non-civilian deaths, just that the person died, how they died, and when they died. The other counts only track civilian deaths. --Bobblehead 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cripipper makes what I think is the only crucial point. Yes, the latest body count is an estimate, and as such we must acknowledge its limitations. It may even an estimate produced by scientists with an interest in publicizing negative aspects of the war--no disinterested party is likely to be issuing body counts. On grounds of methodological integrity, however, there is not a single competing estimate. Not a single one (please correct me on this if you can). To reject this study on any basis other than that of the presence of a more reliable estimate strikes me as nonNPOV and nonencyclopedic in the extreme. Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This exact methodology was perfectly fine when the authors used it for previous conflicts which the US government wasn't interested in whitewashing (and in fact the US quoted them when it wished to quell the conflict), the critics of the technique are invariably statistically uneducated, often by their own admissions, their criticisms are invariably shown to be groundless on a theoretical basis, the basic survey and mathematical techniques used are no different from anything else in the epidemiological world; basically, if this study can't be believed, then nothing in epidemiology, from the link between cigarettes and lung cancer to the FDA's drug approval process, can be believed. Of course, a lot of folks will say "yes, that's what we're saying also", but I don't think that'a a good position for Wikipedia to endorse. Gzuckier 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You say ->> "This exact methodology was perfectly fine" - This latest study has been carried out by the most acceptable methodology, randomly choosing locations all over the country and interviewing people there. This is the same method used in eg the Congo for producing numbers of deaths, and Tony Blair is another leader who has quoted the figure that Roberts arrived at.
This method is not perfect, but if one takes enough sample points, one arrives at a figure (with a band of error) that can be considered reliable and even "accurate". PalestineRemembered 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You say ->> "no disinterested party is likely to be issuing body counts" - some intepretations of the Geneva Conventions suggest that the occupying forces are obliged to tabulate deaths in their areas of responsibility. If they fail to do so, then they're not in a strong position to object when others do so. PalestineRemembered 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Title change.

I think the title should be changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since that is the term used by America to refer to the ongoing freedom-struggle in Iraq. Would you guys agree? Cerebral Warrior 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not, for the same reason that the article on the Vietnam War is not called 'The Resistance War Against America For National Salvation'. Cripipper 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd support a change to Third Gulf War if a name change were in order.GiollaUidir 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Troop Deployment Strengths

I updated the various troop deployments in the Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment. Hopefully this clears up the questions about current strengths and withdrawals. Publicus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I also added the strengths for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). These are seperate troops not counted in the overall coalition deployment for the involved countries. Publicus 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates, but could you provide sources? Not that I'm doubting the numbers, but it would innocculate the article against people questioning the numbers. Thanks! --Bobblehead 14:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

All the figures came from either the Multinational force in Iraq page or the old section on this page called "troop deployments." I just took the info and stuck it in a template. Publicus 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an "estimate"

