Talk:Iraq/Archive 1

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.

Contents

Some Things

1. Their are a few Armenians left in Iraq, but they do not speak Armenian, thous Armenian is not spoken in Iraq. 2. Turkish and Assyrian has become offical languages of the country according to the new consitution as well. Chaldean 15:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The new article, Mistreating of Assyrians & other minoritys in Iraq

I wrote an article about the minoritys in Iraq, especially the Assyrians because they have been treated as second class citiziens. I hope nobody mind, although I know some will. I think its important to write the truth about what was and is going on in Iraq. --Yohanun 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in that section, we should also talk about other minorities that are feeling opression under the current government. We should mention that many other minorities strongly rejected the constitution because it did not give them their rights prorerly.
I think someone should look into the following links and summeraze some things: Yezidi Repression Chaldean 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
While the topic is certainly important, I don't think that there should be a heading for the Assyrian community in the article. It seems out of place next to such broad topics as politics, culture and economy. Perhaps it would be better if there were a separate article on this topic which would be linked to in the demographics or miscellaneous topics sections (or somewhere else, I'm not picky). It doesn't really matter where it goes, but it doesn't belong as a main subhead. NoIdeaNick 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A seperate article is a good suggestion. It might make sense to have an article on civil rights (religion, voting, speech, etc.) in Iraq. --Vector4F 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think its important to have it on the front page of the Iraqi section. What is Iraq's minority today, was a large part of the mesopotamia. The title should be switched to Minority Issues. And Can someone please summerise the situation about the Yezidids. And also, Turkmen are suffering as well, and their are tons of info on, on the net. Also, the Shebak as well. And dont forget about the Gypsies. Chaldean 06:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Other countries with minority issues do not have special sections for the topic, e.g. Russia, Turkey, Myanmar. A certain model is followed in country articles which the community has decided is useful. In comparison with other country pages I don't see a special reason for a Minority issues section here. This is not a statement about the situation of minorities in Iraq, but simply about how country articles are built here. --Cam 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. NoIdeaNick 17:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As a neutral reader and editor of articles, I have made several grammatical, spelling and punctuation corrections to the afore-mentioned article. I would definitely like to see it remain, as my own correctional input is purely "gratis" in nature, and solely for the purpose of increasing the integrity of the article's readability in the English language. EditCentric 22:44, 23 January 2006 (PST)
It isn't a matter of completely removing the material, just whether or not it remains on the Iraq page or on some other page (perhaps newly created). My suggestion is that the material should be put on a new page that would be linked to in the demographics section, or perhaps the history section. I'm also not sure exactly what the title of the new page should be because I'm not sure that Minority oppression in Iraq would be an NPOV title. NoIdeaNick 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a vote for this situation? Chaldean 04:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Chaldean, please consider the structure of the other 200 country articles. Please try to locate another article with a minority issues section at the top level as it is here. Why doesn't Switzerland have a top-level section called "The Alps"? Because other countries with big mountain ranges don't have such a section. There is a separate article for the Swiss Alps. Why doesn't Bhutan have a top-level section called "The King of Bhutan"? Because other countries with kings do not have such a section. Kings are discussed under "History" and "Politics". It is not a statement about the impressiveness of the Alps or of the goodness of the King to not have top-level sections about them. It is simply that this is not how Wikipedia articles about countries are built. --Cam 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine then, do as you please. Chaldean 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
But I will say this thou; Iraq is a different case from the rest of the 200 countries right now, simply because the country is at war. And the minority situation is a current event. Just MO Chaldean 16:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw this [[1]]. I think this would be a good place for this article. What do you guys think. Chaldean 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section to Minority politics in Iraq and made Minority situation a subsection of Politics. --Cam 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As a Iraqi, I feel offended

Can somebody please pull down that pictures of the half naked girls? Come on, I am sure you can find other pictures of American soldiers. Please, have some respect to our society. Chaldean 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it. I can see why you are offended by it - it annoyed me, and I'm from England. "Iraqi Protectors" indeed - it stinks of propaganda. WMarsh 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A known vandal is trying to make this image persist. I'm sure that we're not the only ones who feel that an image of skanky women next to Western soliders isn't appropriate content for the Iraq article. Please, if you feel strongly about this, voice your opinions here. I am not going to remove the image again as I don't want to get caught up in an edit war. WMarsh 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant to this article. It needs to go.Willy Logan 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, keep it out. --Vector4F 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Somebody explain to me why is it still here? I'll be referring back to history. Evil Deep Blue 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this picture that is being referred to. I would like to see it so I can make up my own mind.

Illegal War?

Why has no-one mentioned the controversy surrounding the legality of this war? The United Nations Secretary General has reported that the war is illegal, many politicians in both the US and the UK have also questioned it´s legality. It´s an area with no clear answer but should at least be mentioned not swept under the carpet and glossed over like public relations pamphlet straight out of Downing street. You may agree or disagree, but it is a fact that the legality has been and is being questioned. Everytime I enter an edit stating what the UN Sec.Gen said (with evidence from the BBC site in brackets) somebody keeps deleting it!!!!!! Is this a white wash? Falcon

I agree with you man. This war is illegal and must be stopped. let the iraqis decide the form of goverment they want. we cant force democracy on people. that is messed up indeed. if they want to eb facist let them be facis. hell in america we dont have a fully functioning demcoracy either. look at the fact that there are a lot of people who have not voted or even registered to vote in the united states. SCREW AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, SCREW CAPITALISM, DOWN WITH BUSH, UP WITH MARX!

Remember, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please use the talk page to discuss the article and not your personal views about the situation in Iraq. Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
That can be listed under this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion#Opinion_and_legality
Keep in mind many wars are unpopular (which is almost guaranteed from the point of the invaded peoples). Consider the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Any country can give their reasons or excuses, but in the end there is no universal law regarding this, and this has happened from the dawn of humanity.--Acefox 20:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the lack of such politically-charged rhetoric is one of the strengths of this page. Iraq has a long and varied history, and an encyclopedia entry about Iraq should focus on the land, climate, natural resources, people, cultures, and so forth. If you would like to see these sorts of topics debated, there is a very spirited entry for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq. --Dr. E. A. Prescott 20:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a illegal war.A war is a war and its not legal nor illegal.--Sargon 16:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a peak global body which determines if a war is legal or not, the United Nations. It is very convenient for terrorists and aggressors such as the Bush or Hussein regimes to ignore this fact. However, the UN declared the American war against Iraq illegal. Its hardly POV.

The United States is a sovereign nation. The United States Congress authorized the war with Iraq.

