Talk:Iraq War/Archive 16

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

Turkey v PKK

I just wanted to clarify that the Turkey v PKK is certainly part of the overall Iraq war. In the archive of the talk pages, there was a discussion about whether to include this aspect of the Iraq war and I believe most editors agreed with that approach. So far, I've tried to limit the actual coverage of this conflict here by mainly linking to the main articles on this topic. However, I do think it is a very important aspect of the Iraq war for the following reasons:

  1. The relative autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan is a direct result of the end of the Hussein regime.
  2. Because of this increased autonomy the PKK has increased their operations in southern Turkey/northern Iraq.
  3. Much of the Iraqi Kurdistan population sympathizes with either the PKK or the PEJAK. The Kurdish peshmerga could very easily get drawn into this conflict, especially if substantial numbers of civilians are hurt. (there has already been several non-violent confrontations between Turkish forces and the peshmerga)
  4. The issue of a potential independent Kurdistan is an important one for the region.
  5. This is probably the most significant ongoing operation right now in the region and could lead to significant repercussions.
  6. Turkey is a NATO member who is conducting an operation involving thousands of troops in a country ostensibly protected/run/defended/whatever by several other NATO members; US, UK, Poland, etc.

Thoughts? Publicus 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

the cas. are OK now. I agree with your points, with an addition of sources it would be good. We could move the discussion here: Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008). --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


I would definitely include the helicopter so we can be consistent. Might want to specify that it's a Turkish Cobra though to avoid confusion. Have you found out what the Turkish General Staff is calling this operation? I'd like to change the Iraq war campaignbox from a generic "Northern Iraq" label to something a little more specific. Publicus 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
nothing on the name. Howewher I think "Northern Iraq" is a good name - like Diyala province campaign. Added a {{cn}} to avoid WP:OR in the part of part of the infobox in Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

undiscussed changes to intro

User:2nd Piston Honda wants to change the intro to say the rationale "centered around" the possibility of Iraq selling nukes to terrorists. Among other things, that does not agree with the most urgent rationalle offered to Congress before the vote on the war, namely that Iraq had UAVs on a boat loaded with biological weapons prepared to attack the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. as described in the article. Moreover, there is no source for "centered around" and this discussion about which rationalle was the "main" one has been had before. If these changes are to be made, there needs to be consensus for them here first. SBPrakash (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Prakash. The rationale (possibility of Iraq selling nukes to terrorists) is absolutely untenable. In fact some website actually counted the number of lies by Bush & his team to "justify" the invasion.
I could throw in enough counter-rationales taken from Al-Jazeera, but that would not be tenable either.
--SDas (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation #53

Citation #53 claims to be an article from the Guardian Unlimited on how Paul Wolfowitz said the Iraq war was about oil. In fact, the link is to a mirror of a page from the GU website which states Mr. Wolfowitz said the above. On searching the Guardian website, it has become apparent that the article was incorrectly posted on the website and was removed with a full retraction (here). I don't really know what to do about this, but thought if I put it on here, someone who's in the know might be able to sort it out. --Bob. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.255.98 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We could use the retraction notice for its assertion that, "according to the department of defence website, 'The...difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.'" That still supports the statement that the reasons included the oil supply, which has three other refs in support. SBPrakash (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as the difference is subtle: Whether the invasion had to do with concerns about obtaining the supply of oil or because the supply of oil prevented effective economic sanctions, the oil supply is still one of the reasons, and that is all the article says about it. SBPrakash (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

man got to love the lock you guys place

" an Sheethead Army soldier readies his rifle during an assault" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.35.146 (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That happened because the lock (semiprotection) was removed. SBPrakash (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reprotected. Superm401 - Talk 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Saddam: KIA or captured?

I'm probably asking something that's been asked already, but is it really right to put the {{KIA}} on Saddam in the infobox? I mean, he was captured, and then some time later he was hanged, but the hanging doesn't seem to be really directly related to combat. (My guess is that there's some NPOV issue over whether it confers legitimization on the legal process, but I'm just baffled by the current situation.) Kelvinc (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can argue about whether the trial was a kangaroo trial, whether he was a martyr, etc., but he was certainly not killed in action; he was killed long after being captured. I've removed the tag. Superm401 - Talk 01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
On further thought, I added {{POW}} and then the skull-and-crossbones to link to Execution of Saddam Hussein. Seems reasonable since he was captured, but was executed before the war concluded, so his situation would not be completely captured through {{POW}} alone. Kelvinc (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Disturbingly POV article