In the text it says that "estimates" vary from Iraqbodycounts minimum death count to the recent report. I think that's rather wrong. Iraqbodycount is not an estimate of how many people that have died because of the war, but of how many that has been reported killed, and that's a huge diffrence. Sure, use IBCs number as a number of confirmed deaths, but not as an estimate because that's not what it is. --Merat 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only actual verifiable figures are the recent ones in the Lancet-all other figures/estimates/guesses/propaganda should be removed from the article.GiollaUidir 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I suggest that we put the confirmed number of deaths somewhere else in the article together with information about the difficulties of estimating the death toll etc, and use the Lancet study in (and other estimates of the total death toll, if there are any) in the beginning of the article and in the information box. Although with respect to IBCs work, using their numbers there is like saying that an unrecorded deaths is not a death at all. --Merat 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The figures used for Darfur etc were obtained using the same methods as the Lancet study for Iraq so should be included as the death toll in the info-box. The Iraqi Health Ministry and IBC have roughly the same number... I agree with a new section for documenting the controversy.GiollaUidir 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. --Merat 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some range, the 655,000 alone doesn't represent the fact that nobody knows for sure how many have died. I don't think we should simply find the study with the highest amount imaginable and use that as fact. Rmt2m 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, the Lancet study is, from what I know, the only study of it's sort. The US-led coalition has said that they "don't do body counts" (which is in violation of the Genève Conventions) and therefore information of this sort is scarce. Secondly, some range is given in the study. It says that they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died, but came up with 655 000 as a reasonable number (And there you also see that 655 000 isn't the "higherst amount imaginable"). --Merat 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
To me, that brings into question the methodology of the report. How can anyone say that they are 95% sure that between 392,979 and 942,636 people have died? There's a gap of almost 550,000 in there, meaning that they are 95% certain of bupkus. Notwithstanding an official DoD count, there are other methods, like IBC, that have more verifiable ways of confirming deaths, such as using multiple sources. Rmt2m 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying that one is 95% sure that a figure lies within a certain range is just about the best way to present statistics. It's not an empty statement, or "bupkus", at all. It means it's very unlikely that the casualty rate is as low as 200,000 or as high as 1,000,000, and it acknowledges just how much uncertainty there is in the count - a lot. Having studied some statistics, I would question the methodology of a report that doesn't present its results in terms of a confidence interval. Omitting the error bars is one of the most common ways to mislead with stats; let's not do that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I suppose I expressed myself a bit bad. Instead of "they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died" , it should rather be "according to their research, the chance that the number of deaths is between 392 979 and 942 636, is 95 %." If you have questions on methodology then read the report. As I have previously said, IBC states that it only counts reported deaths, which makes it useless in this context. --Merat 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess what I fail to realize is why we shouldn't simply use a count of confirmed deaths. At least then the number has some veracity, because otherwise it's conjecture. Rmt2m 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already told you why we shouldn't use IBC's numbers. Look at any other war article with a large number of casualties, do you think they are less conjecture? Do you just distrust this special report, or statistics on the whole? --Merat 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, we shouldn't use IBC because those deaths are documented, but we should use this study because there not? Honestly the Lancet report seems a bit suspect to me. I don't doubt that there have been deaths that haven't been reported yet, but these numbers are beyond what is even remotely possible. The Lancet study was conducted over a period of three months which is hardly enough time to gather data for over 40. The Lancet study also mentions the fact that the DoD does in fact conduct body counts, "despite initially denying that they did." Rmt2m 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, there we have it. You seem to think the Lancet study is suspect because it gives too high numbers. Why would three months not be enough to do a statistical study, and where are that DoD body count then? --Merat 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, ask Lancet where the DoD count is. Of course it gives too high a number! There is absolutely no way that there are that many undocumented deaths. It defies reason. That's what I've been saying all along. And next week or month when a study comes out with 2.5 million deaths or 3 million deaths, y'all will most likely accept that one as fact as well. Rmt2m 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think that there cannot be so many undocumented deaths? It's close to civil war in Iraq, do you think a few western journalists have coverage over the whole country? Compared with IBC, the Lancet study says that abouth one tenth of the Iraqi deaths have been reported by western media, which I think is quite plausible. --Merat 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Because counts conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry, Interior Ministry, Brookings Institution, the AP and virtually every other count don't even approach the numbers in the new lancet study. Listen, I don't question the fact that too many civilians are dying, but I think that it is irresponsible to display one study as fact when its' numbers vary significantly from others. That's all, I would just like to see some other studies used in the article for balance. Rmt2m 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying and I have never said that the Lancet study is right, but rather that IBC isn't very interesting for the infobox and the introduction of this article. They accept this themselves ("It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war." - quoted from the IBC homepage). Anyway, I proposed that we create a new section in the article where we can put forward the difficulties and controversies with the death count, and there we can have the IBC numbers. --Merat 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Another section in the article will be fine, but do you still want to use the Lancet study in the infobox? Rmt2m 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, but if there are other interesting estimations of the total death toll available then we can include them there as well. --Merat 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see maybe the Brookings and Iraqi Health Ministry counts if possible, they would take a line apiece at most. Rmt2m 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's clarify a few things. You may indeed find the Lancet study suspect, but statistically the chances that the death toll is under 400,000 is 2.5%, likewise the chance that it is above 1,000,000.
  • The DoD figures say that from May to August the average number of civilian deaths per day in incidents that the Coalition forces responded to was 117. Given that there are certainly huge numbers of incidents that they do not respond to (and either Iraqi police do or no-one does) such as sectarian murders, it seems safe to assume that the daily death toll in Iraq has been running at a minimum of 200 deaths per day from May to August, and by the U.S. Army's own admission it has gotten substantially worse since then, so perhaps at least 300 per day for the past two months. That alone produces a death toll of 36,000 for the past five months. If we use only the average number that the coalition responded to then it is still at least 21,000 since May. It shows just how poor a source Iraqbodycount or the Health Ministry are - neither of these sources is suggesting that half the total casualties have occured in the past 5 months; so either the DoD has got it wrong or neither of these are even close to accurate estimates of the death toll.
  • If you have queries about the reliability of the Lancet study, I suggest you read this[1] analysis performed by a (conservative) British polling analyst who works for the highly respected British polling company Yougov [www.yougov.com]. Cripipper 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So given the fact that all these studies differ so much, which should we use? Rmt2m 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
IBC is not a study; it is a tabulation of deaths reported in the media. Personally I think it is just fine the way it is, though maybe the footnote could be expanded. Cripipper 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vigils Section