I guess only idiotic Americans can believe this drivel. The US Congress has no authority to legitimize any war against other sovereign countries. And I'm sure the German parliament authorized Hitler's wars too. Maybe you think they are legal wars?
You have made no basis of legality. Citing "legal" or "illegal" means nothing without context. If you are citing international law, then please say so and try to specify a custom, treaty, or judicial ruling. And, just FYI, Hitler didn't need a parliament because his cabinet had legislative powers.
First, there is no single authority on the legitimacy of a conflict. There is no body which claims this authority, not even the U.N. The U.N. may, from time to time, make a judgement on a situation but it frequently does not do so and it has never institutionalized the authority to do so. The U.N. made no declaration on the legitimacy of the U.S. invasion of Iraq - Kofi Annan remarked upon it (see the Wiki article 2003_invasion_of_Iraq). Wars can be legitimated by the U.N., however this is really tantamount to a security council resolution, hence its not really an option unless the situation is serious, clear-cut, and of significant interest.
Wars can also be legitimized in a domestic law setting, which is a seperate issue from the international scene. The classic doctrine of sovereignty recognized by Western nations for several centures - which was considered a custom made de facto law - was that only sovereign nation-states could declare war. This thinking fell through in WWI/WWII and the U.N. was designed to make a new, international system whereby war could be legitimated apart from domestic policy. Obviously, such a system exists but it is not a panacea and has little effect on the policy of a superpower. However, the U.S. did make it's case to the U.N. and still works with the body, which means the system is important (even for superpowers). --Vector4F 00:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a good summary of the legality of the Iraq war at Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq#International law. Please make any comments on the talk page there. AndrewRT 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

opening text not very good

At the moment, the main body of this article (History section) starts out in somewhat fractured prose:

"Modern Iraq became a British mandate at the end of World War I, and was granted independence from British control in 1932. It was formed out of three former Ottoman Willayats (regions): Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. The British installed Hashemite monarchy"

I think this text should mention, maybe not in so many words, but at least not misleadingly:

  • It was a League of Nations mandate that has come to be called the British Mandate, rather than a mandate of the British government.
  • It was the intent of the mandate to form Iraq as one of a half dozen or so nation states, rather than being something the British decided.

and fixing those points would fix the silly statement that "modern Iraq became a British mandate" since it didn't even exist at the time and it doesn't make sense to talk about modernity in the past test like this. Brassrat 15:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"coalition"?

the following is based on text which has already been changed... so, this discussion exists more as a place to vent Brassrat 16:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"In November 2003 the coalition announced plans...": I think "the coalition" should be replaced with something more specific, for two reasons. First, it assumes a lot of present-day context and would be completely ambiguous to someone who hasn't read the full article or watched any circa-2003/4 television. Second, although it is the prevalent term (at least in the States), it may amount to POV by suggesting that the invasionary force had widespread international backing, which it did not. Suggested improvements: preface paragraph with new sentence "In 2003 the Ba'ath government was dissolved by an invasionary force consisiting largely of American and British troops. In November 2003 the occupying coalition...". Last sentence of previous paragraph could be improved, too. David, South Africa, 2005-01-08.

You are correct that reliance on present-day context should be avoided, and that coalition is a somewhat ambiguous term if it has not been described. But you are completely wrong that the term coalition implies "widespread international backing". In fact, that is precisely you inserting your present-day context. Brassrat 16:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

12 September, 2003 -- The last author made serious changes that affect the neutrality of this article. I'm as liberal as the lot of you, but it's not our place to call the invasion illegal, or invent casualty statistics without citing a source.

- In fact, the invasion WAS illegal, it's not a topic we are discussing (at least in the civilized world). ONLY the UN Security Council can make wars legal! It's affecting the neutrality of the article not to call the illegal invasion illegal. And here is my source for the statistics: http://www.iraqbodycount.net, which shows (12.09.03 20:59): Min. 6.122, max. 7.840 killed Iraqi civilians. By the way, I also think the legal President of Iraq should be mentioned, and that Bremer should be mentioned as "US Occupation Administrator", which is more correct according to international law. Heine, Norway (12.09.03) Heine 23:24, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I dispute the above statement-- the UN's 'authority' to legalize wars is shaky at best in my opinion. James Trainor 20:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think the war was wrong - that is just POV - but the United Nations can neither make a war "legal" nor "illegal". The war was started without specific UN authorization. That's about all we can say. 81.152.54.52 19:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's not "about all we can say" since you are leaving out UN Resolution 1441 which states that Iraq was noncompliant to previous resolutions, and which restates that the earlier resolutions had called for all necessary force to be used http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1441%20(2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC So, while what you wrote about a "specific UN authorization" could be parsed to be correct and incoomplete, it could also be parsed as incorrect. NPOV requires that we take into account "both sides" where there is a difference of opinion. Brassrat 16:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- I've added the (eksternal) link to http://www.iraqbodycount.net Heine 23:20, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some of you people hold to the UN as some kind of divine law. The truth is the UN only offers condemnation or aid relief- it generally does not interfere with the affairs of bickering countries. Why else hasn't the UN sent in security forces to stabilize Niger or all countries suffering from security problems? These UN forces come from countries as well- US, Europe, Australia, Asia, whereever- they all carry their own biases and command structure with them so it's not like UN forces are some kind of higher power. It is dictated solely by those countries willing to contribute personnel, resources, and money and according to their own level of agreement with the UN.
I, too, disagree with the invasion, but invasions have happened all throughout history and all for different reasons. By calling the 2003 invasion illegal, what difference does that make? Surely, Nazi Germany invading Poland in 1939, Japan invading China in 1937, or Iraq invading Kuwait in 1990 were all illegal too? (not to mentional highly ruthless) If you want to be neutral, at least try to compare current events to those throughout history. Saddam was hardly a good person by any measure; I just don't believe he was as dangerous as the Bush administration accused (or as dangerous as other individuals out there...)--Acefox 21:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
As to the "legality" of the invasion of Iraq, I personally feel that it does NOT affect the neutrality of the article not to place a label on the invasion, save for to call it an invasion. Had there been a "legal" or an "illegal" precedent placed there, then the neutrality of the entire article would indeed be in question, as this issue is subjective at best.EditCentic 08:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, the United States Government reserves the right to declare war, just as Hitler had the right, just as Hussein had the right, just as Napolean had the right. A war carries no legality whatsoever in the international forum. The correct response is what the United States did in '91. Iraq declared war on Kuwait, so the US and various allies declared war back. This is schoolyard politics and you are trying to turn it into a Harvard level debate. The UN HAS NO SAY.

Nice way to put it. We do reserve the right to declare war. Cheers to you. You have to be an idiot to think that the U.N. has declared the war illegal. (comment added by 24.4.53.207 at 07:03, 17 March 2006)

(Above comment added back in by AndrewRT 12:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC) following complaint re removal)

Mespotamia

Regarding History - wouldn't the ancient stuff be better under a Mesopotamia entry? Britannica divides her history up under modern borders, and it is one of the most unbelievably frustrating parts of that encyclopedia. I think it would be nice to have wikipedia avoid the same.

I think the beauty of Wiki is that we can do both. A Mesopotamia entry does not conflict or take away from an Iraq entry. I don't however feel attached to either approach.

  • I believe, in the case of Iraq, "Mesopotamia" should be spelled "mess-o' Potamia", to reflect the current situation. (Oct.)

IRAQ FLAG

Was the Iraqi flag changed to the 1961 verison without the text "God Is Almighty" ?

  • See comments about the flag below.

Bizarre edit...

"Alisa is now working on conquering North America."

I wonder what that was supposed to mean? Rei

From article

was in-line I find it very difficult to make this brief. Basically, there has been a war in Iraq rendering large parts of this entry wrong. Saddam H was accused of having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the US, UK, Spain and loads of other countries went to war. It is now ruled by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) and handover of power will be in 73 days today. Click here for more detail.--03webberg 16:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Republic of Iraq"?