Yes, the Iraq War was a huge mistake. Yes, it's been handled poorly. And yes, it has made the situation in the country worse (at least for now). However, to me the overall tone of this article is extremely negative and POV. The section that talks about the effectiveness of The Surge and Iraq casualties is written, in my eyes, in a way that gives a negative opinion of The Surge and almost entirely ignores the major security improvements that have resulted from The Surge. Also, perhaps the single most important positive thing to occur in the war, the Awakening movements, has little substantial coverage and seems to downplay the impact it has had on reducing violence in the country, which, by the way, is another aspect that seems to have been almost ignored. Also, there have been rumors lately that the insurgency has had trouble finding new recruits for suicide bombings, and that's why they've resorted to women and mentally retarded people more and more often. Of course this is unconfirmed, but it's been rumored and speculated on, and I don't believe it would be difficult to find sources on this. There is also fairly little on the suicide bombings against civilians (kind of like how there's almost no outrage against their actions in the media, either). Most of the latest violence and casualty estimate reports seem to be from sometime in 2006...is this really the latest information on these things? Surely there have been reports on how much the violence has been reduced since The Surge started? The reports on the well-being of the Iraqi people and the infrastructure of the country are outdated; I don't know how much, if at all, it's improved since the numbers mentioned here, but I'd love to see how it's changed in the last few months. Again, is this really the latest information that can be found on these things? Finally, the neighborhood security in Baghdad and the recent return of many refugees has been almost completely ignored. On another aspect, however, there's also very little on the political aspect of the war and the ineptness of the Iraqi government (so it isn't all completely anti-war slanted).

In conclusion, I came here hoping to find an accurate and well-written overview of the war, and instead found a disturbingly slanted article in which most of the (very few) positive events, aspects, and progress in the war is almost completely ignored. bob rulz (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see two graphs showing the decline in violence. As for casuality numbers, look at the article history; people update those almost every day. CKCortez (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have pointed out in the past that I have deep problems with this article, however I have been shot down as well (and apparently, I am not the first one). Your criticisms are important to us; do you think you could provide some concrete examples of where the text should be amended? (at the moment, you have simply given a lot of generalities, which is hard to work with). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean it's POV. NPOV stands for Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. You have a lot of suggestions above, but seem unwilling to back them with actual sources. Adding reliable sources that substantiate other viewpoints is the best way to improve the article. Superm401 - Talk 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Woops, yeah, I knew it was POV. I fixed that. I'll go through and take a more thorough look through the article for more specific examples of what needs to be changed, imo, but mainly I'm more concerned with what's not here than what is here, and most of what I'm concerned with is explained. But I will take more of a look at it, see what more I can make clear. bob rulz (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The more editors the merrier, I always say. bob rulz, I think you make some valid points. One of the things the article definitely needs is some filling in and some updating. A lot of editing is done on the margins (casualty counts and various editing over the rationale of the war, etc) but we certainly need a lot more editing done in the later sections and updating in the most recent years, 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately, if you feel the article has an anti-war bias then it looks like some of my personal biases might be creeping in, (since I've been editing this article quite a bit) which is why it's extremely important that other editors step in. Your specific criticism about the "surge" is a difficult" one though, since the effects of the "surge" can easily be seen as both successful and unsuccessful (more troops = less violence in one area but more violence elsewhere, i.e. Mosul)--it really depends on your definition of "success." However, if there are any assessments of the surge, either way, they should be added to help make the article more complete. Publicus 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The best you can hope for on a subject as controversial as this is that about the same number of people think it's biased one way as the other, which, reviewing the Archives, seems to be the case. 32.155.159.111 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that we need complaints about specific problems for the POV tag to stay. CKCortez (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Restore Nutrality and Clean The Talk

I am going to try to clean this article up. We also need to start archiving this talk page, please follow the guidelines to neutrality which can be found in the knowledge base. If there are any suggestions, please suggest away! :) Anarchy 228 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will put a automatic archival script IF enough people agree to doing this. I will be using the MisaBot Archiving Script.
A bot archiving after 30 days would be a great idea. CKCortez (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I will add a notice that MisaBot is archiving the page. Ursasapien (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

References in Popular Culture

I added a section to list popular culture references to the war. I'm going to expand it over the next couple of days, anybody who wants to help is more than welcome to. BigNSmart (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if you do add a list of popular references, try to ,at the least, pick ones that are most relevant to this subject and keep it short.Nukedoom (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan and Israel's influence on the war

Harvard's Hoffman himself describes {it} thus:

"And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith." http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html and actually the war has turned out quite bad for Israel..Iraq has become AL queda's recruiting gound. The Israeli Paper Haaretz reported that a majority of Israelis believed the USA was dangerous for peace in the mideast.

Feith and Perle are trying to outdo each other in their exculpatory books on their participation in the war.