This has no relevance to the article and I see no reason to include it. If anyone disagrees with it's removal please say why here.GiollaUidir 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with its removal. A vigil to honour the matyrs of Operation Iraqi Freedom obviously has relevance to this article. Cerebral Warrior 11:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with removal. I find it irrelevant and it gives the article very much of an American POV. --Merat 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should one vigil solely dedicated to the US soldiers killed be included in an article generally about the war but? By the same reasoning we could include every vigil held for the civilians killed during the course of the conflict.GiollaUidir 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It pains me when people, whose ideas on war are based on anti-American propaganda movies they sit and watch in their suburban homes, insult the true warriors who lay down their lives in Iraq. If you want to put in details of the "memorials" held to "honour" the jihad-monkeys who blow themselves up in Iraq, go ahead. But please, don't insult the fallen heroes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let the Vigils section remain. Cerebral Warrior 11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to those resisting the US in Iraq; I was referring to the thousands of innocent civilians killed during the course of the conflict by the US. Heroes or not (perhaps we could include a section on the Haditha massacre, the rape of a 12 year old girl by US forces who then killed her and her family by the US or how heroic the torturers of Abu Ghraib were??) the section has no relevance to the article. Go ahead and start another article about it but you've given no good reason why it should remain so it's getting removed.GiollaUidir 12:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about any of the events being shouted out here - especially this Haditha thing - but the ection should mbe removed. It adds very little to the war, it's more about the US. HawkerTyphoon 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Giolla, just curious, who has killed more civilians? I just want to hear from a combat veteran like yourself who has knowledge of what he speaks. Rmt2m 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Why ask me and what's with the snidey comment? No-one knows because the great liberators didn't bother to check.GiollaUidir 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What snidey comment? Yours towards Cerebral? Well I just figured that since most of the things you mentioned are still under investigation you would have been there, seen them happen and know all of the circumstances to make those statements. That's all. Rmt2m 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unintended consequence

Whereas when it comes to the Americans, we make sure that every single person has authentically died via a body count + Social Security number, etc.

Whereas when it comes to the Iraqis, people just make estimates — albeit mathematical or not.

Therefore, this makes the American casualties thus far seem minuscule and creates more expectation of the American and the coalition troops alike.--Patchouli 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Three points

These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:

  • "Massive civilian casualties" is an emotional opinion, which is why it was removed.
  • "Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" [2] is not documented in the link given, which is why it was removed.
  • A badly done ref in the first paragraph has caused 3 paragraphs to dissappear, which is why it was replaced.

CJK 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraqbodycount and Iraqi health ministerim/Iraqi government count is not the same thing

Some people are talking about "Officially Iraqi government count" and "Iraqi health ministerium count" and later only linking to Iraqbodycount again, which is a rather useless count for estimating the casualties in Iraq (see discussion above: "Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an 'estimate'"). Unless you provide links directly to information about the Iraqi government count or Iraqi health ministerium count, I will remove the 40-thousandsomething estimates. --Merat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Insurgents dead or jailed

We shouldn't include people that were jailed.

They are routinely released such as part of Iraq's "national reconciliation plan" or other bogus plans. Furthermore, there are surely some who have been jailed multiple times.

Just focus on reported deaths.--Patchouli 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Insurgents dead or jailed : 67,000+[1]

Total combatants dead or jailed due to war: 72,000 - 100,000[1]:

  1. ^ a b c d "Iraq Index", The Brookings Institution, 2006-08-07.

Title change.

I think the title should be changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since that is the term used by America to refer to the ongoing freedom-struggle in Iraq. Would you guys agree? Cerebral Warrior 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not, for the same reason that the article on the Vietnam War is not called 'The Resistance War Against America For National Salvation'. Cripipper 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd support a change to Third Gulf War if a name change were in order.GiollaUidir 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Unintended consequence

Whereas when it comes to the Americans, we make sure that every single person has authentically died via a body count + Social Security number, etc.