Why does the first sentence say "Republic of" Iraq? Does anyone have a source for this? Is this still appropriate?

How about the CIA World Factbook? --Minesweeper 11:09, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Iraq should simply be referred to as the "Wild, wild West of the Middle East". You could call the new government the "law east of the Euphrates"; set up hitching posts full of water for the camels, pass out lots of serapes, plant cactus everywhere, and open up lots of saloons, and import cheap vodka from the Russian republics. A popular-mythical figure could become "Judge Roy Ahmed"; you know, have some FUN with it! If you're just going to mess around anyway... (Oct.)

New Iraqi Flag

According to reports, the new Iraqi government has decided on a new Iraqi flag. Anyone seen an image that we can use? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:46, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Washington Post has a clear image of the New Iraqi Flag.


According to the English version of 'Al-Sabah'(online), the 1958 Iraqi Coat of Arms is the new coat of Arms. It looks like this- [2] - (Al Sabah - [3])

Is there a new coat of Arms or not??--131.216.163.133 23:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Many Iraqis are not the least bit happy that their flag has been changed without their input or consent. The Independent has a story on this. It seems important that if we are to replace a flag, we should at least mention this, if not show both. (dharan)--142.177.37.111 18:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree -- see my edits and discussion of the "Iraqi Flag" article for further information. In summary, the pre-war flag is the only legitimate one right now, since only a fully sovereign government of a country may change a flag (in the sense of asking the UN Headquarters building to fly a different one, for example). The "new" one, even if sanctioned by the so-called "governing council" , must stand as a draft in any impartial encyclopedia, and not as an official flag. The "old" flag must still be shown as the real current flag in order to stay impartial.


Is this occupation government flag internationally recognized? If not, it should not be used here. Also, Iraq did not surrender, so I suppose Saddam Hussein actually is the de jure president. Jacques


I don't thing a flag needs to be internationally recognised. However, the Coalition Provisional Authority, the institutions of which adopted the flag, was officially acknowleged as the (temporary) Iraqi government by the UN. Which also deals with the question of Hussein being president.
I think the flag should be removed for the sake of POV. Eg, the Kurds still use the pre-1991 flag. Etc. By using the occupation flag here, we're endorsing the legitimacy of the occupation, at least to some extent. Martin
I'll agree with that. With the flag in dispute, and an excellent article on Iraqi flags linked from here, I think we currently have all bases covered Rei 23:33, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Colonized?

"Currently, Iraq is legally considered a colonized territory by the United States"

I'm not disputing this or agreeing with this, but can I see a source for this statement? Example: UN dispatch, quotation from a Geneva Convention or other Internation Law statements and a definition of "colonized".

Further, the United States leads a coalition of multiple nations in occupying Iraq, the United Kingdom notable among them. Certain sections or Iraq, such as Basra, are patrolled by Polish or UK troops, not US forces. Again, please cite the "legal definition" you have used with a link to it.

  • How about the term, "Colonial coalition", or "coalition of colonials"? Hillary Clinton said, "It takes a village". (Oct.)

Oil for Food Program

The article states, "implementation of the United Nations' oil-for-food programme in December 1996 has helped improve conditions for the average Iraqi citizen." The oil-for-food program has long been criticized as ineffectual. There have been accusations that the program was grossly mismanaged by the UN, that the US blocked a large percentage of medical and other purchases, and that Saddam sold the shipments to pad his own coffers. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen any strong evidence that the program substantially impacted the lives of average Iraqis. --SamClayton 17:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is questionable at best. Mark Richards 23:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Euro question

mmmh it's very strange that on that wikipedia page any reference to the Euro currency is missing... I'd like to remember that Irak was the first country in the history of our poor mankind that decide to switch oil-sells from Dollar$ to €uros... in the late of year 2000... This was considered by United States a first attempt do detronize the old abd obsolete american world economy domination... May we should consider that enough important to add links in the historical section under year 2000? I think yes... :-) User:Aytharn 14:00 29 Jun 2004 CET

Proposal for new article

Should former Iraq state be considered extinct state that should have it's own article? After all, many former governments have their own pages, like Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978-1992) and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001). Now the information of old flag/independence day is not listed anywhere, the old governmental system is still listed under Politics, but how long?

Proposal for title: Republic of Iraq (1958-2003). --Mikko Paananen 22:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

only if History of Iraq is expanded into a series. --Jiang
Yeah but you must take very care that the americans are too much higher on cultural levels for the other poor exponents of the human race, and then every series must be exactly in conformity with the american way: if not it should be a very NPOV problem! (neutral=american) understand? ;-)
Greetings user:bushit 01:37 19/07/2004 CET

article is biased

from US point of view --Kyknos 18:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wiki is heavily biased towards the American point of view. Information about American war crimes is routinely deleted, as is much information detremental to the American public image. For example, use of chemical weapons by the US against civilians in Iraq and widespread massacres (all reported in the media and by organisations such as Amnesty International), worldwide celebrations after 9-11 (it would be POV to support those celebratios, but to report that people in many countries DID celebrate in the streets is just stating fact), etc.

Many "sensitive" articles are deeply pejorative, either through their terminology (who is a terrorist, and who is a solider? who is an ally vs who is the enemy?), or through omission.

Wiki needs to clean up its act if it want to remain "neutral".

What can you really expect from a *free* encyclopedia that allows anyone who views it to edit it? Of course it's going to be re-written and biased towards one view by the first nitwit that sees something they disagree with. Then, 3 hours later, another dimwitted individual comes and re-edits the edit to their POV which probably doesn't coincide with either of the first two writers of the article, only to be followed by the fourth individual who may actually be an expert and edits it...etc.etc.etc... ad infinitum. If you really want factually information, go live there, jeeze. Couppawn 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Occupation ended?

In the article it's stated that the occupation has ended although most people in the world still consider the country occupied. What is the legitimacy status of the goverment under internation law? Elgogg 29 Jul 2004

It's hard to say, has the UN resolution supporting the interim govt passed yet? The fact of the matter is that the US military forces are still controlling the country, although now with the permission of an unelected government that they put into power. If it's not an occupation, then the word is taking on a strange new meaning. Mark Richards 17:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(NPOV off) and they'd have had an elected government if good old Saddam was still in power? (NPOV on) When did the US "occupation" of Japan end? Of West Germany? The Russian "occupation" of Eastern Europe? Does Britain "occupy" Northern Ireland (some people thinks so, but would that be NPOV?). Exile 19:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me but when exactly was the "elected government" elected ? Any by whom ? In my opinion the occupation ends when the Iraqis elect a government which can function without having to be protected by 160.000 US troops. This is not the case with the current government which was only created to legitimize the occupation in the eyes of the international community.

Turrican

It was elected - by the people of Iraq. It requires the presence of foreign troops because it is being attacked by insurgents. You could equally claim that West Germany was created to legitimise the occupation of Germany by foreign troops. Possibly true - but there were elections and elections IMO give a regime legitimacy. BTW I was against the war. However we can't wish it away, and shouldn't assume the resistance are intent on setting up a democratic state and are therefore worthy of the support of all right-thinking people.