It should be noted that in the 1990's Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld were on the payroll of the Likud party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. With all due respect, your proposal sounds more like one man's opinion, and appears to have problems conforming to WP:NPOV. I do not see why this addition should go forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think this should be included provided a few more sources could be found, how Iraq affects the stability and security of neighboring countries such as Israel should be included in this article as it is most definitely relevant Thisglad (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam Reference

I don't really like the vietnam reference in the introduction that was added recently. It says the war is often called the "new vietnam war" even though the sources are two editorials. I've never really heard of this comparison in the media before. Those wars are completely different, strategically as well as environmentally. Another concern is that the Vietnam War had a much larger amount of war crimes. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and am glad that was removed. The only fair comparison that can be made between the two wars is the cost.
I also removed the {{totally disputed}} tag since my request 5 days ago for specific problems has gone unanswered. CKCortez (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to agree as well that calling this war the "new vietnam" seems a very politically charged designation. As in you'll see an anti-war person call it that. Beamathan (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Both George Bush and Davis Petraeus have compared the Iraq War with the Vietnam war. E.g. Petraeus last year asserted that the insurgents were 'Doing a Tet'. Colin4C (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. But I hope you see the difference between calling this war a "New Vietnam War" is much different than referring to a specific act of insurgents in the Iraq War to a specific act by the NVA or VC in the Vietnam War. Beamathan (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The Vietnam war lasted 16 years, so it is probably too early to say. I agree that David Petraeus is a more intelligent commander than Westmoreland in 'Nam and seems to have learnt something from that previous conflict. However I have a feeling that just as the 'Nam conflict spread to include Cambodia and Laos, so the Iraq conflict might spread to Syria and Iran etc and then spiral completely out of control in a sea of blood. We shall see...Colin4C (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

When did the war start?

The lead says it started 20 March 2003 but later in the article it says "At 9:34 PM EST (5:34 AM Baghdad time) on March 19, 2003 the Iraq Invasion began." with a citation of the GlobalSecurity website (the actual webpage is here). Then, later in the same section, it goes back to "In the invasion phase of the war (March 20-April 30)". Which one goes and which one stays? Is there a reason to doubt the GlobalSecurity site? I'm hearing a lot about today being the anniversary of the invasion and then I check here and it says the 20th, what should we do? Padillah (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the 19th in EST, but the 20th in Baghdad time. CKCortez (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I would list the Baghdad time БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Go with GMT time.Nukedoom (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought Wikipedia was UTC-based. But we need to make sure we point out that the times are UTC times and all the times need to be corrected accordingly. Oh, and thanks. Padillah (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"19,000 insurgents killed" stated in infobox is COMPLETELY WRONG, it's a multisided war

The source clearly says those were killed "in fighting with coalition forces".

Many thousands more were killed in the Shai-Sunni fighting (and often reported as civilians, unless everyone killed by the desth squad is really civilin which I don't think is a case), Shia and Sunni infighting, or were killed by Iraqi security forces.

Well, at least hundreds even commited suicide (by exploding themselves). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to miss what it is saying. 19,000 insurgents being killed by the Coalition doesn't affect the numbers of casualties caused by Shiite/Sunni fighting, or Iraqi Security forces. If you can find unbiased, and agreed upon sources for those numbers than you can add those to the info box (as far as I'm concerned) and be sure to properly cite them. Sound good? Beamathan (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Start time

Why in heaven is the start of the war given in a time zone on the other side of the world? --87.189.76.191 (talk)

I believe that it is the accepted method to list a start time of a war in the local time. Local time as in the local time of the actual location of the war. I think, along with it being generally accepted, it makes sense if you think about it. Beamathan (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Poland in infobox?

I was wondering if Poland should be listed in the infobox. It's listed in the first paragraph of the article, and it had a multinational zone under its command, which Australia, which is in the infobox, did not. --Jedravent (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded, I went ahead and did it myself. -Jedravent

Well, even though this is after the fact, I agree with the edit. Beamathan (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Basra is underrepresented in the 2008 section

There's only one sentence about the recent conflagration in Basrah. This blogger has a fairly decent summary of some of the more interesting recent events. Listing Port (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apropos this just to say that a remarkably well timed book "Muqtada Al-Sadr and the Fall of Iraq" by Patrick Cockburn is being published in a couple of weeks from now. Colin4C (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Shit just hit the fan.

PKK in infobox??

I think it is very misleading to include anything about the PKK in the infobox for this article. PKK terrorists fighting for the creation of an independent Kurdistan has nothing to do with the Iraq War other than geographical proximity and the politics involved with Turkey entering Iraq after its destabilisation. Its position in the infobox implies that the PKK is fighting on the side of the Baath party and the insurgency against the Americans, which is totally false. I can understand a desire to mention the PKK in the article, but they are part of a very seperate conflict and placing them on such a simplified diagram is bound to mislead readers without prior knowledge. DJLayton4 (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I recall part of the justification for the American invasion in 2003 was how cruel Saddam had been to the Kurds. This conflict has a whole range of combatants differentiated by ethnicity and religion and politics and class, involved in shifting alliances with each other with both domestic and international ramifications. I agree with you that it isn't simple but I disagree that the conflicts are separate (just to add that the weird idea that the conflict represents Good versus Evil is only held by a few fundamentalist nutters in Washington and a Cave on the Pakistan/Afghanistan Border). Colin4C (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
PKK and Turkey should be included in the infobox. There are active military operations ongoing in Northern Iraq/Iraqi Kurdistan. As time has showed, the Iraq war is more than just coalition forces fighting Saddam's forces--it has evolved into Shia fighting Shia or Sunni fighting Shia or Shia fighting Sunni, etc. The PKK v Turkey conflict is also quite a significant due to the complicated alliances, since Turkey is a member of NATO and presumably an ally of the coalition members, US, UK--AND the Iraqi Kurds are also close allies of the coalition (no US troops have been killed in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2003). Publicus 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Operations != War ??