Whereas when it comes to the Iraqis, people just make estimates — albeit mathematical or not.

Therefore, this makes the American casualties thus far seem minuscule and creates more expectation of the American and the coalition troops alike.--Patchouli 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Desertions

The article doesnt seem to mention the desertions that have been happening aswell as AWOL personel, i will add such a section, any comments? i think War Resisters Support Campaign and Darrell Anderson are good examples.Qrc2006 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonnotable. No inclusion. --Mmx1 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe not as exactly written, but i think its important to mention that many soldgiers marines airmen and seamen have deserted or gone awol over these past 4 years.Qrc2006 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you would have to find the link that the desertions and awol troops are directly contributed to the Iraq War, no link, no inclusion in the articule. Drew1369r 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree - if the number of AWOLs has risen significantly, and in ways attributable to the war, then the article on "Iraq War" should mention that fact. People examining the causes, effects or outcome of this war would expect to see evidence of the effect on morale and effectiveness on US forces, and probably expect to see it in the main article. 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)~

new civilian casualties study

New study out claiming as many as 655,000 civilian deaths thus far. Someone want to add this in? — ceejayoz talk 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obviously wrong. In order to reach that number there'd need to be 15,000-16,000 deaths per month. Over 2600 civilians died in the past month, and that was considered a bad month. GreatGatsby 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"It's quite obviously wrong" because your source for the 2600 number is "quite obviously right"? Can you provide any evidence that the numbers we've been seeing in the popular press are in any way more accurate than the Johns Hopkins study? It seems like you're arguing that the new casualty estimates are wrong simply because they differ drastically from previous accounts. But--and please correct me if I'm wrong here--isn't it generally acknowledged that there has been no reliable, systematic measure of Iraq mortality--neither by the US, the UN, the "Iraqi Authorities" such as they are, or anyone else? Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The 2600 figure doesn't quite stack up. According to DoD figures between May 2005 and June 2006 the estimated average daily death toll was 117, and this figure was only on the basis of incidents to which the coalition forces responded. That's an average of 3,500 per month, or 45,000 in a 13 month period. Presumably these figures don't include sectarian murders and kidnappings. This shows the DoD figures for one twelve-month period are almost equal to Iraqbodycount's for the entire post-invasion period. It shows how far out they are (Iraqbodycount that is). Cripipper 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You say ->>> "Over 2600 civilians died in the past month". You're probably accepting the headline figure for actual counted bodies (and likely in Baghdad alone). There are three provinces (roughly speaking, those west of Baghdad) which are thought to be worse. Random sampling of households all over the entire country is likely to provide a much more reliable figure than mortuary counts. Especially in a muslim country, where funerals are normally within 24 hours. PalestineRemembered 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Even the link says it is "based on interviews of households and not a body count." The study is a 100% disservice to accuracy and reality; it wants to dramatize the events.--Patchouli 02:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite disturbed at the new number--and I am agree with you that social scientists probably tend toward an anti-war bias--but I am reluctant to dismiss it out of hand. Also, there's a big difference between antiwar epidemiologists conducting a body count the best way they know how in order to prove a point, and antiwar epidemiologists "dramatizing" the facts. On what basis can you accuse Johns Hopkins of departing from the facts? Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Body counts are notoriously unreliable - Vietnam anyone? The main weakness in the criticisms of this study is that it has been conducted using the techniques the U.S. government itself advocates for estimating death tolls in war and disaster zones. Almost 2000 families were interviewed in 50 clusters across the country. They were asked who lived in the household before the invasion and who lives here now. They were then asked who had died and who had moved away. At the end of the interview the interviewees were asked to produce a death certificate for the persons who were alleged to have died. Over 90% of families were able to do so; this is despite the fact that it is recognized that in Iraq many deaths go unregistered. There is not a single prominent epidemiologist or qualified scientist who has faulted this report - only politicians, and political scientists. The Professor of epidemiology at Oxford University who was critical of the last report they did two years ago has said that he cannot fault this one. There may be some some sampling errors which could bring down the estimate to the lower end of the C.I. (ca. 400,000 deaths), but unless there is a fad among Iraqi families for fabricating death certificates, the science of this report stands up and is the best available guess we have about what the actual death toll is. Cripipper 11:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The might be such a fad because of consolation payments for the Iraqis. It is much easier than looting. However, I am just guessing.--Patchouli 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Then how do 90% of the interviewees produce a death certificate for their fake death? Gzuckier 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Telling the researchers that a family member died isn't going to get the person a payment, so I'm not sure that's amotive. They also don't take the word of the person they are interviewing. They have to provide a death certificate, burial record, or some other form of evidence that the person died. It's also worth noting that the study doesn't distinguish between civilian and non-civilian deaths, just that the person died, how they died, and when they died. The other counts only track civilian deaths. --Bobblehead 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cripipper makes what I think is the only crucial point. Yes, the latest body count is an estimate, and as such we must acknowledge its limitations. It may even an estimate produced by scientists with an interest in publicizing negative aspects of the war--no disinterested party is likely to be issuing body counts. On grounds of methodological integrity, however, there is not a single competing estimate. Not a single one (please correct me on this if you can). To reject this study on any basis other than that of the presence of a more reliable estimate strikes me as nonNPOV and nonencyclopedic in the extreme. Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This exact methodology was perfectly fine when the authors used it for previous conflicts which the US government wasn't interested in whitewashing (and in fact the US quoted them when it wished to quell the conflict), the critics of the technique are invariably statistically uneducated, often by their own admissions, their criticisms are invariably shown to be groundless on a theoretical basis, the basic survey and mathematical techniques used are no different from anything else in the epidemiological world; basically, if this study can't be believed, then nothing in epidemiology, from the link between cigarettes and lung cancer to the FDA's drug approval process, can be believed. Of course, a lot of folks will say "yes, that's what we're saying also", but I don't think that'a a good position for Wikipedia to endorse. Gzuckier 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You say ->> "This exact methodology was perfectly fine" - This latest study has been carried out by the most acceptable methodology, randomly choosing locations all over the country and interviewing people there. This is the same method used in eg the Congo for producing numbers of deaths, and Tony Blair is another leader who has quoted the figure that Roberts arrived at.
This method is not perfect, but if one takes enough sample points, one arrives at a figure (with a band of error) that can be considered reliable and even "accurate". PalestineRemembered 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You say ->> "no disinterested party is likely to be issuing body counts" - some intepretations of the Geneva Conventions suggest that the occupying forces are obliged to tabulate deaths in their areas of responsibility. If they fail to do so, then they're not in a strong position to object when others do so. PalestineRemembered 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vigils Section