Exile 20:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think its a gray area. One standard could be that the occupation may be considered over when the foreign powers bow to the local power, which has clearly not yet happened, as the US military still conduct themselves as in a US battlefield, not in a sovereign country--I expect the US foreign fighters would say the same thing if you asked them in fact. But, it may be that the "occupation has ended" is a required part of the propagandistic tone, which may be irremedial under current editorial control--I've found this often happens to articles touching on ongoing US imperial operations. You might find it easiest to ignore the POV-problem for a while, until the US imperial editors move on to something else, and then work on it at that point :)


How can the occupation be over when there are 150,000 occupying troops still in the country, routinely involved in military operations against the population, kidnappings, disappearances, torture, etc? The fiction of a free Iraq is just that.

I added a half sentence that sheds light on the background of prime minister Allawi.

Use of the term "regime"

"Regime" seems to be a term which the US government has devised to label unfriendly governments, and I think using it here is POV. It`s interesting to note that North Korea has a "regime" while China is very rarely referred to as such. Nor is Pakistan. If you have any doubt that the use of "regime" is POV, imagine if someone were to replace every instance of "Bush Administration" with "George Bush Regime". One would assume that such sentiments were coming from a liberal anti-American slant. I suggest avoiding the use of the term "regime" as it is obviously used as an attempt to create a mental link with the Feudal System, as in "Ancien Regime". --Ce garcon 15:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Words often have more than one sense of meaning. The proper sense of "regime" can best be seen in contrast to the word "government". The UK (and Italy and many others) form governments under a parliamentary regime. In such a system, a change of government is not a change of regime because the rules of the game don't change. The reason the word is seen to have a negative connatation is that countries which lack "rule of law" (even if they have some of the trappings of democracy), change of government generally means change of regime, i.e. whoever holds the reigns of power unfettered uses it to distort the system as to ensure continuation of their government, generally to the detriment of others.
Marilyn Monroe was famous for her beauty: should we avoid that word because there might be some society somewhere that might not consider her beautiful, and horrors, might feel bad about it? The word regime exists in the English language in order to describe states such as the former Iraq and the present Syria. In order to make your case that it should be avoided to describe Iraq, you'd have to point out where the word can be used. Or are you advocating banishing the word completely from the language? Brassrat 17:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Following Brassrat's logic, it is therefore acceptable to refer to the George Bush Regime, which is seen as a murderous, despotic regime which violates human rights and engages in mass murder whenever its suits its policies by most people in the world. We should also bear in mind that the United States is the superpower agressor and Iraq its tiny victim.
"Regime" is the more general way of saying governmental administration. It is mostly used in political science to describe a political leadership or body which is tied to the state in such a way that a mere election or similar independent process will not remove it (i.e. it is not often applied to the U.S. for this reason; "administration" adequately describes political leadership in the U.S., vs. say in China). Terms, of course, can be abused (see facism).
"Government", in turn, covers all organizations and persons who operate with state authority or under state auspice.
Finally, "state" is the most general term, covering any institution (concrete or immaterial) which claims sovereignty over territory (among other things).
The actions of a state/government/regime are not directly related to its classification thereof. So talking about human rights here is pointless. --Vector4F 03:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Links need editing

Many of the external site links should be moved to another article. I can see having one link to Amnesty International but not six. This is a general article about Iraq in which the US occupation is of course mentioned but looking at the links it appears that the war is the only thing about Iraq that matters. --LeeHunter 21:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Republic or State?

Is Iraq's official name the Republic or Iraq or the State of Iraq? (Alphaboi867 03:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Republic. See [4]. --Kenyon 23:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

mmm... we should mention also that now is a Federal Republic. Messhermit 17:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could mention that its a federal republic, except that its not by its own definition. The Iraqi government has stipulations for federalism and the reoganization of its governorates in its new constitution, but they need clarification and voting sessions to put them into effect. The OFFICIAL name as dictated by the constitution is "The Republic of Iraq" or "Republic of Iraq" because the article 'the' is commonly dropped in such cases.

President

till now there is no official announcment of president and prime minister.. why it is in your webites?? how can u decide that??

I totally agree with the comment about President and Prime Minister. No announcement has been made, this is factually incorrect. I think it is best to change back to the previous article. The current wrangling in the Iraqi Assembly means that the holders of these positions probably wont be known for about a week.

Interim Leader

To the unknown person who insists on changing the article to say that Jalal Talabani and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, are President and P.M, I will say this. There has been absolutely NO announcement that either man will be the next leaders of Iraq. I appreciate that you believe they will be, as do I, but it was also believed that Ghazi Yawer would be speaker. This did NOT materialise. I could make an educated guess about who the next President of Kyrgyzstan will be, but I do not note it as a fact. Why? Because Wikipedia does not deal in 'Educated Guesses". We are only interested in facts. Allawi is still Interim Prime Minister, and so he will remain noted as so until a replacement is OFFICIALLY announced.

Stop tampering with this article.

Matty J 87

Listen, I didn't make any of these edits, so I'm not being defensive or something; and I totally get your point and I'm not disputing its truth. But can't you see that what is actually being exposed is a weakness of how wikipedia is implemented? People are encouraged to fix things when they see them, that rough edges are better than missing facts. People are not "tampering" with the article, and it is totally understandable that they don't read voluminous comments and compare histories in order to learn that the new PM is not official yet. You are spitting into the wind if you you think your note at the bottom of the talk page is going to have any effect. Better to edit the article in such a way that people can see that the new facts have been added already. Better still would be a wikipedia "system" for handling transitional stuff like this since it is bound to happen again and again. Brassrat 17:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraq

What are some native crafts and activities?

What do you mean by that? They play soccer for one... there are many ethnic groups within Iraq. You want a characteristic craft/activity?--160.39.195.88 23:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's a very violent form of soccer. In Iraq, they kick dead people around. Goal! (Oct.)

Modern Iraq = Lesser Iran?

Does Modern Iraq equal "Lesser Iran" as one anon is trying to say? He is removing "The Cliff" and replacing it with "Lesser Iran" to describe modern Iraq. Is that accurate? - Tεxτurε 21:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyright issue with the map

The map on this article comes from the CIA world factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/iz-map.gif

Is it copyrighted material?

AFAIK, no, CIA publications are not copyrighted... --Cyr 18:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

euphemism?

This "The current situation remains volatile" sounds like a euphemism; isn't wikipedia policy to avoid euphemisms? The article on the Lebanese civil war doesn't say "period of volatility" :) ~~

I don't think it's so much a euphemism as it is an underrating of the situation in Iraq. It certainly is volatile, but more than that it is highly unstable. I think a better description would have been, "Since the 2003 invasion Iraq's security, economy, and infrastructure continue to suffer from regular insurgent activities such as public bombings and targeted kidnappings which threaten the nation's stability." --Acefox 20:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

2,500 Jews

Where does the information come from that 2,500 Jews still live in Iraq? Most sources indicate that fewer than 50 Jews live in Iraq at this point. Can someone clarify this please? ~~

  • If I were Jewish, I think I would have gotten out of Iraq a long, long time ago. (Oct.)
Accoridng to Jewish Virtual Library, there are "approximately 38 Jews live in Baghdad, and a handful more in the Kurdish-controlled northern parts of Iraq." glocks out 19:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


I highly doubt that a singal Jew would be still in Iraq, let alone 2,500.-

GorillazFanAdam

I am Iraqies and I am 35 years old and live in Baghdad, I never see any jew in all my life but I hear from some people that there are some old jews still live in Baghdad, youth jews left Baghdad from along time but I think there is a few old jew ( If they are still alive ) live in Iraq. Our fool and savage gov's drive out all good Iraqies jews and bring for us killer and terrorists instead of them, I never see a jew but when I ask old men how live and were a freind of jew they all tell me that Iraqies jews were a good and honest people and they peaceful and never make any proplem and relly we lost them, they are Iraqies like us and I am sorry we lose them and sorry that our savage gov's also make us hate Jews ( in school and in TV and in books they tell us that Jews are a bad people ) but I know now that our gov's are lying and they are the real bad people not the Iraqies jews. I wish they are happy ( our jews ) and live a good life.