Should Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation TELIC have their own articles? For example, Operation Iraqi Freedom is an administrative term describing the U.S. contribution to the war, not the war as a whole, and its article would focus on U.S. troop deployments, funding, etc. Note that there are separate articles for Operation Enduring Freedom and the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). David (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Death toll reaches 4000

CBS's up-to-the-minute reports just announced that with a recent car bombing in Iraq, with the death of four, the number of US soldiers dead in Iraq just reached 4000. Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added this info to the article. Colin4C (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Did they have a daily "death toll" in WW2? 8thstar 22:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CIVILIAN DEATH TOLL

I wanted to recomend that we remove the Johns Hopkins (Lancet) casualty survey and replace it with the widely respected tally by Iraq Body Count of 82,349 to 89,867 Iraqi civilians killed. I have two reasons for this, the first one is that the current casualty estimate by them is out of date, almost two years old. And if the count was correct, which is not 100 percent certain, it was most probably already updated with the Opinion Research Business survey from August 2007. The second is that the Lancet survey included all deaths, including accidents and health which have nothing to do with the war. But mostly I want to remove it, again, because it is out of date. Does anyone have any objections to this.(Top Gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to removing the study by The Lancet and you brought this up before and didn't get any support, who says IBC is more respected than the Lancet? The Lancet is a scientific journal founded in 1823, IBC is a website that tracks media reports and doesn't have access to any other data nor do they perform any research of their own, if you think the media reported every single excess death in Iraq you are mistaken and IBC admits they are a undercount. If anything IBC is far less credible than The Lancet, the reasoning for determining excess deaths from war is the same reasoning used for calculating the civilian cost of every other major war. Thisglad (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not a fan of a body count, period. I do not think it is useful information in analyzing any conflict. Nevertheless, regarding the issue at hand, it does not matter which source is used as long as it is qualified. If we use IBC, there should be an asterisk linked to the proper section in the article that describes how the data was collected. The same should be done if we continue to use the Lancet information. Perhaps both figures should be included to maintain balance and neutrality. By all means, we should not portray either estimate as 100% accurate. Ursasapien (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As the article says, the IBC admits that they are a substantial undercount. The Lancet survey did not count "all deaths," just "excess deaths" after the invasion. And the subsequent ORB survey is even larger. 12.7.175.2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect the IBC research, but I would rather support including something like between 100,000 an 1 million dead. The IBC number is a minimum--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The introduction already says that "estimates range from 150,000[citing the Iraqi Health Ministry] and 1 million[citing ORB]." I think that's more reasonable than "between" which is not what the sources say, it would be a synthesis. 12.7.175.2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq war is wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.145.50 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

64.8.145.50: Well, even though I agree with you, this is no soapbox. Start a website devoted to your meritorious statement, okay? 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including multiple estimates. The IBC number is strictly based on media reports, and Lancet is more of a casualty survey--which probably means the true number of civilian casualties is somewhere in the middle. Until more accurate numbers from official verifiable sources can be listed, there's no reason not to list Lancet and IBC. Publicus 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The IBC's method of counting is silly. You can't give a good estimation of the casualities from this kind of conflict based on media reports (the IBC project have acknowledged this themselves, saying that "maybe a majority of the deaths will go unnoticed", or something similar). So I believe there is a reason not to list the IBC numbers, because it would unjustly undermine the three serious surveys (ORB, Lancet, WHO). Check out other war articles with large numbers of casualities - the numbers are approximations, not "based on english language media reports." --82.183.224.40 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that is why IBC appears in the section on estimates but not the infobox. Listing Port (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, note that the WHO survey is just as old as the Lancet's study. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Graph

Is it time to update this graph? It stops last September, but the graph's upward trendline for casualties is no longer valid when the lull since September is accounted for. Art LaPella (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what an up-to-date graph looks like. Art LaPella (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are some nice graphs! But they don't show the recent uptick, and they do show a lot of stuff that the graph you are proposing to replace doesn't. Here is a similar graph with the uptick. Listing Port (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find the uptick. Did you mean the uptick in the total number of troops, or did you mean the uptick from December to January? Actually, my second graph, which shows US deaths, does show the uptick from December to January, although it looks more like a little bounce in a larger move downhill. More importantly, don't you agree that the existing graph's red line sloping upwards, which says that casualties are increasing, is now false? Do we really want that false assertion in a Wikipedia article? Art LaPella (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant the uptick in the past 30 days, but I see yours does indeed show an uptick to "3/2008". Looking at that graph, I can not say for sure because I haven't asked a regression program, but I would venture to guess that the trend line for the entire war is still sloped upward. The vast confidence interval is so large, though, that the trend line serves little purpose. Do you intend to trace a new graph? Tracing public data points from a graph is not against copyright law. Listing Port (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the main point that the trend line serves little purpose. I have no experience with uploading Wikipedia images at all, so I was just commenting, not contributing a graph. Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War Religious Aspects