This has no relevance to the article and I see no reason to include it. If anyone disagrees with it's removal please say why here.GiollaUidir 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with its removal. A vigil to honour the matyrs of Operation Iraqi Freedom obviously has relevance to this article. Cerebral Warrior 11:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with removal. I find it irrelevant and it gives the article very much of an American POV. --Merat 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should one vigil solely dedicated to the US soldiers killed be included in an article generally about the war but? By the same reasoning we could include every vigil held for the civilians killed during the course of the conflict.GiollaUidir 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It pains me when people, whose ideas on war are based on anti-American propaganda movies they sit and watch in their suburban homes, insult the true warriors who lay down their lives in Iraq. If you want to put in details of the "memorials" held to "honour" the jihad-monkeys who blow themselves up in Iraq, go ahead. But please, don't insult the fallen heroes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let the Vigils section remain. Cerebral Warrior 11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to those resisting the US in Iraq; I was referring to the thousands of innocent civilians killed during the course of the conflict by the US. Heroes or not (perhaps we could include a section on the Haditha massacre, the rape of a 12 year old girl by US forces who then killed her and her family by the US or how heroic the torturers of Abu Ghraib were??) the section has no relevance to the article. Go ahead and start another article about it but you've given no good reason why it should remain so it's getting removed.GiollaUidir 12:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about any of the events being shouted out here - especially this Haditha thing - but the ection should mbe removed. It adds very little to the war, it's more about the US. HawkerTyphoon 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Giolla, just curious, who has killed more civilians? I just want to hear from a combat veteran like yourself who has knowledge of what he speaks. Rmt2m 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Why ask me and what's with the snidey comment? No-one knows because the great liberators didn't bother to check.GiollaUidir 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What snidey comment? Yours towards Cerebral? Well I just figured that since most of the things you mentioned are still under investigation you would have been there, seen them happen and know all of the circumstances to make those statements. That's all. Rmt2m 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Troop Deployment Strengths

I updated the various troop deployments in the Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment. Hopefully this clears up the questions about current strengths and withdrawals. Publicus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I also added the strengths for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). These are seperate troops not counted in the overall coalition deployment for the involved countries. Publicus 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates, but could you provide sources? Not that I'm doubting the numbers, but it would innocculate the article against people questioning the numbers. Thanks! --Bobblehead 14:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

All the figures came from either the Multinational force in Iraq page or the old section on this page called "troop deployments." I just took the info and stuck it in a template. Publicus 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a war on Terrorism?