Politics section edit

I removed the very last sentence from the Politics section:

"In 2003,U.S. invaded Iraq and found approx. 3436 tonnes of weapons."

It not only seemed out of place as the previous sentences were talking about the transitional government, but seems to be rather misleading especially in lieu of all the controversy of the invasion of Iraq under the accusation that they had and were developing weapons of mass destruction. Is it any surprise that any country has a large tonnage of weapons considering nearly all nations possess armies? Imagine if the tonnage of all conventional weapons of the United States were calculated alone. Obviously such a statement as the one above seems to have an alterior motive. To date (Aug-2005) no weapons or evidence of development of WMD's have been found in Iraq.--Acefox 20:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, such a statement implies that the weapons were illegal.
On a side note, there have been some chemical weapons found, but they are suspected to be left over from the Iran-Iraq War. Link -- NathanPatterson, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Completly Biased

This article is more like what a Republican or Dubya fan would speak of. there is no mention of number of children dead due to US / UN sanctions. there is no mention of number of innocent dead due to invasion of Iraq by US & UK. please be factual.

There is also no mention of Tourism in Iraq, about the famous Tigris river. there is no mention about the Political Turmoil occuring in Iraq, with surge of bombings happening. the wide difference between Opposition Party & people in power.

please check article on Hans Blix where it is said Iraq was repeatedly praised by the IAEA for its full cooperation; and Blix's statements that contradicted Bush administration claims about the Iraq WMD program.

Article also talks of what US did for Iraq. why? Why is there no mention about Oil companies pumping oil. their profits.

Navendu 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, theres no indication of the support US govt gave to Saddam Hussein when he was to overthrow the president of Iraq, and thus hopefully estabilishing an US aligned oil producing country in the Arab world, making Iraq a trampolin to further aggressions. ~~LtDoc~~

Not does it mention that the US heavily supported Iraq while it waged war against Iran because the US regime hated the revolutionary government.


LtDoc says: "This article is more like what a Republican or Dubya fan would speak of. " It seems unlikely that Republicans would draw attention to the findings of the World Tribunal on Iraq, which is mentioned in this article. ~~OrdinaryPerson~~

And shouldn't be, IMO. What "legitimacy" does the WTI have itself? Who appointed or elected them? Exile 14:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


As far as I'm concerned, the current war is only a margin in the creation of a new nation-state. I don't think this article is really a "current events" article. Every war isn't mentioned in every nation-state article, and all the facts of the ones mentioned don't need to be visited in detail. glocks out 19:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My goodness, is it really necessary to bring up the Iraq war in like every single sentence in this article. I came here hoping to find unbiased, factual information about Iraq and it's history, and instead you freaks come here to debate the war in Iraq and US sanctions. Over half the article is dedicated to a span of time covering less than 20 years and ironically the "minority oppression" part of the article is disputed. Ha, that is laughable. There are already two articles on that subject Iraq War and 2003 Invasion of Iraq. I follow my own advice and take everything on here with a grain of salt Couppawn 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To the guy above, your are right, there are to many polarized people, liberal and conservative, coming to this site to duke it out. It would be nice if there were more neutral people out there editing this site. I have also noticed that there is alot more left-wing people editing in this encyclopedia than right-winged. 05:10 Febuary 2, 2006 (UTC)

Constitution Confusion

I keep hearing about Iraqi leaders debating the unfinished constitution... so how is this possible...?:http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html freestylefrappe 02:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Changing "is considered to have almost failed to pass (as a few more votes against it would have caused its defeat, due to three provinces rejecting it by more than 2/3)." to reflect what is in the main article on the constitution. PhatJew 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The constitution passed. However the Iraqi Accord Front agrred to participate in the December 2005 elections on the basis that amendments would be considered by the new Assembly in the first four month. Any amendments agreed would need to be passed in a new referendum. See Government of Iraq, 2006-2010 AndrewRT 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources? This seems inaccurate

"The U.S. has spent eight billion dollars in the last year in an effort to improve the situation."

Where does the information come from? Does this $8bn completely exclude Iraqi oil revenues (where virtually all non-military spending by the US in Iraq comes from)? Does it include US spending on security? Does it include money wasted through corruption?

"Although the output of electricity has gone down in Iraq, from nearly 5,000 MW to 4,100 MW, this is most likely due to increasing consumption and a more equitable distribution of the power being used in areas of Iraq which didn't get electricity before."

Hmmm. so Electricity distribution is fairer and more people are using it, which means that electricity supply has dropped nearly 20%. Who thinks this very implausible explanation is the most likely one? This is garbage!

No it is not, apart from some of the major cities in Iraq, most of the country is experiencing between 3-6 hours of electricity in interim periods, Baghdad is not the example for the rest of the country. And yes, also increased consumption of 'white goods' and electronics have increased the demand on the electricity production, but I guess a good knock against the US is better than looking at the semantics right?

Ryan-Liam

I was going to post the same comment. This sentence should be removed. 69.156.163.80 17:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • With bombs blowing up all over the place, I'm not surprised the electricity doesn't work. I would expect the electrical rotation and usage to have occurred in places "where bombs are not going off." (Oct.)

Death penalty

I'm not sure where this should go (or if it should go on a subpage) but from Current events for 1 September:

Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • What's Wrong with this guy? Is he against law and order? Of course, with a name like "Talabani", I'm not sure where his sympathies would lie. (Oct.)
    • He doesn't want the new nation to be like Saddam's nation??? glocks out 19:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So he refuses to grant closure for all of the family members who lost loved ones to Saddam Hussein's murderous regieme? This man deserves to die by torture. I mean, think of how many innocent people he has ordered tortured to find information that they didn't have. 05:15 Febuary 2 2006 (UTC)

History of Iraq -Corrected.

The Ba'ath's key figure became Saddam Hussein who acceded to the presidency and control of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC),

Correction: Saddam did not emerge as a key figure until the late 70s. Ahmed Hassan Al-Baker (also a Tikriti) took power with the fall of the Arif regime. He was pretty much in control until Saddam started taking out his family one by one, starting with Al-Baker's son-in-law.

I added a couple of sentences fully supported by a NY Times cite explaining the US role in 1960s Iraqi history in connection with the coups and the emergence of the Baathists.