I am not finding any discussion of religious aspects of Iraq War in the article. Certainly there are enough religious aspects as a casual search on google and youtube would reveal. Shouldn't there be some appropriate text in the article discussing this? Desione (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

References for Iraq war as a "religious war":

Why don't you post something here on the talkpage first. Then we can see what you were thinking about. Ursasapien (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of discredited studies to give body count

The information that the CIA and other intelegence agencies had were that the wmd programs were still possiably on going and that saddam was also very restrictive on what the UN inspectors could do and couldnt do. So when many people disagree why we went into iraq i find it very hard to belive that they think it is a bad idea. Saddam hussien was the first dictator in moderen times to use chemical weapons aginst his own people and was using acts of genocide in the early 90's and also in the iran iraq war. should we just have let hitler go free and unpunished for using genocide no its the same concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.85.66 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


OK, I know this issue brings up a lot of hot and partisan feelings, and as such it's difficult to be objective. However, at this point, this page is atrociously biased in favor of some discredited studies, mainly the Lancet study (yes, it is discredited: see this "data bomb" by the non-partisan albeit hard hitting National Journal: [1]). And, even if it weren't, how do we get off claiming that the Iraq Body Count project "has been criticized for counting only a small percentage" whereas other studies claiming ridiculous numbers like 1,000,000 deaths receive no such disclaimer? I'm not even sure that the Lancet study ought to be mentioned at all, let alone consistently held up in the article as the most reliable one (e.g., the infobox, which only lists this study for total deaths). As it stands (and I'm ready to get attacked for saying so), this article stands as one of the most egregious examples of biased reporting on a political issue that I have seen to date. I will not even get into the POV language elsewhere. The fact that [2] is being quoted as a reliable source only illustrates my point. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that The Lancet is a scientific journal with a lot of credibility, so it would be biased not to include it in the article as a source for the estimated causalities, IBC acknowledges they are an undercount Shifthours (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This subject keeps popping up frequently in various Iraq war pages. Who says that the Lancet study is discredited? Lancet is a highly respected journal. The scientific community at large accepts the validity of this study. There have been no arguments about the statistical validity of the study (except the allegation of "main street bias", which was countered). The Lancent study is supported by the independent ORB surveys - held twice - that estimate deaths to be over 1 million. SDas (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
you forget the True Conservative's Three Articles of Faith: "Global Warming is a hoax, Guns Prevent Crime, and the 'Lancet Study' has been debunked". Gzuckier (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the criticism for the Lancet study has been political in nature and not from acedemic peers. Where the criticism has come from acedemic peers those peers have been ideologically opposed to the study and thus have a vested interest in discrediting it. However, the Iraq Body Count study has a clear systematic error because it fails to count many causalties.58.165.235.188 (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess that means the normally reserved BBC, which called it highly controversial (not a term it has used for other studies) would thus qualify as part of the "True Conservative" movement. However, I believe some of you are proving my point correct in simply acting as partisans rather than debating the content. Again, I will bring this up, and let's see if someone can respond to the content and avoid doing I as I asked earlier not be done: bringing political allegiances into this: why is it that we are ignoring the numbers being used by the mainstream media in favor of a report not used by the mainstream media? How can this be called NPOV? I'm not seeing how a study funded by a known anti-war activist and done in a highly questionable systematic way is being preferred over studies done by non-involved entities.
In response to the content responses I received: to the IP: the Iraq Body count is not the only study on a much lower level (e.g., the Washington Post's numbers). To SDas: there have been plenty of arguments as to the statistical validity (I can rehash them if you'd like: it relied on self-reporting for a small number of households in a higher casualty area, it used a former member member of the Ba'ath party to do all the questioning without any supervision, and it was funded and run by several anti-war activists - something which should give anyway pause). To Shifthours: why is it that this study in a reputable journal is being heeded, but even less controversial studies in equally reputable sources are not even being mentioned? Like it or not, we must abide by neutral point of view here, and unfortunatley neutral is not always our point of view. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
But your original assertion is incorrect, the Lancet study is not discredited and none of the other studies even come close to their scientific data gathering methods used in the Lancet study it's funny that I didn't read about baath party members fudging statistics on the wikipedia page for that study maybe because your source for this information is not even a reliable source, as far as I know baath party members were thoroughly purged from the government after 2003, only later were a few even allowed any positions (with objections from the ruling government in Iraq), if Soros donated funds to The Lancet, that means the study must be biased? The scientists and researchers were bribed? None of these claims can be verified. Thisglad (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Evil Spartan, "self-reporting .... without any supervision" - Care to show me some quantitative studies? --SDas (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't just say, "it's discredited", and that's that. It's a valid POV, and it should be presented, along with other significant viewpoints. Superm401 - Talk 05:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
@Superm401: Along with other viewpoints - at least, thank you. And yet, the other viewpoints are not even mentioned in the infobox - the primary and only viewpoints in the infobox are the ones given by Lancet, despite the fact that the mainstream media and governmental organizations around the world are using much much lower figures. @SDas, I will again provide the source given before (at least I think I gave it): National Journal, a non-partisan magazine dedicated to analyzing political trends. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems perfectly reasonable to cite the National Journal article and a sentence stating that the Lancet study has its critics. The article (by Neil Munro, who is hardly "nonpartisan") just came out a couple months ago, and it has been criticized heavily (see here for a sentence-by-sentence refutation). It is fine to state that right wing commentators have criticized the study, but the overwhelming consensus of experts and of the media has been that the study's methodology was valid and that its conclusions are compelling. We should not remove it from the infobox or make major changes in how it is cited just because one hack managed to publish an article in the National Journal a couple months ago. csloat (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say I am not to keen on including the Lancet survey in the infobox, simply due to the many many objections by governments of multiple countries, but if it is to stay, what do you guys think about identifying the numbers as they are...estimates. I think this is the least that can be done. What sayeth thee? Arkon (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Elephant