Several users have asked to discuss this issue so here is my opinion: By definition, a war on terrorism must be declared, and have a specific enemy who has committed a crime. It has been proven that Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda, or 9/11, or that Iraq had WMD's. The Iraq war has never been officially declared. Therefore, it isn't even a war. However, Saddam did violently repel an uprising after the first gulf war which killed civilians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkpat2011 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it is part of the so-called "War on Terror". Yes, anyone's semi-intelligent knows that there never was any link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda etc. However, it suited the Bush administration's agenda (and the PNAC etc) to attempt to link them to give their oil grab the veil of legitimacy.GiollaUidir 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The War on Terrorism is equivalent to War on Drugs or War on Poverty. It is not literally a declared war, but is rather proper noun to describe a government policy, so a declaration of war is immaterial. Whether or not Iraq actually had ties to al Qaeda or 9/11 is also immaterial, the Bush administration pushed supposed ties and sold it as the overall package of why the Hussein administration had to be removed. So while it is true that there is no evidence that Iraq had any connection to al Qaeda now (and there's actually evidence to the contrary), at the time those connections were made. It's also difficult to say the occupation of Iraq is not part of the WoT now due to the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq and other foreign jihadists. So even if the 9/11 and al Qaeda links were fabricated when Iraq was invaded there are ties now. All in all, it's best to view "War on Terrorism" as a propaganda term used by the US and its allies. --Bobblehead 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the term is part of a line of similarly named US policies of ongoing vigilance. I question it's use in an encyclopaedia, unless qualified as a US policy name. Considering the international nature of the coalition, taking the US protagonists term might be seen as clear POV, rather than the best non-controversial description of the phenomenon, which I guess would be War in Iraq, or similar. Looking back at other wars, the umbrella campaign name or term would appear not to be used. Although that's a gut feeling, so if there's any history buffs reading this, please enlighten. Widefox 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot of countries call it the War on Terror. Cerebral Warrior 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm from UK, we don't call our actions that. Tony Blair uses it as part of alignment with the US, but you'll not find him using such terms with IRA negotiations, or some such! It is a US term, with alignment. Widefox 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
One has to look at it in the context of how it was portrayed by the two primary aggressor* nations, the US and UK. Both refer to it as part of the wider War on Terror(ism)**. Thus, the appelation is correct.
*Before anyne gets their knickers in a twist, this is not a pejorative use of the term -- as the invaders they are in fact the aggressors, no matter what the provocation, real, perceived or imagined.
** The US Administration refers to it as the War on Terror, for reasons I don't want to go into other than to say that it's the same basic reason that covers why the RS-71 was renamed the SR-71, and why the EIC became the EITC. •Jim62sch• 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think, instead of "aggressors", "protagonists" is the correct term. GWOT is more UK, or support for GWOT or some other watered down supportive phrase. Widefox 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fishy figures

During the Vietnam Conflict news reports always said something along the lines of "Oh, at this offensive, hundreds died and at that battle thousands lost their lives."

Is the number of Iraqi deaths like that?--Patchouli 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Although there is a section in the article (or was anyway, editing's happening so fast currently!) about different operations by the US army. Although I think it would be extremely difficult to categorise deaths by Operation etc. Esp given the under-reporting of deaths.GiollaUidir 08:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an "estimate"