Insurgency

I have reverted a few edits by user 69.216.112.87 who is asserting as fact that the "Iraqi insurgency" is entirely formed of non-Iraqi terrorists trained by the governments of neighbouring countries. This seems a tad POV to me.

However, surely some caveat should be added when referring to the insurgency to make clear the claims about foreign nationals being heavily involved, e.g. "The US has asserted that..." or "It is thought that..." --Spondoolicks 20:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


I personally am iraqi and i don't like the use of the word "insurgency" when it is used by itself. it is a point of view. I have changed it to "insurgency/resistence" in the introduction and i plan to do that further. --marogilj

I'm afraid I am going to revert your edits too as being POV in the other direction. Insurgency is a perfectly good descriptive word. Opinions about the nature of the insurgency should not be presented as fact. --Spondoolicks 19:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

the word "insurgency" is a point of view as well. how can you call a local rebellion against a foreign occupation an insurgency? the word insurgency implies that those fighting are fighting against the status quo. But the occupation is not such, they are a foreign military dominating a local population. therefore i think it is only fair to use both words resistence/insurgency as it implies that there are more views then simply the one which that refers to american power outside its borders as legitimate, making a local people an insurgency. if the local people call it an insurgency, then i would agree with you. but they do not. only the foreign power does. you are the one making a point of view by defining the fighting as you do. For more evidence that the word "insurgency" is problematic, please look at the wikipedia article on insurgency. it makes my point as to why it is necessary to be more descriptive. -marogilj

The english definition of insurgency puts it this way:

the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency. an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.

It is reduced to 1)The quality or circumstance of being rebellious. 2) An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.
As such, insugency is an accurate definition. It is more accurate than the generic "rebellion" or "resistence". You protend that an insurgency is against the "status quo". With the recent constitution being ratified with 78% approval [5], I would have to say fighting against a "constituted government" (as the dictionary defines insurgency).
Basically, your case against the term is based on POV, where insurgency is based on dictionary definition. glocks out 19:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hailed?

Under the section about politics in Iraq, I don't think the right word is hailed near "has been hailed as more liberal than...". Some people don't like Liberalism. Is there a better word? Like saying "The idea has been floating around that the Iraqi interim constitution may be more liberal than...".

I've adjusted it. glocks out 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggested "New" Iraqi Holidays

  • Forget Ramadan. I propose that the anniversary of when the Chinese invented gunpowder (the closest-possible date, in the interests of accuracy) be adopted as the central national holiday of Iraq. This would arguably be something the Iraqis would AGREE upon; you know, a "unifying factor" in the country. You could invite a delegation from Bay-jing, and have them parade around Baghdad wearing the traditional "dragon mask". This might encourage the Chinese to "get with the program" on Iraq; they might see it as "a friendly gesture of reconciliation" on our part; and an "acknowledgement of the historic contribution that the Chinese people have made to the culture of Iraq". Very PC. Talk about a tradition that goes "way, way back". This one has it all! The possibilities are very exciting! Yep. A lot of potential...
  • On that day, or, what the hey? Make it a weekend; you could set off so many fireworks, that the people couldn't tell the difference between that and the car-bombings-they'd just think it was part of the celebration! This might become frustrating for the terrorists in Iraq; instead of de-stabilizing the government, they would instead just be "contributing to the festivities"! I believe this idea has merit! You just inCLUDE them! In frustration, the terrorists would probably just "give it up", and go on home to Syria and Iran. (Oct.)


"No Religion Conflict"

The article includes the following statement: On January 30, 2005, Iraq held new legislative elections, changing the political face of Iraq, which had been previously a lay state, without any religion conflict,while it's now divided over a religious base having no tradition in the country.

Does anyone think it is reasonable to say that Iraq did not have any "religion conflict" prior to the legislative elections of January 2005? Ordinary Person

Iraq have and has religion conflicts between Sunni Arabs,Shia Arabs,Kurds and Assyrians.--Sargon 16:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

new "flag"

does anybody have a source for the claim that the new flag is currently official? --Revolución (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

See above - there are two headings for this. glocks out 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
no, not the ugly failed 2004 flag, this new flag they've been showing on this article. --Revolución (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, see above. This new flag you speak of is already being discussed. [6]. glocks out 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
for cryin' out loud, I don't mean that flag! --Revolución (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

UN-government in Iraq (haha)

I realize that this article is mostly Bush/Cheney propaganda, but this (quote from article text) "Furthermore, since the coalition forces are currently working to maintain order and create a stable society under the United Nations" surely is too counter-factual even for this article? Fabase 07:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Another fix which could be made, without jeapordizing the essentially propagandistic tone of the article, would be to fix some of the really poor writing. Near the top is a paragraph beginning "A transitional government". Note that the last two sentences of that paragraph are atrociously written, causing the reader to stumble, and blink, and wonder if the paragraph is currently in the midst of rework -- both appear to be accidentally conjoined but conflicting thoughts from arguing editors.. Fabase 07:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi people/Aryan-Semitic Mix?

Iraq was always part of persia more or less, so is it safe to say that iraqis are perso-arabs? aryan-seimitic mixture?is it safe to say that? iraq was conquered and influnced by arabs largely after conquering persia, so there's no doubt that persian people lived there,specially when cteisphon the capital of sassanids is located only a few kilometers north of baghdad?what do you say>?

Thanks for bringing it up. Wikibofh 17:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, perisan language never mangaed to infilitrate the iraqian society throughout history, they kept speaking semestic languages: Akkadic before christianity, and Assyrianic Aramic after chrisitanity, and Arabic at last. Streamwave 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

link to article "Dominate"

The article Dominate is not about domination at all. I attempted to correct this in the article by changing the link to pwn, which actually talks about domination, but it was reverted. All in 18:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

But Iraq is not an Internet game. Please consider writing with appropriate tone and register for an encyclopedia article. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 18:48 Z


Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs in the Governorates

Someone should list which of the governorates are inhabited by Sunni Arabs and which are inhabited by Shia Arabs in the Governorates section. Leon Trotsky 16:56 1 December 2005

Cultures of the World stub

Could use someone's help in filling out the Middle East/North Africa section. Thanks.--Culturesoftheworld 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction???

The current introduction for this article should not include so much information on the origins and ancient history of the country. Moving all but the most basic information on the history and origins of the country should be moved into another category.TrogdorPolitiks 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

CIA backing

Is there any other source apart from the NYTimes editorial board (not the most neutral group of guys) that documents US involvement in the 1963 coup? It also seems a bit odd to have it take up half of the history section. CJK 22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi CJK: If you read the citation I provided carefully, you'll see that it was not "the NY Times Editorial Board" (who you may unjustly accuse of "liberal bias" but not of making stuff up) but Roger Morris, an authoirty on post-WWII US foreign policy, who wrote the piece. I have also added several other citations that support the CIA role in both coups and in the resulting bloodbaths (supplying the list to Saddam and the Baathists). If you have a citation that can corroborate or refute any part of this, by all means let us see it. You are not welcome to act like a Soviet gov't censor and remove my contributions just because it is inconsistent with your views or the current political winds in Washington. The US role in that country in Saddam's rise to power is quite important.