The big elephant being ignored in this room is that the ORB survey of Iraq War casualties, the largest house-to-house survey to date run by a professional scientific survey firm for the BBC, suggests even more deaths than the Lancet results. CKCortez (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No formal 'Declaration of War'

We didn't declare war. Congress passed a bill authorizing the President to use force against Iraq. I find it troubling that it's not mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightskye (talk • contribs) 04:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War#Authorization for the use of force. It might sound like a big deal if you're new to it, but Congress has essentially offered carte blanche to the President as far as military action goes for something like 2 weeks or 90 days, ever since the advent of the atomic ICBM. The Supreme Court says that's an okay reason. Listing Port (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what the recent history is in the US, but here in the UK the last armed conflict in which there was a formal declaration of war was WWII. We didn't even declare war with Argentina in the Falklands. Mayalld (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

However, despite the ceasefire order militiamen kept their weapons and blended back into the population leaving Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki politically defeated. Also the Iraqi security forces performed poorly against the militia during the fighting which raised questions again if the Iraqi military and police are still not ready to assume security operations in the country.

This is hardly fair. Its much too early to declare Mailiki politically defeated. The offensive against the Mahdi Army left inconclusive results-no one achieved total victory, and neither side capitulated. This paragraph suggests that Sadr and his militia dealt a complete and total defeat to the Iraqi and Coalition security forces, which isn't true. Wikipedia's own article on the anti-Mahdi Army offensive declares the fighting inconclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabravo11 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also not fair to say the ISF performed poorly. They did very well in Najaf, Karbala, Al Kut and the other cities in south center Iraq. The reason they did poorly in Basra is because Maliki forced the operation to start before the Iraqi army was fully in position and before they had the food, water and ammunition they needed for the fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbini (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

no mention of international law?

Kinda surprised not to find the terms "international law" or "war crime" in the article... google gives 217,000 results for the search: "iraq war" "interational law" and more for "war crime" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlevitt (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a quote from Kofi Annan under "Opposition to the invasion" and if you click through the see-alsos at the top of that section (supersection) maybe there is something there. Listing Port (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added

Further information: criticism of the Iraq War, legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and legality of the Iraq War

but those last two articles should probably be merged(?) Listing Port (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Liberation

It was also named this for a brief period, no? The story was that the White House was surprised once the acronym was discovered . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.40.237 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Source please. This seems like silly urban legend. Ursasapien (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is already referenced in 2003 invasion of Iraq. The source is a primary one (a White House Press Briefing), however, and it's not clear to me that it is a good source on which to draw the conclusion that article does. For all we know Ari Fleischer may have misspoke. Anyhow, the reference is there, maybe I'll toodle off to question the veracity of the reference on that page. Debate (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents

I have added "Blackwater Mercenaries" to the list of belligerents in this conflict. User Uga Man reverted the edit. I am under the impression that Coalition forces are supported by Blackwater Worldwide personnel, who engage deliberately in combat with the intent of projecting force into areas controlled by the military opponents of the Coalition or of frustrating the projection of force by said, making them a belligerent force in the ongoing conflict between the Coalition and opposition forces in Iraq. Unless someone can produce evidence to the contrary, I think I am justified in dereverting the page.