In the text it says that "estimates" vary from Iraqbodycounts minimum death count to the recent report. I think that's rather wrong. Iraqbodycount is not an estimate of how many people that have died because of the war, but of how many that has been reported killed, and that's a huge diffrence. Sure, use IBCs number as a number of confirmed deaths, but not as an estimate because that's not what it is. --Merat 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only actual verifiable figures are the recent ones in the Lancet-all other figures/estimates/guesses/propaganda should be removed from the article.GiollaUidir 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I suggest that we put the confirmed number of deaths somewhere else in the article together with information about the difficulties of estimating the death toll etc, and use the Lancet study in (and other estimates of the total death toll, if there are any) in the beginning of the article and in the information box. Although with respect to IBCs work, using their numbers there is like saying that an unrecorded deaths is not a death at all. --Merat 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The figures used for Darfur etc were obtained using the same methods as the Lancet study for Iraq so should be included as the death toll in the info-box. The Iraqi Health Ministry and IBC have roughly the same number... I agree with a new section for documenting the controversy.GiollaUidir 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. --Merat 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some range, the 655,000 alone doesn't represent the fact that nobody knows for sure how many have died. I don't think we should simply find the study with the highest amount imaginable and use that as fact. Rmt2m 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, the Lancet study is, from what I know, the only study of it's sort. The US-led coalition has said that they "don't do body counts" (which is in violation of the Genève Conventions) and therefore information of this sort is scarce. Secondly, some range is given in the study. It says that they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died, but came up with 655 000 as a reasonable number (And there you also see that 655 000 isn't the "higherst amount imaginable"). --Merat 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
To me, that brings into question the methodology of the report. How can anyone say that they are 95% sure that between 392,979 and 942,636 people have died? There's a gap of almost 550,000 in there, meaning that they are 95% certain of bupkus. Notwithstanding an official DoD count, there are other methods, like IBC, that have more verifiable ways of confirming deaths, such as using multiple sources. Rmt2m 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying that one is 95% sure that a figure lies within a certain range is just about the best way to present statistics. It's not an empty statement, or "bupkus", at all. It means it's very unlikely that the casualty rate is as low as 200,000 or as high as 1,000,000, and it acknowledges just how much uncertainty there is in the count - a lot. Having studied some statistics, I would question the methodology of a report that doesn't present its results in terms of a confidence interval. Omitting the error bars is one of the most common ways to mislead with stats; let's not do that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I suppose I expressed myself a bit bad. Instead of "they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died" , it should rather be "according to their research, the chance that the number of deaths is between 392 979 and 942 636, is 95 %." If you have questions on methodology then read the report. As I have previously said, IBC states that it only counts reported deaths, which makes it useless in this context. --Merat 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess what I fail to realize is why we shouldn't simply use a count of confirmed deaths. At least then the number has some veracity, because otherwise it's conjecture. Rmt2m 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already told you why we shouldn't use IBC's numbers. Look at any other war article with a large number of casualties, do you think they are less conjecture? Do you just distrust this special report, or statistics on the whole? --Merat 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, we shouldn't use IBC because those deaths are documented, but we should use this study because there not? Honestly the Lancet report seems a bit suspect to me. I don't doubt that there have been deaths that haven't been reported yet, but these numbers are beyond what is even remotely possible. The Lancet study was conducted over a period of three months which is hardly enough time to gather data for over 40. The Lancet study also mentions the fact that the DoD does in fact conduct body counts, "despite initially denying that they did." Rmt2m 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, there we have it. You seem to think the Lancet study is suspect because it gives too high numbers. Why would three months not be enough to do a statistical study, and where are that DoD body count then? --Merat 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, ask Lancet where the DoD count is. Of course it gives too high a number! There is absolutely no way that there are that many undocumented deaths. It defies reason. That's what I've been saying all along. And next week or month when a study comes out with 2.5 million deaths or 3 million deaths, y'all will most likely accept that one as fact as well. Rmt2m 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think that there cannot be so many undocumented deaths? It's close to civil war in Iraq, do you think a few western journalists have coverage over the whole country? Compared with IBC, the Lancet study says that abouth one tenth of the Iraqi deaths have been reported by western media, which I think is quite plausible. --Merat 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Because counts conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry, Interior Ministry, Brookings Institution, the AP and virtually every other count don't even approach the numbers in the new lancet study. Listen, I don't question the fact that too many civilians are dying, but I think that it is irresponsible to display one study as fact when its' numbers vary significantly from others. That's all, I would just like to see some other studies used in the article for balance. Rmt2m 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying and I have never said that the Lancet study is right, but rather that IBC isn't very interesting for the infobox and the introduction of this article. They accept this themselves ("It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war." - quoted from the IBC homepage). Anyway, I proposed that we create a new section in the article where we can put forward the difficulties and controversies with the death count, and there we can have the IBC numbers. --Merat 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Another section in the article will be fine, but do you still want to use the Lancet study in the infobox? Rmt2m 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, but if there are other interesting estimations of the total death toll available then we can include them there as well. --Merat 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see maybe the Brookings and Iraqi Health Ministry counts if possible, they would take a line apiece at most. Rmt2m 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's clarify a few things. You may indeed find the Lancet study suspect, but statistically the chances that the death toll is under 400,000 is 2.5%, likewise the chance that it is above 1,000,000.
  • The DoD figures say that from May to August the average number of civilian deaths per day in incidents that the Coalition forces responded to was 117. Given that there are certainly huge numbers of incidents that they do not respond to (and either Iraqi police do or no-one does) such as sectarian murders, it seems safe to assume that the daily death toll in Iraq has been running at a minimum of 200 deaths per day from May to August, and by the U.S. Army's own admission it has gotten substantially worse since then, so perhaps at least 300 per day for the past two months. That alone produces a death toll of 36,000 for the past five months. If we use only the average number that the coalition responded to then it is still at least 21,000 since May. It shows just how poor a source Iraqbodycount or the Health Ministry are - neither of these sources is suggesting that half the total casualties have occured in the past 5 months; so either the DoD has got it wrong or neither of these are even close to accurate estimates of the death toll.
  • If you have queries about the reliability of the Lancet study, I suggest you read this[3] analysis performed by a (conservative) British polling analyst who works for the highly respected British polling company Yougov [www.yougov.com]. Cripipper 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So given the fact that all these studies differ so much, which should we use? Rmt2m 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
IBC is not a study; it is a tabulation of deaths reported in the media. Personally I think it is just fine the way it is, though maybe the footnote could be expanded. Cripipper 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Study-tabulation, I really don't care much for semantics. Rmt2m 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Three points