Please use footnotes for such citations in future, thanks --Cam 18:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit excessive for it to take up half of the history. Do we know how deep the CIA's role was really? Because if it was just passing off the list and arming minorities, it shouldn't take up this much space. And then there's the part about Saddam's role, making it out as if the CIA specifically collaborated with him. CJK 21:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And it is an opinion piece, therefore I think some more neutral cites are in order. CJK 20:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics section

The Politics section of most country articles seems to be a basic description of the political structures of the country: basically the executive, legislative, and judicial structures and how they work and interact, with maybe a paragraph or two about special issues that these structures face. I think we could prune quite a bit from the current section to move toward consistency with other country articles. Keep in mind there is a Politics of Iraq article where more detail can be worked out.

The Politics section here should in my opinion briefly describe the basic structure of the transitional 2004-05 regime and how it was set up, briefly talk about a new constitution being worked out, then briefly describe the set-up called for in the new constitution. Then a NPOV paragraph or two about the unique situation that the government of Iraq is in. Any more detail can be put into the main article (Politics of Iraq). --Cam 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Middle East becoming Balkanized

We Can See how the Middle East is being Balkanized Iran, Iraq, Caucasia, and the Middle East are being balkanized were everyone fights each other like in Yugoslavia. And who wins with fabricated ethnic and group disputes? Guess who!

This statment says it all about that region and goes beyond its statement about Iran.

Israeli and U.S. intelligence are concentrating hard on Iranian minorities, because they have no military solution for this problem. They want to disintegrate Iran into a few countries like the Soviet Union and that is not going to happen. ["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran"]

New Article - Government of Iraq since 2006

I would like to start a new article looking at the new government of Iraq since the December 2005 elections. The material from the December elections woudl be transferred in. What should the new article be called? AndrewRT 22:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done Government of Iraq, 2006-2010. AndrewRT 17:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sunni situation in Iraq

The article needs to talk about the issue between the Sunnis and Shi'ias. This hostility is the main issue in Iraq right now and the article says almost nothing about it. Did anyone read the Washington Post article yesterday (feb. 6) about how over a dozen Sunnis were found dead in a Baghdad neighborhood, something which is almost a dayly occurance by now, and that Shi'ia death squads are suspected? The article needs to say more about how most of the bombings and terrorism take place in the Baghdad and Al-Anbar reason and that most of the insurgency is Sunni.

You are cetainly not an Iraqi but some idiot who reads the news and wants Iraqis to write about their state through an American view. There is no difference between Shia and Sunnis in Iraq this is propaganda being created by the so-called West to divide Iraqis. It is based on lies and is counter-productive and has no place on a factual site.
"There is no difference between Shia and Sunnis in Iraq "
Would you like to elaborate on what you mean, as by my understanding they are diffrent interpretaions of Islam and therefore hold quite a profound diffrence. This is like saying there is no diffrence between Catholics and Protestants. Saddam was a Sunni and Sunni's were the ruling group under his regime, despite being a minority. Since the removal of saddam, the Shia majority have controlled the majority of parlementary seats, controversially approving a constitution largely based around shia POV.
In the recent election shia areas voted almost exclusively shia and sunni areas sunni, meaning the country became quite seperated politically, with the east being Sunni, the south Shia and the north Kurd.
Perhaps you know something I don't, if so please explain......Aram 14/2/06

Accuracy of terms used in this sentence are debatable

"Iraq gained independence after being liberated by the U.S. military."

I disagree with the the use of the term "gained independence" in this statement. Iraq was an independent country before the US-British coalition forces invaded.

Also the word "liberated" seems inappropriate. Some Iraqis may not have liked Saddam Hussein's government, but to say that they have been "liberated" implies they were being occupied by a foreign government.

I agree with the above. "Liberated" in definite NPOV AndrewRT 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I removed the following paragraph from the Demographics section of the article and changed the numbers to those of the latest World Factbook. --Cam 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The first bullet said 10-12% Assyrian, but the second bullet says only 3% Christian, and Assyrians are only a part of the total Christian population. Assyrians are approximately 1% of the total Iraqi population. I spent 19 months in Iraq and I love Assyrians, but they overrepresent themselves throughout this writeup. I changed the first bullet and the first sentence to represent accurate numbers. The CIA factbook says "Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%" -Mike Hardiman, former USG advisor to Iraqi government hardiman_cpi@yahoo.com

Islamic Republic of Sumer

The south if it's to cecede is looking for alliance with Iran. I have heard that the name mentioned in the subject is one of the possible names for the ceceding Shi`a south.King Legit

Iraq layout history

Iraq is different. The layout of the country may have been imposed on its people by the League of Nations, under British prompting, only 86 years ago, yet it has not failed, as Yugoslavia (which was formed at roughly the same time) failed. [7]

Too large sections

Some sections in the article are extremely too large and should be shortened and moved to the relevant articles which directly discuss the matter. Plesae notice that in this article we should not write any thing on Iraq in details but a fine introduction on various sides of the country such as its economy, history, politics etc. Thanks Diyako Talk + 18:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The user Diyako who has commented above has a agenda based on Israeli view points to reshape the Middle East in my opinion. Read his comments and contributions. He has been working on seperatist policies involving Kurdistan and vandalising Iranian related articles with false information and misinformative facts. 69.196.139.250 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That may be true (or maybe not). However, I think he makes a good point. Where a main article exists this article shuld only briefly summarise the issue, leaving the details to the main article. The current Politics of Iraq section is too long. AndrewRT 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Let him what thinks about me, think; but it's not true! I'm an ordinary man. Diyako Talk + 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Why was the result of the election deleted? Now there is some part about minorities but nothing about the actual government and the concerns about a civil war, and the ongoing occupation are separated from this under modern history. I am not quite convinced by the current version. De mortuis... 11:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not against whatever you write in the aricle I just opposed the too long sections not the containt of the article. Feel free change the politics section as you wish. Also the minority section is indeed unnecessary here. I think it should be merged with another page. Diyako Talk + 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Persistent errors

I've just caught two errors that have lasted for months. One was on 18:38, 20 January 2006 by User:61.246.200.13--a very obvious change of "desert" to "monsoon". That should have been caught immediately. The other was 13:14, 14 December 2005 by User:195.92.40.49 and it was either an honest mistake or very sneaky vandalism. We should be more vigilant. --Mr. Billion 05:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, several months ago User:Steven Kippel (signature "glocks out") noted that the "2,500" for the number of Jews in Iraq is probably false--it's closer to 100--but the change hasn't made its way into the article. --Mr. Billion 06:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Appalling Standard

Is there any reason why this entry has deteriorated so badly? The standard of writing and information here is terrible compared with earlier versions. The History, Modern history and politics sections are an embarrassment. I mean, we have Iraq being granted independence in 1932 cut straight into "Saddam's dictatorial and bloody rule lasted throughout the Iraq-Iran War"... What’s frustrating is that previous versions carried important information that editors have somehow deemed to remove, especially the essential early 60's material.

Is anyone willing to collaborate to revamp this page and bring it in line? --Zleitzen 04:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to collaborate on this. To start with can I archive the talk page? I've been working on the Government of Iraq, 2006-2010 and Politics of Iraq pages and have tried a bit of rationalisation here. What do you think the priorities should be? AndrewRT 12:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
By all means archive this talk page, in order to start afresh.