Certified: the above written by S. Martin at 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? It is up to the editor wishing to add information to provide references that verify said information. In other words, WP:PROVEIT. Show me a reliable source that calls Blackwater Worldwide personnel a military force in this conflict. Until then, discuss don't revert war. Ursasapien (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
we include turkey in the list and south korea and japan (non combat troops only) so why not blackwater, they clearly take a side in the conflict whether it be for monetary gain rather than diplomatic reasons like some countries, I think blackwater should included in the list with coalition countries, they qualify as a 'Belligerent' since their forces have participated in combat on numerous occasions, far more than Japan or South Korea for example Thisglad (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were reasonable to do this, since Blackwater and other contractors' presence is comprised of hundreds of detachments reporting to different U.S. government commands, it would not be practical to list their "commanders" as we do with all of the belligerents. Listing Port (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the commander of blackwater would be the CEO it seems, but that doesn't have to be listed in the commanders section, but even if it was, whats the problem with that? Iraqi Kurdistan and 'awakening councils' are also not countries, if blackwater can't be included then they shouldn't be either. Thisglad (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/washington/02blackwater.html " Blackwater has been involved in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005, according to a US Congress report" "he report cites two incidents in 2004 when Blackwater contractors joined in military actions, including a firefight in Najaf alongside US and Spanish forces, and another when a Blackwater helicopter team helped a US military unit take control of a mosque, firing at ground targets from the helicopter." they engaged in combat enough times to qualify as a belligerent Thisglad (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
These contractors are NOT an independent force. They are always under the command and control of the U.S. DOD. Ursasapien (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the reference particulars, I think I'm okay with this.

[3] According the congressional report Blackwater gunmen engaged in offensive operations alongside uniformed American military personnel in violation of their State Department contract. The report cites two instances in which Blackwater gunmen engaged in tactical military operations. One was a firefight in Najaf in 2004 during which Blackwater employees set up a machine gun alongside American and Spanish forces. Later that year, a Blackwater helicopter helped an American military squad secure a mosque from which sniper fire had been detected.

Is it a first in modern military history to use contractors in a forward offensive? CKCortez (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? The first time in history that mercenaries have been used in a military offensive? It is not even the first time in U.S. military history. Are you saying you are okay with including a summary of Blackwater's role in the text or are you speaking of including Blackwater as a seperate group of combatants in the "Beligerants" list? I think the former is appropriate and important but the latter is laughable. Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you can provide reliable sources for your claim of a corporation providing combat troops in a U.S war. You say the DoD controls Blackwater, that's untrue, the U.S Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard are directly controlled and run by the DoD, Blackwater Worldwide is a independent corporation and works only on a contract, they are not even all American citizens (it just happens to be based in the U.S), if they engage in combat operations they should be listed separately as a belligerent, they are not members of the U.S military or U.S federal government employees. Thisglad (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically all Coalition forces are under controlled by co-operating allied commanders, nonetheless, each country is listed separately. Since blackwater has sent more troops there than anyone on the list expect the U.S., why not include them as well? Certified: the above written by S. Martin at 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater should not be listed as a separate combatant. Technically, they are private security contractors employed by the US government--which means they would fall under the list of US forces, not as an independent combatant. Unfortunately, the current US military system has six branches; Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Contractors. Publicus 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

that is original research on your part, contractors are not subject to U.S military law unlike department of defense employees Thisglad (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Black water is a contractor, primarily providing security services to the State Department. Are we going to list the State Department as an independent combatant? MWShort (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any separate millitary (ie present for combat) group in this fight is a belligerant. Blackwater has a deservedly bad reputation, and as such, Iraq war supporters often view mention of the mercenaries as a prelude to an anti-war statement. Nevertheless, denying their belligerant role is hardly accurate. Oh, and incidentally, Thisglad and MWShort, forces serving another faction are already listed as separate combatants. Remember the "Awakening Councils?" --Aiyen kin Leary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiyen kin Leary (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater engaging

Setting aside the question of whether they should be in the infobox, why don't we have anything about the fact that they have been violating their State Department contract by engaging in tactical military operations? 76.225.156.160 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The source for that is in italics under "Belligerents" above. Dream Academy (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

We'll need a new section here on Rumsfeld von Goebbels and his propaganda machine.

Are there any editors who are active, someone who would be willing to participate in crating such section?

Any help would be appreciated, here is initial source (probably the best reference)>