These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:

  • "Massive civilian casualties" is an emotional opinion, which is why it was removed.
  • "Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" [4] is not documented in the link given, which is why it was removed.
  • A badly done ref in the first paragraph has caused 3 paragraphs to dissappear, which is why it was replaced.

CJK 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "massive civilian casualties" was rather good, and i can't see any emotional part in, but okay. We can change "Massive civilian casualties" to "The deadliest conflict of the 21th century as of now, (according to the Lancet study)" if you like that better. And I'll find another link to support "Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" if you want it. --Merat 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with all of CJK's points. Cerebral Warrior 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be claimed that it is the deadliest conflict that started in the 21st Century (which is only 6 years old), but the deadliest conflict to take place in the 21st Century would be in the Congo.... Actually, now that I think about it, one could argue that the Iraq War began in 1998 with Clinton's bombing campaigns which continued up to OIF... that is, if we go by a strict definition of war which simply involves two nations attacking each others forces, not neccessarily regime change. CJK 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The fix was very simple...no one broke the ref with a / <ref name=IBC/><ref name="Second Lancet Study"> should be <ref name=IBC/><ref name="Second Lancet Study"/>. •Jim62sch• 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraqbodycount and Iraqi health ministerim/Iraqi government count is not the same thing

Some people are talking about "Officially Iraqi government count" and "Iraqi health ministerium count" and later only linking to Iraqbodycount again, which is a rather useless count for estimating the casualties in Iraq (see discussion above: "Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an 'estimate'"). Unless you provide links directly to information about the Iraqi government count or Iraqi health ministerium count, I will remove the 40-thousandsomething estimates. --Merat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So much attention towards Iraqbodycount is diverting from the realities of the conflict. Rather than an estimate of casualties, it represents a bottom line, a minimum, only those accounted via the media and other first hand reports. For example, we quote estimates of 400k-600k of dead iraqi children as a result of UN sanctions, but none of those would have qualified for the iraqbodycount.88.15.59.243 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Spain and "pulling out"

In the article there is only one reference to spain as a member of the coalition, but there is not reference to the antiwar stance of Zapatero, his pledge to remove the troops if elected, 11-M, or the subsequent removal of the troops. Spain was the first to pull out, Italy is doing so and the UK may do so soon. The issue has repeatedly been raised in the US with questions to the president as to the return of the troops. Dont you think that this deserves to be tackled in the main article?88.15.59.243 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some good points there. Why not add a section yourself?GiollaUidir 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Small mistake

The paragraph "Criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war" misses a blank between "and" & "Human". --User:89.58.6.137 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/r/a/Talk%7EIraq_War_Archive_5_e777.html"