The aim should be to lift the article to approximately the size and standard of the Australia page. I think we need to;

  • Re-examine / restructure the categories
  • Rewrite the material from scratch, (encompassing material from much earlier edits if need be). Essential in the History, Modern History and Politics sections, to bring them in line with the pages they gateway. The priorities should be to outline clear, brief, NPOV and informative thumbnails. For example, the history (even the modern history) of Iraq should not be dominated by the 2003 invasion.

Will take a look at the categories seeing what can be improved and reply with a day or so. --Zleitzen 13:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkmen and Turkish

The section about minorities mentions oppression of Turkmens as well as speakers of the Turkish language, creating the impression that Turkmens speak the Turkish language. Someone who knows more about the subject might want to read through this section carefully, and try to figure out if the author confused Turkish with the Turkmen language, or if the wording is just a bit confused.

Robert 19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fr. the CPA

Could you put Fr. the CPA in the independence box as:

Fr. the CPA June 28, 2004 correctly,please?

                      Thanks.

Modern History

Have removed or reverted certain pieces from the Modern History section. These US-centric additions were debatable points and / or misleading in themselves and thus too detailed to appear in what should be very brief clear summary about Iraq.

  • "Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim's ... was overthrown by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif in a coup supported by the United States" contentious
  • "the U.S. provided conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction to Saddam" exludes the large scale deals between Iraq and the UK, West Germany, USSR, France etc. This is an article about Iraq not the US.
  • "Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 pursuant to what Iraq believed was a "green light" from the U.S. resulting in the Gulf War" contentious
  • United Nations economic sanctions at the initiative of the U.S. designed to pressure the Iraqi people to overthrow their government. please see UN terms of sanctions.--Zleitzen 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside to the above edits, it should be noted by future editors that Iraq's history should not be viewed through the prism of it's relationship with the US. Iraq has a detailed history of autonomous policy making, and many other nation states have distinct foreign policies in respect to Iraq. Imagine reading "the ensuing warming of South African-Iraq relations in the early 1980s, when South Africa provided conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction to Saddam" though this would be factually correct it would seem ridiculous to mention here.--Zleitzen 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Zleitlin, (1) Not sure what you mean by "contentious" here. US support for the 1963 coup is well documented. I added cites to several sources a few weeks ago, and the whole thing was deleted (check the history page). Now when I added the US support for the coup fact again without the cite, am I supposed to find the sources again only to presumably have it removed again? (2) US history is quite relevant to post-WWII Iraqi history, since the US has intervened to overthrow the government of Iraq twice in the 1960s, has provided Iraq with WMD that it later derided, twice led invasions of the country, and is now buidling "enuring" military bases. Since the US has pulled so many of the strings, US actions are central to Iraq's modern history. It is impossible to undestand Iraqi modern history without understanding US aims in the region.

I understand your concerns, and I don't cast particular doubt on your interpretation of the US role in Iraq (with the possible exception of the 1963 coup where I believe the US role is over estimated here) but the problem is your statement "It is impossible to understand Iraqi modern history without understanding US aims in the region". It is also impossible to understand Iraq modern history without understanding the aims of certain European states, Arab States, the Soviet Union, China, OPEC countries etc [8]. The US did not hold a monopoly on the exploitation of Iraq. For example; Britain, West Germany and France each had a far closer relationship with Saddam Hussein during the relevant period. Britain was still selling arms to Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait!
This gateway article is simply not the page to reference all these complex connections, thus to highlight the US is too parochial, too simplistic. And I write as a European! --Zleitzen 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


All the Terrorism in Iraq is by the Anglo-American forces

All the beheadings, murder of foreign reporters (who would want reporters to die, except those hiding or trying to hide the truth!), mosque bombings, and terrorist activities in Iraq are committed or sanctioned by Anglo-American occupation forces or Israel. Israel is very much so involved in North Iraq that is why there is new claims that Kurds and Jews are one and the same race by Israelis. This has resulte din an alliance between a very small minority of Iraqi Kurd leaders who want to control this are for their own personal ends and Israelis. Connect the dots with what is happening from Iraq to Iran. Instability in Iraq gives the occupation forces reasons to stay.

Here is proof:

British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?: Media Blackout Shadows Why Black Op Soldiers Were Arrested: USA, Information Liberation [[9]]


Britain "apologizes" for terrorist act in Basra; Rescue of SAS men who were planning to place bombs in Basra City Square: Global Research.ca, Center for Research on Globalization [[10]]


The next link is photographic evidence taken by Iraqi Police, before British Military attacked police station and freed the British terrorist operatives. [[11]]

Caught red-handed: The Raw Story, North America [[12]]

Troops free SAS men from jail: The Telegraph, United Kingdom [[13]]

Iran accuses UK of bombing link: BBC, United Kingdom [[14]]

Basra council severs relations with British: Daily Star, Lebanon [[15]]

Basra Council Cutting Ties with British: China Radio International (CRI), China [[16]]

AND FINALLY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CLAIM IRAQ WAS LIBERATED LOOK AND SEE HOW THE FAMOUS STATUE SCENE WHERE SADDAM'S STAUTE WAS PULLED DOWN WAS A HOEX THAT THE MEDIA WAS A PART OF. CNN LYED. TIME MAGAZINE FABRICATED INFORMATION. LOOK AT THES PICTURES AND SEE THE SO CALLED MASSES THAT CNN REPORTED. See how the so-called happy were really not Iraqi civilians.

[[17]]

The World Council of Churches includes various Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Church, and various Protestant Churches. It is the world's biggest CHurch and Chrisitian body and gathering. The Roman Catholic Church is not a member and has condemned the war separately on many occasions along with other churches and religious leaders. Thye have condemd the war in Iraq as amoral and terorist and the American delegation has apologized to the world for American foreign policy and reigning terror down on Iraq.

Here are some random headlines on the issue of the sizeable and vastly-built coalition of Churches that appose George W. Bush, American foreign policy, and the illegal Anglo-American occupation of Iraq.

U.S. church alliance denounces Iraq War: Seattle Post Intelligencer [[18]]

U.S. church alliance: Washington is ‘raining down terror’ with Iraq war, other policies: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada’s National News Agency [[19]]

US Church Alliance Denounces Iraq War Star Tribune, Wyoming News, WY [[20]]

U.S. Church Alliance Denounces Iraq War: Uruknet.info, Italy [[21]]

US churches denounce Iraq War: Scotsman, United Kingdom [[22]]

U.S. Church Alliance Denounces Iraq War: San Francisco Independent Media Center [[23]]

US Christian leaders Apologize to Assembly plenary on violence, poverty and ecology: World Council of Churches, News Section [[24]]

69.196.139.250 03:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This in my eyes is link spam (16 links), and racist, so I deleted it. As I was reverted I leave it to others to decide. De mortuis... 15:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The above is actually very informative. Wow; it is really good to read over what is said in these statments they make you understand the occupational story of Iraq by the US and UK. 72.57.230.179 08:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If people really want to post this kind of this I say let them go ahead. Personally I don't think it's link spam (all the links are related to Iraq), or racist, but I do think it's pointless. Talk pages are for discussing the content of articles and nothing there links into this article. The effort of the above poster would be better spent linking this information into the articles themselves rather then having a rant on the talk page. AndrewRT 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)