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

However, the tarnishing facts entered the mainstream and initial report will probably be extended, so there is lot of ground to cover. Please, share your thoughts. Tachyonbursts (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be much more neutral in order to have an article like that on Wikipedia. Comparing Rummy to a nazi is not encyclopedic (and I personally can't stand the man). Czolgolz (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're not in the article main space and I have no intention at all to call Rummy Goebbels there (although we could easily draw some historical parabolas and we wouldn’t miss the point). Anyway, I'd say we can be a bit more relaxed here at the backstage, so please, just focus on the provided source, all I'm saying is that we should carry it and reference it here. Although propaganda at the time of war is not uncommon, NYT expose really showed the size of that thing, and these new revelations definitely deserve some space. That said, I'm all for NPOV, and I have no intention at all to let my personal view spill out of the talk-pages…
So, to clear things up a bit, I'd suggest we call this new section 'Run-up to Iraq' or 'Pentagon propaganda program', or something along those lines… That first sentence above was to serve as descriptor, nothing more. Please keep in mind that we're dealing with the developing, or rather current event.
Here is a pretty good summary for those who prefer quick scan on the issue>
Pentagon Propaganda: So Much Worse Than We Thought, any thoughts? Tachyonbursts (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think the link you posted is anywhere in the galaxy of neutral, all hope is lost. The NYT is not neutral, but alternet.org is left wing propaganda that should not be considered reliable. Your bias is clearly showing in your Reductio ad Hitlerum. Perhaps, Rumsfeld would be better compared to Henry L. Stimson who facilitated the necessary propaganda to sell WWII.
If you would like to have a paragraph that states that there was an organized campaign to ramp up support for the Iraq War, then write one on this page. Other editors can tweak it and we can build consensus before moving it to the main article. However, find good sources and avoid kooky conspiracy theories (and tone down the unecessarily inflamatory rhetoric). Ursasapien (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As stated before, this is developing issue which entered the mainstream, [4], [5]. It seems to me that it is maturing nicely; there will be no need for alternative or biased references. Please, consider carefully what's been written so far, and no, I don't think that particular reductio is applicable on the issue. There are some serious flaws here, but we'll get them in due time. One such flaw is lack of 9/11-Iraq link which is already recognized within Wikipedia. If no one is willing to participate in this effort I'll take upon your advice, as soon as time allows.
'Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.' Tachyonbursts (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sentence flow

From the article: The fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war on 20 March was marked by a speech by George Bush declaring that the surge strategy had been a success and that America was headed for victory. Other commentators were less optimistic.

The sentence "Other commentators were less optimistic." implies that George Bush is simply a commentator, which is misleading. He's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and by virtue of being in this role, his speech is more important than that of an ordinary commentator, regardless of the veracity of his assessment. I suggest that "Other commentators were less optimistic" be rewritten as something like "Commentators were less optimistic" or "Commentators have disagreed with Bush's claim of progress." Just get rid of the word "Other", basically. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bush is both actor and commentator and your suggested 'improvements' are even more awkward than the original IMHO. Colin4C (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't look now, but your blatant POV is showing. I am certain that we can improve this sentence in a neutral way. Ursasapien (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
When someone comments on something, they are a commentator even if they have other roles. 12.7.175.2 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't have a wikipedia account, please could someone add a preposition to

"...along Afghan-Pakistani border" eg "...along the Afghan-Pakistani border" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.169.163 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, at least in the one place I found it. Let me know if there are other places. Warren Dew (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The pics of Saddam

The just-captured and in-court photos of Saddam are too close together. Can't the latter be moved down to the trial info? 75.61.100.189 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the trial pix to Trial of Saddam Hussein-there's a wiki link in the article. Publicus 14:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bush - March 2002 - "Fuck Saddam, We're Taking Him Out " Should Be Added to Article

I believe George W. Bush's words in March 2002, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out.", stated when he poked his head into a meeting Rice was having with three U.S. Senators should be added to the article.

It speaks to dishonesty in the official story laid out by the White House that the President was seeking diplomatic options for dealing with Iraq right until the very end before the invasion. From this statement in March 2002 it is clear he was not going to accept anything less than Saddam's removal from power in Iraq under his Presidential term.

Opinions? 72.209.12.250 (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Bob Francis

Do you have a source for this information? It seems somewhat out of character for the President of the United States to "poke his head in" to a meeting and drop the F-bomb. Ursasapien (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Time Magazine. Here is the url for the story:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004567,00.html 72.209.12.250 (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Bob Francis
You certainly do have a source. I am still a little incredulous a the thought of Bush using this language, but that may be my own bias. I would encourage you to be bold and add it to the article (make sure you cite your reference). What is the worst that can happen? You get reverted and then (hopefully) they bring it back to the talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that this subject is so controversial you can almost always find sources on both sides of any issue, I think if this is added, it needs to be added in the form "Time magazine reported that ...", unless you can find official acknowledgement. You then have to decide whether it's noteworthy that one reporter thought that in a news analysis piece, which is more like an opinion piece than like a news article. The reporter was presumably not at the meeting, so he's likely relying on the very human memory of one of the Senators, who isn't sure enough to allow the reporter to quote him. We also don't know if it was an official policy statement or a joke - remember Reagan's "the bombers are on their way to Moscow" remark when he thought he was off mike.
Personally I'm not surprised at the language - everyone uses language in private that they wouldn't use in public - but I'd suggest not spelling out the first word, just as the source does not. If the point you are trying to make is that the administration had plans to invade Iraq all along, I'd suggest digging a little deeper, as there are more complete analyses to that effect, some of which are cited in the "Justification for the war in iraq" article. Come to think of it, that article would probably be a better place for this, anyway - it's got all sorts of things like this in it, so this would be one more piece of evidence in an article that's specifically about tht subject. Warren Dew (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Rationale for the Iraq War page is not currently protected, so it might be a good place for a new wikipedian to start. Warren Dew (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)